a fighter's Resume.
Posted many times but Floyd's reasoning sums up the "no excuses" thread I had a while back.
I think he is right and wrong. Wrong to count it against a fighter in his Prime/at his best but right in that a fighter's career is based on decisions made. So even if a fighter loses past his best that counts as far as decision making for their career.
However, when we start to rank a fighter based on how good they were, do we draw the line at their best or overall career?
Maybe different lists.
Not really sure myself and there is so much to debate about this topic.