What is the one most important factor when rating a boxer pound-for-pound?

Vote and discuss if you have an opinion on this.

I will explain my concept of the poll choices:


ACHIEVEMENT
(ie things like number of world titles won, number of weight divisions won world titles in, undefeated record, KO ratio, honours like Fighter Of The Year award, P4P ranking status)

or

RESUME
(measuring greatness by disregarding 'achievement' and focusing solely on the names on the resume, the quality of all of the fighters he fought being looked through individually then thought of cumulatively, how good in reality were the guys he won world titles from, what stage of their careers were they at, how impressive were these performances on the night etc)

Of course both are important so please don't bother writing 'both are important', I only want to hear from people who have an opinion either way on which means more; one must be considered most important depending on your viewpoint.

 

i think achievement and resume are oen and the same to be honest.

 

Both!!!

 

They aren't. If a boxer comes along (say a heavyweight did so now) who cleaned out the division, but basically to do so only had to beat a few mediocre guys who are currently at the top, and then held the titles for a number of years, a real challenge never materialized, til a brilliant young cruiserweight and a great white hope of a heavyweight turned up, and he decided to ignore them and retire undefeated- then the guy will have achieved a lot (WBC/WBA/IBF titles) and an undefeated record, but he never fought anyone that history will recognize as being very good, and then when 2 guys did come along who would've been a real dangerous challenge, he ducked them and quit, so he does not have a good resume. See the difference?

Titles can be won in boxing and things achieved without necessarily chasing and making the fights with the best guys out there.

 

Resume and achievements are basically the same. In boxing terms some people like to distinguish by claiming resume is just the list of opponents fought and beat and achievements are accomplishments in a particuar weight class(or multiple) such as titles. But a resume encompasses all of that.

I do think that resume should be taken with more accord than film though, considering the different eras, techniques, and lack of footage of many classic fighters. However, I do like to rate ability and ring performance among modern fighters(40's and over IMO) very highly, as I have strong opinions.

 

PPV buys.

 

hahahaha

 

For example then Sweet Pea, do you think there is a difference between the brilliant achievements of say Floyd Mayweather, and his resume?

 

The poll should have been H2H ability vs Resume....And I say Resume all the way!

 

Performance in regards to competition.

 

I think his resume includes his achievements, because if you really look at his achievements, they aren't as impressive as they would normally seem.

 

Neither.

Strictly speaking, determining the best p4p fighter should take ability into consideration above all else. Things like resume can be factored in, but as as Larson said, in a contextual sense.

 

So when doing all time rankings, what should you make of fighters with brilliant resumes and accounts(which indicates ability) of their skills, but very little, or no footage?

 

i say both and h2h ability is a bit not of a factor or perhaps only deserves a little factor. Guzman for example, would be favored by anyone stylistically, a h2h nightmare but he's even below top 5 and others have him outside of top 10. Its achievements and resume that counts

 

both are important. When all is said and done the better fighter should be ahead of the worse one.