There are always extentuating circumstances, such as if the fighter fought in a weak era/division, was constantly avoided, has an incomplete record, or simply didn't get the breaks needed to really shine. In that case, I'll base my judgement off of what I've seen of him and where I believe he rates ability wise.
You need to look at every aspect of a fighter before you can judge him. Resume may be the best criteria, but not the only one.
easy because Gamboas level of competition almost surpasses Valero's already and he's only been a pro for 2 years. Gamboas level of competition in relation to his number of fights is unbeleivable. he's being moved quicker than any prospect in recent memory. the win loss ratio of gamboas opponents is far greater than that of Valero's.
If I've seen a lot of a fighter then I don't care too much about his resume, I'll orm an opinion of him based on what I've seen. If I'm not familiar with someones fights then the resume is all you can go on. It is the fighter that makes the resume, not the other way round.
Calzaghe's head to head ability is much better than his resume, the same as Pretty Boy Floyd, both were very hard to beat, both would fail to make a top 30 all time list although both are unbeaten, you have say in both cases if they came out of retirement no current boxer would beat them, a couple would have a chance but if i am honest i say no current boxer beats them. {Floyd has been retired for a while now and Joe is 37 with shot hands yet nobody beats them, are they just too good or is the current state of boxing bad ?}
I judge a fighter by what i see in the ring. For fights where that isn't available then boxrec and fightnews is usually my #2. Valero is a good fighter.
FORGET the resume.. After mosqueda there is nothing to talk about VALERO! Valero beat Mosqueda (THAT's about it guys! ) atsch... after that JEFF M believes he can beat them all!!!!! PAC,JMM hatton etc...