Who are the fighters that really impress you in terms of their skill and how good they look on film and yet when you look at their resume, their quality of wins is just average or maybe barely above average? Alexander Povetkin is a great example of this. He was strong and had excellent power and solid fundementals. His left hook is one of the best and most underrated left hooks i have seen. He had a hard right, put together lovely combinations and we all remember that amazing left uppercut vs Whyte. Yet his resume is mediocre to be generous. A win over a completely shot Chris Byrd. A decent win over post Wlad Ruslan Chagaev who was not at his best but a decent win nonetheless. An MD (majority decision) over Marco Huck followed by wins over shot Hasim Rahman and David Price. And then a good win over a borderline top 10 contender in Dillian Whyte. Tony Tucker is another one. He was tall, relatively fast, good jab, good punching variation, decent power. He showed a versatile skill set in a respectable losing effort vs peak Tyson. Yet his resume is worse than Povetkin. A come from behind win vs a young Buster Douglas. A split decision win vs Oliver McCall. I am struggling here. Somehow he managed not to fight Witherspoon, Truth Williams, Mercer, Morrison, Pinklon Thomas, Holyfield etc. Weird.
Elmer Ray. Has over 100 wins and 70 knockouts. Once you get past Charles, Walcott, Savold, Leroy Haynes and Obie Walkerx6 the other 90 wins are a barren wasteland. While at times he was ranked much higher in totality I don't think Savold was one of the top 20 HWs of this era. And thats the only knockout he had of the 10 good wins. And among his losses the only additional names he fought were Turkey Thompson and in his last fight John Holman so its not like he challenged himself often and failed. Its only part of a career but Glen Johnsons 32-0 before losing to Hopkins was truly and utterly abysmal for an ATG level fighter. And I don't mean not beating anyone notable I mean 18 guys sub .500, 6 guys less than 3 wins over .500 and a debutant. Sullivan didn't neccessarily look good on film but he impressed people and his resume is horrid. He beat 5 fighters with multiple professional wins, 6 including Kilrain in bareknuckle.
Sanders is a great pick too. Tall, quick handed southpaw with bone crushing power. Yet he has one signature win vs Wlad and not much else. I guess if he had beaten Rahman it would have been amazing. But yes, great pick.
Whyte was the number 1 contender I believe when post prime Povetkin iced him. He also took out Perez, undefeated Chambers, in addition to Huck and Chagaev. Povetkin’s resume is solid for someone that never held a major belt. He doesn’t deserve to be listed with names like Tucker and Sanders. Both of which had immense skills but thin resumes.
Emmanuel Augustus Burton - some good skill wrapped up in an unserious approach to having a great career (I don't know enough about him to know if there were extenuating circumstances). Some might argue Jersey Joe Walcott.
Samart Payakroon. GOAT in Muay Thai but was late coming into boxing. His resume is pretty scant in boxing but he was still a tremendous talent who had the misfortune of meeting a relentless Jeff Fenech in the ascendancy.
Whilst Joe Calzaghe and Terence Crawford's respective resumes are better than mediocre, they're not enough to be considered ATG's imho, but both were brilliant fighters.