Any resume can be picked apart, some more than others. I want to know who the best fighters were... who really did not have the best resume.
Joe Calzaghe and Ricardo Lopez combine for a record of 87-0-1 (70) but... Calzaghe fought Eubank, Brewer, Jones, and Hopkins when they were past prime, especially Jones. Let's face it, Jeff Lacy was a bust. Robin Reid really wasn't that special. Lopez didn't beat many top fighters. Rosendo Alvarez was his toughest opponent, they fought to a 12 round draw and Lopez won a 12 round split-decision.
dunno if i should add joe brown..old bones...here....as names werent to shabby on his record....but he was a top champion that gets overlooked...he did have that thriller second fight with charnley...which seen a hagler v minter type riot at the end with bottles flying everywhere. at the time old bones had the most defences of a lightweight title. anyway...i wont argue too much if anyone disagrees on his name
young griffo, partly incomplete opponents records, partly losing so much once he was a drunk. definitley rigo. agree with cerdan too. watson, not many with a worse/similar resume could beat the watson that fought eubank. not saying i agree but dempsey, floyd and marciano's resumes get more hate individually than every other boxer's ever combined.
Sugar Ray Leonard. Head-to-head, I'd pick Leonard over just about every fighter I've ever seen at welterweight. His talent, his power, his skill, his chin, his desire to win ... but he doesn't have the resume someone you'd normally pick over everyone else probably should have. He's the best fighter with the softest resume for me. Guys like Calzaghe and Bowe had relatively light resumes, but I wouldn't take them over just about everyone else at their weights like I do Leonard.