Fights where "better resume" didn't mean a thing

A young Cassius Clay against the Monster Sonny Liston...Clay was given no chance due to his resume.!!!

 

Bradley-Provodnikov

 

Lewis-Vit K

 

Muhammad Ali (55 wins, 2 losses, 18-year pro, undisputed heavyweight champion)
vs.
Leon Spinks (6 wins, 0 losses, 1 draw, 13-month pro).

 

Truth...a shadow of Himself...even Spinks new this...

 

Wonder why Carlos Takam's corner weren't telling him that he has a better resume than Joseph Parker between rounds:rofl

Never heard Banks tell Wlad that his resume is better than Fury's either...weird

 

Trout-Cotto
Mundine-Wood 1
Tyson-Douglas
Tarver-RJJ 2
Forrest-Mora 1

 

Max Baer vs Russel Crowe

 

Creed-Drago

 

Garcia/Khan
Russell Jr./Gonzalez
Inoue/Hernandez
Fury/Klitschko
Briedis/Charr
Ruenroeng/Ioka
Estrada/Viloria

 

The vast majority of the time the fighter with the better resume wins. This excludes old/shot guys of course.

People who say resume counts for nothing in the ring have absolutely no clue what they're talking about.

 

A very good case for that is Salido vs Lomachenko.

 

I'm assuming this means a situation where a fighter beats someone with a better or more established resume than them?

Duran vs Buchanan

Jones Jr. Vs Toney

 

Floyd Mayweather vs Manny Pacquiao

Fluid was grilled out with peds, even doing illegal IV but PAC still tapped that azz.