I keep seeing threads about how X fighter has "the best resume in the division currently" when X fighter has a recent devastating KO loss. Do losses count against a fighter when considering their resume? I'm not suggesting a KO loss destroys a resume. Pacquiao has a devastating KO loss to Marquez, but he went on an incredible 7 year run as a champion before, and went on to have some very impressive wins after. He has a bullet proof ATG resume. It took Vlad K. a whole decade to wipe away the stain of his TKO losses. I'm happy that boxing culture can move away from '0' obsession, but you cannot both hold up a resume as "A+ excellent" and say "don't look at that red stain there tho" in the same breath.
Resume only includes wins, as it’s only about who you’ve beat. Resume isn’t supposed to be the end all be all of judging fighters, just a useful tool. Munguia can be 37-0 all he wants but his resume simply doesn’t stand up to Pacman’s.
Ali lost 5 times so he'd be considered a loser and a bum nowadays. Also got knocked down a few times, proving he's a bum.
For legacy, losses can even count positively if they were in the course of daring to be great. Some bad losses can be held against someone, but it's better to look at the wins first and foremost. In terms of current form, losing takes so much out of a fighter that it's very difficult to know will happen after. So many have come undone after one loss, it's almost expected at this point.
Uh, no. If a resume only included wins, there would be far fewer guys in the Hall of Fame. Like remove two-thirds of the inductees.
Who the hell did Mike McCallum beat to get into the Hall of Fame? It's about your total career. Who you beat. Who you lost to. Longevity. Titles. Runs as a champ. How you start. How you end up. Everything.
There's no 'rule' as to whether or not they count. It's the Cv, it's on the resume, if you lose it counts. It's up to the fan to be educated enough to understand what the loss/win means. Few people here seem to be able to do that.
I think he’s definitely a weak pick, and I’m surprised he’s in, but he is a three division champion with a draw with Toney and a win over Harding. It looks like they gave it to him based on accomplishment in multiple divisions rather than his resume.
It's better to take on the best and win some and lose some than to be open to accusations of cherrypicking and knocking over bums. There will be people who value "undefeated" highly, but undefeated is only as good as the quality of opponents beaten during that run... There's a reason very few people were picking the unbeaten BJS to beat Canelo with losses on his resume (and question marks as to whether there should've been more) - Canelo had simply beaten a much higher calibre of opponents, consistently. There's a reason people laughed at Wilders unbeaten run before Fury... He was unbeaten, sure, but the vast majority of his wins were against pretty low ranking fighters and even his better wins were against fighters of dubious pedigree.
Ken Norton's two losses to Ali (once for the title) and his 15-round classic loss to Larry Holmes (again for the title) arguably helped him get into the Hall of Fame moreso than his one non-title decision win over Ali. Against Ali-Holmes-Foreman, who were the champions he faced, Norton went 1-4. But those five fights were all part of his resume, good and bad.