If you could help me conceptualize what you are talking about with an example of one without the other and vice versa, it would help me answer. Like Ezzard Charles' resume or the cultural significance of the name Mike Tyson has across the world? Is that the kind of thing?
There is a reason why one undisputed champion is ranked higher than other and it's not a resume thing, it's media thing. Someone wants certain fighter to be promoted better than others and their personality also helps that process. Is there a reason why Tank is ranked higher than any undisputed champion, when he did not even had 3 belts at the same time ?
Who the hell has Tank ranked higher than anyone let alone ANY undisputed champ? Wilder, Tank, Charlos, Spence, Thurman...all decent champs w cult followings based on...hype. Not merit. There's a difference.
The way I look at it its what a fighter proves. If you think someone with a shorter resume beats someone with a longer resume the shorter resume was enough if you don't it wasn't. But a resume isn't just names its how they won and the circumstance. If Usyk had beaten AJ, Fury and Chisora 10-2 or knocked them all out I'd be way more understanding of people calling him an ATG HW with 6 fights. Beterbievs got more fights at 175 but I've been more willing to overlook the resume with him.
Problem with the resume arguments is that people can just write-off a whole generation as 'bad' so you can never get credit. Also doesn't take into account duckers. For instance, regardless of what people think of GGG, he was openly ducked by Saunders (said he wanted to age him first) and Cotto (fought Geale instead, who GGG just beat). He was clearly ducked by others too (Sturm etc.), but these two fighters are considered very good by fans and would have amped his resume. So what do you do if people won't fight you? Same thing will happen with Fury to a degree. When he was on top, AJ clearly ducked him and also refused the fight on the comeback. But let's say this is proven true just to make the point and that Fury won the fight. When Fury doesn't have AJ on his record, one of the top fighters of the time apparently, what was he supposed to do?
I'd rather think; resume 50% + head-to-head vs other greats 40% + intangibles such as impact on the sport 10% = 100% = legacy Perhaps the equation would also include minus for ducking and/or roids.
Great argument actually. I for one do rate resume highly. A decade of dominance for me trumps by far one or two flashy wins. Then again, everything can be argued. If that dominance is achieved by deck stacking and dodging the opposition, then it becomes debatable again. On the other hand you get shooting stars like Tyson who burst on the scene, blast everything to bits in their prime and then just kind of fade away as quickly. Then you get guys like Ali who could have had their resume look a lot worse with different judges and referees. Yet, their record is what it is. It's not so easy to evaluate greatness as it seems on the surface.
There are tons of comments, saying who the hell Inoue beat and why Tank should be ranked higher than him.
Inoue beat champions in his own weight class. In fact he beat all his fellow champions twice. Tank never even fought a fellow LW champ despite being at LW for like 5 years. What u on kid
Got u my b...I a clown But yeh Tank look the goods but rly aint beat nobody good without catchweights and/or rehydration clauses. And I aint saying he couldnt beat better fighters but he aint no prospect ffs
