Resume is more important than "skills" or "H2H ability". And it's not remotely close.

I like wilder and will watch all his fights but he really did set himself up for ridicule. His resume is filled with cans.

Eye ball test says he can punch, but even that does not necessary pass the test. When he steps up his comp we shall see if the knock out continue.
The one true test in stiverne took him to distance.

 

You can still be lessed skilled and win by having better trainers or just wanting to win more.Marciano is perfect example of this where he grinded better boxers down,he didnt have elite boxing technical skills...you fool.

you DONT need elite skills you need all the combinations i mentioned.Skills ALONE doesnt mean you will become champion or reign long, many olympic champions have failed to capture world titles ( you would know this if you actually had logic and threw away fanboy logic).

Theres other factors involved bc every boxer has skills and some more than others,some less. It comes down to everything combined.one cannot just reign with skills themselves otherwise fighters would just train themselves wouldnt they? fool

heres an ex. you newb...

Lennox lewis the much more talented fighter lost to McCall didnt he? He switched trainers ( actually Steward who was McCalls trainer) and improved as a fighter didnt he? It comes down to fighter/trainer fluidity almost always ...again you wouldnt know this bc YOU stated ATG skills is all you need right? And still dont realize ATG isnt a skill its a subjective LABEL.. lol

How did M.Tyson do when he left Rooney? Where did all his skills go when he became also unfocused?

ATG career isnt just about skills as it is wins ,bc its NOT a skill but more who you defeated and its a LABLE .You're to dumb to get that.

Its a career definition of one who accomplished great things in AND out of the ring. Lableling someone who had GREAT ALL TIME skills is subjective to THAT era, skills are a necessity otherwise how can one compete with other skilled fighters so i have no idea again what your babbling on about as usual......

 

Exactly. There are many great fighters with resumes that may not seem as great as others, but we know h2h they could have changed boxing history as we know it.

 

And THIS is why resume is so much more important than opinion of skill.

Because we definitely do not know anything that did not happen. We can suspect. We can suspect with tremendous confidence. But we do not know. And it becomes irrelevant.

 

Yea, but there's many circumstances to consider and what may be important to one person may not be to another. A recent example, let's use Cotto's unlikely win over Maravilla. Maravilla was a clear favorite, almost suicidal from Cotto's part, but yet he gave Maravilla a shellacking. A HANDICAPPED Maravilla, that is. Cotto made history by being 1rst Puerto Rican to be 4 weight division champ, but it was against a handicapped Maravilla. It's a great win in a resume, but if you actually saw the fight, you know Maravilla was ripe for the picking. Also, even to this day, fans continue to bring up great fighters that didn't have very great resumes compared to their more well known counterparts like Charlie Burley(SRR), Aaron Pryor(Duran, Leonard), Bowe(Tyson,Lewis) and Finito Lopez (Carbajal, Chiquita Gonzalez) just to name afew a

Sorry brother I have to disagree. I don't always base how great a fighter was on resume alone just because an editor, writer, or a magazine wants you to believe so. There's just too much politics and agendas involved. But I see your point and I respect that. I just don't believe Pacquiao was ever better than Marquez at any point DESPITE having a better resume, IMO that doesn't make him a better fighter. See what I mean?

 

Respect to your response brother.

 

if not for erroneous scoring and corruption in the system, i am very much inclined to see the best boxer for his record wins. there are a lot of aspects into play in the sport and skill is just one of them. most famous players were gifted with their citizenship, promotion, and corruption to have good records but still questionable achievements in their time.

 

It doesn't tell you at what level their opposition is operating at either without careful examination.

 

I never Said "skills all you need" moron.

"It takes elite skills to reign as a champion" is what I said. "All it takes is elite skills to reign as a champion" is what you replied. Can you simpleton tell the difference between these two sentences? You can't, of Course.

I know that many talented fighters have failed to become champions, I know far more about amateur boxing than you ever will. I NEVER, never Said that anyone with skills can become an ATG. But that if you reign as a champion for years, you need elite skills. Whether their opposition is being called weak or not. Wladimir Klitschko reigned over what's called a weak division, he had elite skills. Larry Holmes reigned over what'scalled a weak division, he had elite skills. Joe Louis reigned over what's called a weak division, he had elite skills. You can't reign as a champion for years without elite skills. But that's not to say with elite skills can become a dominant champion. But that you definetly need skills in addition to other factors. Get it, moron?

I was the one said ATG status is about who you beat first imbecile. But you need elite skills to score several wins over elite fighters. I wrote this exact sentence, but I guess It was to much to comprehend with for a moron like you.

But good to see you admit that skills are neccesity. Shows that even a simpleton like you can be thaught with the right way of schooling.

 

Well then know the **** or carefully examine it!

 

I agree with your Cotto/Martinez example. Resume is most important to me also, and I do take into consideration situations like that one. I think resume is more than just a name. It's also when they fight, how the fight played out, injuries, etc.

 

To supplement the OP: resume is the only thing you can PROVE. You can't prove skill or h2h ability, those are opinion.

 

Many people don't. That's the point I'm making.

 

If we base our opinions of fighters on resumes and not skills then Froch and Salido are better than Rigondeaux and Lomachenko.

 

(I wasn't saying it to you, just in general) I feel you. I don't think casuals discuss resumes anyway.