Thread: Judging a fighter's resume

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

It's like Alvarez gets hate for being good at a young age. The expectations placed on Alvarez are ridiculously high. And there made that high for the purpose of seeing him fail. He's already at an accelerated pace. What more muthafukkas want? He's 22 years old. He has an outstanding resume for a 22 year old. At 22 Cotto was fighting Sammy Sparkman. And he went to the muthafukkin Olympics

Originally Posted by TitoFan

It was his 8th pro fight. Canelo's 8th pro fight was against some guy who was 4-5 over in Jalisco, Mexico.

This post got me to thinking... just how do you judge a fighter's resume? I know some of us have criticized Canelo's resume in the past (I've tried to stay a bit away from that argument). But really... what makes a good resume? It's not just wins and losses. That's my whole point about someone like JCC Jr., and even his father before him. You can be 100-0... but if all or the majority of your wins came against bums, and you rarely traveled outside your hometown.... is the record really that great?

I thought it was just a "Chavez" thing, with Jr. and Sr. bloating their records on inferior opposition and reaching impressive win-loss records. But could it be the "in" thing among young Mexican fighters, as well? It wasn't that way in the past, I don't think. Fighters had about 10-15 pro fights before they started moving up in competition.... but by their 20-25 fight you were kind of hoping they'd be fighting worthy opponents.

Yes... at 22 Cotto was fighting Sammy Sparkman. But it was his 8th pro fight. By the time he had 15 fights, he had fought and beaten Mexican Cesar Bazan in Las Vegas. His 20th fight was against Lovemore Ndou, and his 22nd was against Randall Bailey... all in Las Vegas. If there's any modern fighter you don't want to try to shoot holes in his resume, it's Miguel Cotto.

By contrast, Canelo first ventured outside the safety of Mexico for his 23rd fight. Before then, he had fattened up his record by fighting the same loser 3 times! Francisco Villanueva was 4-5 when he lost to Canelo for Canelo's 8th fight. Canelo liked him so much... they fought for Canelo's 18th fight (Francisco was 4-14)... and for Canelo's 20th fight (5-17). Ok... Villanueva was a bum... we get it.

Once Canelo became well known, he then fought more recognizable opposition... and that's when some of the criticism began about him fighting either undersized, over-the-hill, or otherwise unworthy opposition. That particular point is a matter of opinion, of course. But what is undeniable is the ridiculously slow pace at which some of these well known, young Mexican fighters are being brought up.

Now Canelo's 41-0, an amazing record for a 22-year old. But really... just how good is his resume?

judging / analysing a fighters record is very important

ill give you an example

in the build up to froch bute a lot of people had bute the favourite, he had looked very good

but when you really looked at who he had fought and at what point in their careers he had fought them

his resume is fine generally... but not when you see people saying how he could be the one to beat mayweather etc

truth is he has come very close to a loss earlier in his career and beaten european level fighters not world level (mosely etc are very much not world class anymore when he fought them)

essentially he is doing well but is imo nothing special...YET...perhaps in a few fights time. he has done nothing of note in honestly, but thats not a problem as hes so young...but it is when you start trying to match him against someone ten levels above anyone he has ever fought

Originally Posted by oakleyno1

his resume is fine generally... but not when you see people saying how he could be the one to beat mayweather etc

truth is he has come very close to a loss earlier in his career and beaten european level fighters not world level (mosely etc are very much not world class anymore when he fought them)

essentially he is doing well but is imo nothing special...YET...perhaps in a few fights time. he has done nothing of note in honestly, but thats not a problem as hes so young...but it is when you start trying to match him against someone ten levels above anyone he has ever fought

RECORD only gays say resume

If the fighter hasn't got much amateur experience, it's understandable they have a ton of learning fights before stepping up. I believe Alvarez had around a dozen amateur fights and Chavez jr none.

Cotto, like most top fighters, had over 100.

But it skews their pro record. That's why you can't just compare a 50-0 record with a 30-3 record at face value. If you have no amateur experience, and bloat your professional record with 50 bums before facing anyone of merit, why should your record be compared with the 30-3 fighter who was fighting credible opposition by his 10th fight? I think it's pretty clear cut.

What serious boxing fan doesn't rate quality over quantity when judging a fighters record? If the 50-0 fighter has fought a load of bums and the 30-3 fighter is proven world-class everyone will consider the latter superior.

Considering you only mentioned Canelo and Chavez Jr in your original post I guess this is about them.

If you chop the bottom half of Canelo's record off, for a 22-year-old, at 20-0, with a bunch of former world champions and challengers on his record it's still very impressive. And Chavez Jr, as weak as his overall record is, nearly knocked out a P4P star and the lineal middleweight champ.

So even if they have bloated records, they both proved themselves at world level.

No major disagreements on this topic. Maybe a couple of minor comments:

Originally Posted by Fenster

What serious boxing fan doesn't rate quality over quantity when judging a fighters record? If the 50-0 fighter has fought a load of bums and the 30-3 fighter is proven world-class everyone will consider the latter superior.

Not everyone. You and I and other serious boxing fans would... but there's others that would just look at the record at face value.

Originally Posted by Fenster

If you chop the bottom half of Canelo's record off, for a 22-year-old, at 20-0, with a bunch of former world champions and challengers on his record it's still very impressive.

No issues with that. Given Canelo's very young age, and even though the former world champions have been either over-the-hill or undersized... at 22 years old it's still impressive. To a point.

Originally Posted by Fenster

And Chavez Jr, as weak as his overall record is, nearly knocked out a P4P star and the lineal middleweight champ.

So even if they have bloated records, they both proved themselves at world level.

My major disagreement is over JCC Jr. Combine the extreme coddling and opponent handpicking... the doping issues, all designed to bring Junior in at twice the size of his opponent on fight night... the lack of discipline and thinking he's owed greatness because of his last name...

He was being thoroughly owned and schooled by the much smaller Martinez before catching him in the 11th round. Martinez still used his vastly superior boxing skills to weather the storm and finish the beating.

IMO, Junior has proved little except being a one-dimensional, undisciplined fighter with a good chin.

@TitoFan

Great topic and worthy of exploration. I always or at least try to approach resumes with caution but there are times when its pretty clear cut. Take the Moyer brothers for example. They have lots of loses but they fought everyone, anywhere and at times with a days notice. Gans finishes a fight and then jumps on a train to fight Langford the next evening. I think the main culprit surrounding this issue is the market. Only a few tv dates a year and you get one loss today and the chances of becoming a bankable prize fighter starts to diminish. Way to much emphasis on a loss today in my view.

Ray Leonards resume is a standout because he did not waste his better years fighting schleps and actually wanted a real legacy and he's got one. He would have never entertained fighting today's version of Roy Jones just to have his name on his resume.

And how about your countryman Wilfredo. Turned pro at 15 and then went on a 25 fight winning streak which he accomplished in just over a year and ending with a title shot at 17.

To me in many ways boxing has become somewhat of a reflection of the coddled world we live in. I mean last summer I saw children playing in a sandbox wearing helmets.

I don't really buy the notion that these people a babied because they have no amateur experience. Zarate only had about 30 amateur fights and most Mexican fighters have little or no experience in the amateurs. The same can be said about most Latin American countries as kids turn pro at age 15 and in many cases out of necessity.

Lopez had fewer then 20 and so did Duran

Qawi None
Moore None
Conn None
Manny None
Marciano None
Toney about 30
Foreman just over 20 I think

Good stuff Tfan

Originally Posted by IamInuit

@TitoFan

Great topic and worthy of exploration. I always or at least try to approach resumes with caution but there are times when its pretty clear cut. Take the Moyer brothers for example. They have lots of loses but they fought everyone, anywhere and at times with a days notice. Gans finishes a fight and then jumps on a train to fight Langford the next evening. I think the main culprit surrounding this issue is the market. Only a few tv dates a year and you get one loss today and the chances of becoming a bankable prize fighter starts to diminish. Way to much emphasis on a loss today in my view.

Ray Leonards resume is a standout because he did not waste his better years fighting schleps and actually wanted a real legacy and he's got one. He would have never entertained fighting today's version of Roy Jones just to have his name on his resume.

And how about your countryman Wilfredo. Turned pro at 15 and then went on a 25 fight winning streak which he accomplished in just over a year and ending with a title shot at 17.

To me in many ways boxing has become somewhat of a reflection of the coddled world we live in. I mean last summer I saw children playing in a sandbox wearing helmets.

I don't really buy the notion that these people a babied because they have no amateur experience. Zarate only had about 30 amateur fights and most Mexican fighters have little or no experience in the amateurs. The same can be said about most Latin American countries as kids turn pro at age 15 and in many cases out of necessity.

Lopez had fewer then 20 and so did Duran

Qawi None
Moore None
Conn None
Manny None
Marciano None
Toney about 30
Foreman just over 20 I think

Good stuff Tfan

Although it's not written in stone, I believe there is a "typical" career path for a world class fighter. Your first 20 or so fights are against comparable, not-well-known opposition... as part of your learning curve. After that, one should begin to see a gradual, but steady improvement in the degree of opposition. If a fighter gets to 40 fights and is still fighting handpicked bums, or guys making their own pro debuts.... something's wrong.

Cotto fought some tough opposition beginning from before his 20th fight. After that, it was a steady stream of world-class fighters. You mentioned Wilfred Benitez getting a title shot at 17. That was against the famous Kid Pambelé, in Wilfred's 26th pro fight. The great Roberto Duran... he fought the tough Hiroshi Kubayashi in his 26th professional fight, took the title from Ken Buchanan (WBA lightweight) 3 fights later..... and proceeded to fight a veritable "Who's Who" of boxing from there on out.

I looked at Zarate's record, and found it to be lacking in quality of opposition until he fought Alberto Zamora. But by that time Carlos had had 40-some fights. Not criticizing the great Zarate... but IMO he was brought along rather slowly.

That's why I maintain it's not just the numbers on the Win-Loss columns. It's how you're brought along, and who you face on your way up. I've even mentioned Wilfredo Vazquez Jr. Only 20-some fights, and already has faced world-class opposition. Yes, he lost to both Arce and Donaire. But both fights were competitive, and he was actually up on Arce when he got knocked out late in the fight.

Felix Trinidad, my favorite fighter, won the IBF welterweight title against Maurice Blocker in his 20th pro fight. And then proceeded to end a few unbeaten records along the line. Even Oscar de la Hoya, a fighter I was never much a fan of, was fighting very credible opposition by his 20th pro fight.

Bottom line is that the padding of records is one of those things I find deplorable in boxing today. Too much emphasis on undefeated records, I think. And I agree with you... it's typical of the coddled society we live in today. I don't remember so much cherry-picking before.

Originally Posted by IamInuit

I don't really buy the notion that these people a babied because they have no amateur experience. Zarate only had about 30 amateur fights and most Mexican fighters have little or no experience in the amateurs. The same can be said about most Latin American countries as kids turn pro at age 15 and in many cases out of necessity.

Lopez had fewer then 20 and so did Duran

Qawi None
Moore None
Conn None
Manny None
Marciano None
Toney about 30
Foreman just over 20 I think

Good stuff Tfan

Manny (lots) and Marciano both had amateur fights.

Most of those fighters had around 30 fights before getting a "world" title shot, which puts them in the same ball park as the two fighters originally mentioned. Lack of amateur experience/lots of pro fights seems pretty common.

Read post 10. Not only are they not in the same ball park.
They're not even in the same planet.

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Read post 10. Not only are they not in the same ball park.
They're not even in the same planet.

Alvarez had 30+ fights before fighting for a "world" title. Chavez jr 40+ fights.

Moore, Marciano, Conn and Zarate had 40+ plus fights before a "world" title shot.
Foreman had 30+
Duran near 30
Pac 25+
Toney 25+

For sure this era is different, with multi champions, but it shows there's nothing new about fighters having loads of contests before getting to the top. What's the big deal?

Originally Posted by Fenster

Originally Posted by IamInuit

I don't really buy the notion that these people a babied because they have no amateur experience. Zarate only had about 30 amateur fights and most Mexican fighters have little or no experience in the amateurs. The same can be said about most Latin American countries as kids turn pro at age 15 and in many cases out of necessity.

Lopez had fewer then 20 and so did Duran

Qawi None
Moore None
Conn None
Manny None
Marciano None
Toney about 30
Foreman just over 20 I think

Good stuff Tfan

Manny (lots) and Marciano both had amateur fights.

Most of those fighters had around 30 fights before getting a "world" title shot, which puts them in the same ball park as the two fighters originally mentioned. Lack of amateur experience/lots of pro fights seems pretty common.

Forgot about Manny for some reason and must of had a vapour lock and its claimed that Marciano had around 12 but there is some dispute.

Originally Posted by Fenster

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Read post 10. Not only are they not in the same ball park.
They're not even in the same planet.

Alvarez had 30+ fights before fighting for a "world" title. Chavez jr 40+ fights.

Moore, Marciano, Conn and Zarate had 40+ plus fights before a "world" title shot.
Foreman had 30+
Duran near 30
Pac 25+
Toney 25+

For sure this era is different, with multi champions, but it shows there's nothing new about fighters having loads of contests before getting to the top. What's the big deal?

Yes there's a lot of "in-between", but you got your extremes as well. Chavez Jr as you said had 40+ fights before fighting a world-class fighter for a championship. I pointed out other fighters that were fighting world-class opposition before their 20th fight. If nothing else, it supports my point that fighters like JCC Jr are coddled beyond belief... and their W-L record is pretty much meaningless.