Regarding Resumes - Do Losses Count?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Slyk, Jun 21, 2021.



  1. Slyk

    Slyk Boxing Junkie Full Member

    7,778
    2,869
    Dec 5, 2010
    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.
     
    MagicE and BCS8 like this.
  2. JOKER

    JOKER Froat rike butterfry, sting rike MFER! banned Full Member

    16,535
    18,006
    Dec 18, 2019
    No. Like all things in life, you gotta look at the body of work.
     
    MagicE, Dubblechin and JunlongXiFan like this.
  3. JunlongXiFan

    JunlongXiFan Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,401
    5,780
    Aug 9, 2020
    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.
     
    sasto likes this.
  4. FrankinDallas

    FrankinDallas Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    22,215
    25,866
    Jul 24, 2004
    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.
     
  5. sasto

    sasto Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,109
    15,594
    Aug 5, 2020
    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.
     
    JunlongXiFan likes this.
  6. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    23,243
    15,933
    Jun 25, 2014
    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.
     
  7. JunlongXiFan

    JunlongXiFan Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,401
    5,780
    Aug 9, 2020
    Why would a loss be included in a fighter’s resume? Resume is about the accomplishments of a boxer.
     
  8. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    23,243
    15,933
    Jun 25, 2014
    Exactly.
     
  9. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    23,243
    15,933
    Jun 25, 2014
    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.
     
  10. The Real Lance

    The Real Lance Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,266
    9,025
    Oct 29, 2012
    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.
     
    Nonito Smoak and BubblesUK like this.
  11. JunlongXiFan

    JunlongXiFan Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,401
    5,780
    Aug 9, 2020
    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.
     
  12. BubblesUK

    BubblesUK Doesn't buy hypejobs Full Member

    2,308
    3,532
    May 6, 2021
    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.
     
    JunlongXiFan likes this.
  13. vast

    vast Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,413
    17,591
    Nov 27, 2010
    The quality of opposition makes a big diffrence.
     
    senpai and BubblesUK like this.
  14. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    23,243
    15,933
    Jun 25, 2014
    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.
     
    Bukkake and BubblesUK like this.
  15. xnico

    xnico New Member banned Full Member

    722
    737
    Nov 6, 2020
    Ruiz ruined AJ