Resume is more important than "skills" or "H2H ability". And it's not remotely close.

Resume is more important when we evaluate the greatness of a fighter where the whole body of work is considered. So in all time ranking IMO resume has to take number one spot.
As for current standing of active fighters, it will be the combination of h2h, eye ball test and who has he beat.
For example pac and Mayweather has great resume, on all time ranking they will be very high but they might not beat Thurman or spence at the moment.
Lomachenko only has 10 fights but his skill is for all to see, its unfair to him and the old timers to be talk in the same sentence but on current scene he can be rated near the very top.
GGG has 30 odds fights, his resume is thin with quality names but he has all the qualities of a fighter that is tough to beat, such as fundamental, chin and hard punch.

 

That's true but resume at times doesn't really tell you at what level the fighter is currently operating.

 

Agreed. David Benavidez looks the good but we have to wait til he cleans out SMW before we can give him his dues. Glad we cleared that up Op.

 

Skills build resumes.

 

All of them are important. Resumes don't always tell the whole story.

 

Not disagree with your take, you are right of course but are you talking about specific fighter or situation?

 

Danny Garcia's resume is deceptively good, partly since he was on the receiving end of gift decisions. Pernell Whitaker's resume is understated because he was on the losing end of several notable robberies. Salido's resume is mountains and valleys with some unusually good scalps he wasn't supposed to win inside an otherwise pedestrian career, indicating he was either an overachiever or underachiever. Carl Froch like Rocky Marciano before him looked like total ****, trailing on every card, before muscling up and bludgeoning his more skilled opponents into unconsciousness. Mike McTigue and Freddie Mills were two of the most uncoordinated cavemen ever to hold the undisputed light heavyweight strap but they held it nevertheless while guys like Sam Langford and Charley Burley never even fought for a title. A resume is about more than Ws and Ls, especially in an era when there are guys like Mayweather, Calzaghe, or Sven Ottke who can skillfully maneuver through divisions cherry picking opponents to maintain an unbeaten record.

 

Spence-Brook refutes your whole thesis.

Only boxing novices rely on resumes to predict the outcome of a fight. You have to look at the boxers themselves.

 

It depends whether you are looking at how great a fighter was (resume is indeed the most important thing), or trying to predict future fights (where recent form and eye test are just as important).

 

Resume is clearly the most important thing... by far! (when assessing a guy whose career is over)

If you fight 69 times, and win 64 times, but those 64 wins are against pub fighters, well that should raise a red flag with any knowledgeable fan or expert.

 

Resume is everything. It also includes the actual fight and everything about the opponent, not just a few letters and a number next to a name. Anyone trying to talk resume importance down bringing up that it's important to know where the opponent was at or how the fight played out... obviously, yes. That is the resume.

 

I think he took into consideration the circumstances of resume when he said resumes are most important.

 

"Resume" = what has actually happened in-ring... we all view things differently but a reasonable boxing conversation usually begins and ends with talking points based around in-ring occurrences

"Skills" = personal opinion of in-ring qualities

"H2H ability" = personal opinion of how they stack up relative to select competition