All a sudden I have insomnia... We are argueing all the time about how great a fighter's resume is, whether it's great at all, how much depth it has, etc. Here's one criteria we can use. Take the fighter's best win, and pretend that fight was won by another top-notcher from the same timespan, not by the fighter who's career you are analyzing. If he fought the same opponent twice or more, only one fight is taken out, not all wins over that opponent. Does his resume still remain great? For example, take Sugar Ray Leonard. Pretend that he didn't beat Marvin Hagler, but somebody else did. Can what is left of Leonard's resume be considered great? Without a doubt. Why not go further and take out the next best win of what's remaining, the rematch with Roberto Duran or the TKO over Tommy Hearns. What's left still remains great. James J. Corbett: Without the win over John L. Sullivan he has Mitchell, draw with Jackson, Kilrain, Choynski. Bob Fitzsimmons: Without the Corbett win has Dempsey, Maher, Hall, Choynski, Creedon, Sharkey (should have been a win for Fitz by all accounts). Muhammad Ali: Without Foreman - still great. Without Liston I - still great. Joe Frazier: Without Ali - suffers pretty badly, already hard to call him an ATG. George Foreman: No Frazier I - very barely remains semi-great. No Moorer - not an ATG.
Definitely a good way of looking at it. I would say though, that having arbitrarily taken away their best win, you then ought to give credit for a solid body of work against ranked contenders.
When evaluating an unexpected loss on a great fighters resume, I look at it this way: If said opponent had not beaten this great fighter, would he still stack up as a strong opponent? I think that Max Schmeling stacks up better than James Douglas or Corrie Sanders for example.
This is funny, i will add few that is often discussed: Joe C: Best win: Bhop (Past prime, if we can even say that abount Bhop) 2nd: Kessler Other good wins: Lacy, Eubank, Mithcell, Ried, Bika and maybe Brewer & Jones Verdict: Atg is steching it regardless of best and 2nd best win. without those the HOF is straching it. The zero does however help. RJJ: Best: Bhop 1 2nd Toney: Other good wins: Ruiz, Tarver, McCallum, Hill, Gonzales, Reggie Johnson, Griffin, Del Valle, Castro, Malinga, Woods, Griffin, Lucas & possibly a few more. Verdict. Take away win 1 & 2 and it still one of the better lhw resumes around. Not that many A+ but loads of A-/B+ debt is much better than usually counted for. Holyfield: 1/2: Tyson 1 1/2: Bowe 2 Other good wins: Qawi 1 & 2, Moorer, Holmes, Foreman, Carlos De Leon, Mercer, Dokes, Rahman, Ruiz, Parkey, Douglas & Thomas: (Tyson 2) Verdict: without 1 &2 still ATG. Greatestcruiser of all times and still possibly top 20-25 heavy resume.
Fitzsimmons: also Ruhlin, Gardner, and was coming on against O'Brien when police stopped their first fight. Corbett: The question is, should we include Jeffries I. That question goes to the deeper question, 'What is Resume?' Is resume notches in the belt? In that case, we include only wins -- maybe also 'shoulda got the wins' like Fitzsimmons v. TSharkey. Or is resume performance in light of opposition? In which case maybe we should include Corbett's first performance against Jeffries. (Many observers felt Jeffries I was Corbett's finest performance after defeating Sullivan). Does Marciano I go onto Walcott's resume? Many felt that was Walcott's finest performance.
