You've made no sense again haven't you? You mean to say, it would be obvious to a simpleton. But, anyway, since I've been so gracious as to correct your mistake, indulge me and explain your previous post.
1. "Fighter A beats fighter B because I don't like B's resume." 2. Fighter A's resume is actually significantly worse than Fighter B's. =irony
I see where you've made your error now and why you might say my post was ironic. You're wrong. Your assumption "1." is just that, an assumption. Obviously, one cannot base a boxers ability solely on his/her resume. That would be foolish and something I've never done despite your previous suggestion/assumption that I have. For example, Evander Holyfield has a better resume than Joe Joyce but doesn't beat him currently. Does that make sense to you? Joyce beats Ortiz IMO because he's a more capable boxer. Simple. All your arguments made why I am wrong are based on false premises which I have never subscribed to.