Deepest Resumes?

These guys are way before my time, and I haven't seen much film of them but Sam Langford, Harry Greb, Henry Armstrong, and Sugar Ray Robinson have pretty deep resumes in terms of who they faced over long careers.

 

Mayweather, De la Hoya, and Trinidad are not in the same company as Leonard.

De la Hoya could have been, had he been more dominant. Questionable wins over Whitaker, Quartey, and Sturm with no rematches. What if Leonard got the decison over Duran in Montreal and said no to a rematch? Lost to Mosley twice. The best thing on his resume is a bogus loss to Trinidad.

Trinidad has some good wins, but he too is no Leonard. Should have lost the biggest fight of his career. I know, some of you say Leonard should have lost the biggest of his to Hagler; but there is no comparison. You can make a case for Leonard in the rounds people feel he won. There is no making a case for Trinidad in at least 7(if not more) rounds of his fight with Oscar. Also helped prove Hopkins greatness in getting schooled. Also reminded everyone of how dangerous Winky Wright is to your record.

Mayweather has let to lose on paper. Some feel Castillo got him once, but he did avenge that performance. Has solid wins over some decent competion. Not his fault his competion is not what Leonard's was. Still, facts are facts. Will have to do more to get anywhere near Leonard in the competion department.

 

Jimmy McLarnin if we're going for ratios.

 

muhammad ali

 

De La Hoya outdoes leonard by a good margin if we're talking depth of resumes. But if we're talking top wins, Leonard clearly holds the edge.

In terms of what the TS originally said, which is resume in terms of ratio of top fights to overall number of fights, DLH ranks right up there(on opposition faced), along with a guy like Whitaker(on opposition beaten), and obviously Ali.

In terms of overall resume, in terms of deepest and highest quality of opposition beaten period, I'd say Harry Greb.

 

i think you look at how many titlists a person beat. In leonard's days there was 1 or 2 champs. In de la hoyas days there were 4 champs. I honestly think ali and robinson have resumes slightly better than grebs. Not trying to sound racist, but 95% of greb's opponents were scrawny white guys in diapers. Would they have been champs if langford or other blacks were allowed to fight for the light heavyweight belt?

Ali has beaten foreman, liston, frazier, patterson, norton, foster, quarry and like 10-15 other top contenders. He has also fought larry holmes and archie moore. Most of greb's opponents are just known on paper, there isnt much footage on them.

If robinson doesnt have a deeper resume than greb, than why do most experts rank him higher?

 

I think this is a pretty ignorant paragraph here.

There's footage of plenty of them, such as Tunney, Walker, Gibbons, Rosenbloom, Loughran, etc. Ali in comparison to his number of fights has a more stacked resume, but overall, Greb's is far deeper. I guess I will have to whip it out again. Have a look:

Delaney x3
Rosenbloom
Walker
Wilson x3
Tunney x2
Loughran x5
Slattery
Flowers
Moody
Downey
Bogash
Gibbons x3
Smith x7
Norfolk
Gunboat Smith x2
McTigue x2
Levinsky x6
M. Gibbons
Meehan x2
Houck x3
Miske x3
Bartfield x4
McGoorty
McCoy x2
Dillon x2
O’Dowd
Chip x2
Crouse
Brennan x3
Clark
Blackburn

Lack of footage, which leads to lack of actual knowledge.

 

1) Yes, Greb did beat every man I mentioned.

2) You mention Ring's rankings quite a bit, as if they are truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. According to them, Dempsey accomplished more than Hagler, Arguello, Chavez, Ross, Walker, Tunney, hell even Holyfield. Do you not see something wrong with that? I could care less about Ring's rankings, they don't mean **** to me.

 

No, he did not...

 

By my knowledge, yes, he actually did, regardless of the loss on paper to Flowers in the first fight. Most experts thought he won pretty handily. Also, most thought he won at least 2 of the Tunney fights, instead of one.