A fair way of evaluating resumes

A common thing I see from some posters is modern fighter X isn't good because he only beat contenders A,B,C, and D of this era. Prior era fighter Y is great because he fought contenders E,F, and G in his era. And in era resume debating isn't much better.

There are a couple problems with it. First, logically, if we are evaluating on a basis of H2H, then the modern fighters, especially HW, are likely to be better. Sports progress. And the same type of body enlargement and specialization that has accompanied tangible record progressions in other sports have accompanied HW's in boxing. Logically, it is overwhelmingly likely modern boxers are generally better than past ones, on the whole, and given enough time.

But, this isn't really about H2H anyway. H2H isn't a really fair comparison, it should be about your in era achievements. So, degrading Arreola at the expense of a Shavers for classicists, or vice versa, for modernists, is kind of pointless.

A fairer way of comparing resumes would simply be to look at the approximate standing of the fighters on a particular fighters resume. Let's compare Mike Tyson and Anthony Joshua. We can argue about whether an old Holmes is a better win than an old Wlad. But let's just approximate and say they both got wins over semi retired ATGs. AJ currently has that win, two other wins over HW's regarded as top 5 HWs at the time of the match, in Povetkin and Parker, maybe two or three wins over other fringe top 10 hws, in Martin (considered a top 10 at the time), Whyte (not considered top ten at the time but now top 5ish), and Big Dom (not top 10 at time, but considered a fringe top 10 guy a couple years later), and about 3 or 4 other wins against fringe top 20 opposition (Molina, Takam).

That would compare, but not quite equal Tyson's resume up until the time Tyson got his win over Holmes, with Tyson having the old ATG win, wins over clear top 5 opponent Tucker, clear top ten opponents in Berbick and Smith, fringe top ten wins over Thomas and Biggs, and top 20ish guys in Frazier Tillis and two or three others.

It also goes for looking at in era resumes as well. I.E., AJ has a win over a semi retired ATG, two top 5 wins, two top 10 wins, 3 or 4 top 20 wins, with Wilder having a debatable draw against a fringe ATG in Fury, two top 5 wins in Ortiz and Stiverne I, two fringe top 10 wins in Dom and Scott, and about 6 wins over fringe top 20 HW's in Washington, Duhaupas, Molina, Spilzka, etc). So, a slight edge to AJ, but not day and night.

So, instead of nit picking or making crazy and unprovable assertions about how bad one fighters resume is, how about just making approximate category level of the people on their resume, and adding it all up? Doing it this way might mean you have to give more credit to someone you hate, but it might mean you have a defensible position for someone you like, as well. Its just a more rational way to do it than talking about how "fighter x beat so and so, who would be a club fighter in the 70's" etc.