What makes a resume good?

'Means absolutely nothing', thats a bit harsh isnt it? You cant really blame him for beating an unbeaten fighter can you? Nobody knew he was overhyped until Lacy got his arse handed to him so thats a bit unfair. This just seems like a Calzaghe hate thread to me. Jones should have given Hopkins a rematch when he was actually a great not a novice. I wouldnt say Chico had a 'great' career, it was good. Personally Im not a huge fan of Calzaghe but your taking things a bit far to take the **** dont you think?

 

Someone doesn't necessarily have to go on to do great things to spice up a resume - wins over those who already have distinguished themselves are just as good as wins over those who bounce back to do so subsequently - unless the accomplished person you're beating is clearly shot enough to not be creditable.

 

As much as fans try to be noble about it and speak only to in-ring quality, name recognition plays a big part in perceived resume strength. How many times have Asian fighters get accused of padding records against "nobodies", for example, regardless of whether it's true for that individual fighter? I've seen that knock thrown on Hasegawa in the past few months, and strongly disagree with it.

 

Quality of wins (including outcome, controversy, condition of the opponent) multiplied by the quality of the opposition, minus losses with the value added up similarly.

That's an interesting point about Asian fighters Rock. I'm probably guilty of doing that sometimes myself. The lack of quality footage and coverage is a challenge.

I pretty much rely on someone like Graham Norton to sift through the quality of an Asian fighter's wins.

 

The opponents faced.

 

Quality of competition.

 

Calzaghe beat other undefeated fighters than just Lacy. He also stopped guys who had never previously been stopped. Lacy was ruined by both Calzaghe and injuries after they fought each other. He was overhyped but was a good fighter with devastating power.

This fight is more insignificant than Calzaghe vs Hopkins or Jones. Hopkins was an absolute nobody until he racked a few decent wins at MW. He improved with age.

 

how about in defense of PBF HOW U BEAT PEOPLE...ex gatti...not the best fighter ever but look HOW HE BEAT HIM...the guy dominates champions

 

If the fighter you beat goes on to have a successful career after you beat him. Thats quality. For instance roy beating Hopkins and Toney because what they were/became. Floyd beating Chico and Castillo because what they were/became.

Put it this way. When Floyd beat Angel Manfredy he was considered one of the most feared fighters in the division and many thought Manfredy would KO Floyd. After Floyd beat him down and stopped him, what became of Manfredy? Nothing. Its the same reason Calzaghe's win over Lacy isnt considered that great.

Beating hype jobs does not earn you a legacy. Its more about beating guys who prove themselves in the sport.

 

It's like the Supreme Court decision on obscenity: "I know it when I see it".

There's a lot that goes into a fighter's resume. Any one factor can be deceptive so you have to weigh all of the variables.

 

Very good post.

Sometimes people overlook performances.

A bit like Hopkins Pavlik. Let's say Pavlik goes on to lose his next 4 fights and retires... does that take away from Hopkins performance on the night? Of course not, Hopkins was perfect that night.

 

Quality of opponent's faced.

 

Then again, the ability to overcome adversity separates great fighters from good ones.

Nobody can ever take that night away from Hopkins, but the win means even more if Pavlik goes on to win big fights down the road.