I think it's important that when you look at the names on boxers records, you also look at the stages of their career when they fought them, because it does make a difference.
Funny this thread should pop up. On the way to work today I was thinking of all the **** David Haye gets on here (mainly general forum). They say he is a joke and put in a **** performance against Wlad etc etc. At the same time most folk rank Wlad top 7ish pound for pound yet Haye is his best win. He is the bigger, stronger man and more established at the weight yet did nothing but keep the former cruiser weight at bay for 12
No it isn't. It's his biggest win, primarily because of David's notoriety prior to the fight. A few of his performances have been more impressive.
I would go with Judah. Khan stopped him in 5 and looked class. He was coming off the back of 5 wins including the Matthysse win (whether you thought he won or not it was close) and then Mabuza. Since the loss he went and performed well against Garcia.
It's the win he will be remembered for. Nobody talks about his performances against Byrd, Rahman etc. I rate Wlad he has been in with everyone, had over 60 fights and beaten almost everyone put in front of him.
I can see the reasoning why that could be seen as his best, there's not a lot in it imo, for me the discipline Khan showed in the Kotelnik fight just edges it for me, it's the type of performance he should be looking to reproduce more often, it might prolong his career a bit.
What the hell is a resume?, do you mean record? All the ones you listed have very good records....are you looking for others to add to that list?
You have been in the US for two minutes and you have already completely lost the ability to detect sarcasm or irony, well done for integrating so well. This is the British forum, why do people use that appalling word to describe a fighters record?
Mitchell was coming off the loss to Ottke, Brewer hadn't been a world champion for 4 years but Woodhall wasn't world levelatsch