Who has the best resume in history of pro boxing?

Tbh tho mate...the problem is looking down your list baldomir being a title holder...gatti being a two time title holder....sharma mitchell and berto being two time title holders kind of shows that average fighters can become title holders nowadays. Add to that mayweather took them on usually when there best days we,re behind them. Or they we,re green or brought them up weight divisions kind of points to a lot of floyds success being down to politics. Great fighter mayweather. But was too scared to lose he stacked every card in his favour. To me as good a career floyd had and it was great he never achieved true greatness that ali achieved....even leonard achieved and many more on top of that.

 

Sorry.

People use that to knock Mayweather's resume down.

But what all-time greats mentioned here fought ALL their name opponents when the NAME opponent was at his absolute peak, had the best camp, came in at his best weight and had the best night of his career?

Seriously?

If an opponent of Mayweather wasn't at the absolute BEST point in his life and didn't have the GREATEST performance of his career, then Mayweather's win over him doesn't seem to count. It's nonsense.

I must've read a dozen times in the last couple days about how LEONARD BEAT a PRIME HEARNS or a PRIME BENITEZ. That's bull.

Hearns was 22 years old and weighed 145 pounds the day of the fight (his trainer Steward apologized for Hearns coming in so light) with Leonard. How the hell was that Hearns AT HIS BEST IN HIS PRIME? Hearns fought for 25 YEARS after that. Won titles all the way up to light heavyweight (TWICE). But an emaciated, 22-year-old 145-pound skeleton of Hearns was Tommy in his prime? To hell with that. He was a middleweight THREE months later. He never fought at welter again.

And Benitez turned 21 ONE MONTH before he fought Leonard. And it was Benitez's last fight at the weight. And, since I was around at the time, I remember everyone saying Benitez was better at 154 when he moved up because he couldn't make 147 anymore. And he looked very strong against Hope. And he looked excellent against Duran (where he only barely edged Cervantes and Palomino). Benitez hit his peak AFTER the Leonard fight. He was never stronger. He had matured as a man. He wasn't a teenager squeaking by names via points.

And Benitez desperately wanted to rematch Leonard at 154, because he knew he was better at that weight, but Leonard wouldn't fight him again.

Also, does anyone think Duran was at his best for the NO MAS fight or at his best for their rubber match in 1989? Or does anyone think Hagler was in his prime in the last fight of Hagler's career?

But all we hear is Leonard beat Hearns, Benitez, Duran and Hagler, so he should be considered among the best, and Mayweather fought guys who weren't at their best, so he shouldn't.

So, unless people are going to go back and decide if EVERYONE Leonard or Greb or Tunney or Armstrong or Robinson beat was an opponent IN HIS PRIME, who HAD HIS BEST CAMP, came in at HIS BEST WEIGHT, fought his BEST fight ... and all the crap they say about Floyd's opponents, then it's a garbage excuse.

Mayweather's opponents stack up against anyone all time.

You can say he's not the best for any number of reasons, but to float garbage excuses about his opponents being GREEN or not at their best weight ... and NOT do that to every other champ being held up as the best ever ... simply isn't fair.

Use the same criteria to judge them all. Not just him.

If you don't want to or can't, then it shouldn't be a criteria used AGAINST Mayweather and not against others.

If it's just about the names the other guys beat, then it should be about the names Mayweather beat. If you're going to hold controversial decisions that favored Floyd against Mayweather, hold controversial decisions favoring the others against them, too.

 

A lot of terrible answers so far..

The correct answer is Harry Greb. Greb has the best resume in boxing history, although Langford, Robinson and Armstrong come close. His resume is so great that the only reason why people don't have him as the GOAT is because there's no footage of his fights...Well there's footage of men he beat and we all know how good they were, some of the greatest boxers of all time. The man started at 140 and fought all the way up to Heavyweight and even broke the color barrier, he feared absolutely no man and was willing to fight anybody anywhere. The amount of Hall Of Famers and ATG's in Greb's resume is absolutely disgusting.


And he did most of it with only 1 good eye.....

 

He deserves huge respect.

Yes, he was always at a size advantage.

He had a great career. I couldn’t say that he has the greatest resume though.

 

Greb, Armstrong and Robinson, in no particular order, would be my top three.

Langford, Willie Pep, Benny Leonard, Tunney, Ali, Sandy Saddler, Archie Moore, Ray Leonard, Mickey Walker, etc would be a few other names high up, imo.

 

Think the difference was these we,re calculated moves by mayweather. If he,d fought pacman when he should of he,d have been credited for example but we all know he used his influence and his money making ability to pick and choose who and when he fought opponents and usually at what weight class. To be fair you have to be good to be in that position in the first place which floyd obviously was.

But he was the most cynical fighter of all the all time greats. The man himself basically admits it and brags about it all being about timing. I say fair play to the man....went out as a great....faculties intact with a shed load of money....but in terms of discussions about who had the best legacy....floyd has no place in that discussion. on paper maybe but in reality he was picking guys at the right time with everything in his favour. He,d have avoided a young mosely and de la hoya. He did avoid pacman. Weight restrictions for canelo. Dragged marquez up then came in overweight. Hatton dragged up a weight class. A lot of that list of champions we,re also average guys. Its not picking on floyd for the sake of it...he just shouldn,t be anywhere near a discussion about top resumes.

 

Isn't it weird to say Greb being that no film of his fights or most of his opponents exist? Seems maybe just wrong to do.

Robinson and Armstrong will get tons of love here, deservedly. I'll give a shout out to Ezzard Charles as well.

This is basically just asking who the GOAT is or to list the 10 best fighters ever. Resume is everything.

 

I know a few in this thread mentioned him, but where is the love for “The Old Mongoose”? - Faced Ali, Marciano, Patterson, E. Charles, Maxim and other “lesser” HOF’ers.

With that being said, Harry Greb is probably the “right” answer, given the quantity AND quality of his resume. Just wanted to share my love for Ancient Archie.

 

LaLonde

Lalonde?

 

I have 4 picks out of the modern era, before all the historians get on my case:
Fmj,
Pac-Man
Cotto
And Marquez.
And if you agree that their resumes aren't all time great, then at least we can say they were contemporary greats. Great for this era.

I may as well throw bhop in there too to much of my chagrin, for all those middleweight defenses.

But yeah, the first four speak for themselves!

 

Ezzard charles definetly has one of the best resumes. I think his resume is better than for example floyd and leonard. But its debatable

 

1. Greb
2. McLarnin / Langford
4. Benny Leonard
5. Ray Robinson
6. Tunney
7. Canzoneri