Why is Mayweathers resume so thin compared to other fighters in the last 15 years ?

Yes but its easier to fight and look great against lesser opposition. Hatton was too small and limited to trouble floyd, de la hoya was slowed in 2007. Its not bringing floyd down on purpose, its being realistic. People also point out calzaghes cv is pretty poor too. If you want to be considered a great you need to have a great cv end of story. Floyds is good but nowhere near great :boxing: Sorry fighting baldomir and juddah and beating them well does not make u great, i wana see some future hof'er on there, ie, mosley and cotto (probably i think). Wax those two and then you can have ur greatness, until then no :cool2:

Lol, this is starting to bore me now. I don't understand how you can't see that resume is the key to everything when comparing fighters historicly. Actually I think you do see it but are to stubborn to admit it. Either way I've enjoyed this time. I tired of this a while ago but just continued on, but we have been arguing over nickle and dimes when talking about millions. I never said that a resume was not important or should not be used in comparing fighters. It is a part, I have never said otherwise. I just do not believe it is the most important aspect when discussing a fighter in history, real knowledge is needed for that and therefore the most important to me. It is fine though as it is all subjective anyways so however it is viewed can not really be wrong.

Just pointing out that merely looking good in the ring doesn't suffice if the other fighter isn't noteworthy. A great fighter is someone who tests his skills against other great fighters. Can only fight those who are available to be fought, can only prove your worth against those who actually stepped in the ring with you. Floyd proved enough to me against who he actually fought and how he preformed overall in the ring. He fought a whole host of good/very good/semi great/great (JLC,Chico,Genaro,possibly Oscar or Hatton (like if he beats Pacman), atleast a couple of these guys are great), against a wide array of style and always seemed to have an answer a lesser fighter would have been tripped up a long the way (imo). It is subjective though. To me compared to his peers his resume is fine for this era of fighters, it is really pretty good from top to bottom. You could make a case for it in this era that it is the best (it is all in the eye of the beholder though and kind of depends on the timeframe). If you compare Floyd to some crazy standard of greatness, it is hard to live up to those expectations. Aslong as it is a consistent view it is cool, I just do not like double standards and hypocracy.

What have I said exactly about resume, "it is a good starting point". How many times have I said that, in this thread? I have never said it was not important, or not a key aspect, I just said the information that is applied to the resume is more important, to me. I never said a resume was not needed to needed, to compare fighters I just do not view it as the most important (I do not understand why you even brought up this point, it made little sence in our argument, I said all knowledge about a fighter is important so you ask me to take out a large portion of information in responce?) I told you a long time ago, my point was made and all we were arguing about is semantics. Lol, this is starting to bore me now. I don't understand how you can't see that resume is the key to everything when comparing fighters historicly. Actually I think you do see it but are to stubborn to admit it. Either way I've enjoyed this time.

With the question being why is the resume so thin the answer is this.... When floyd retired at the end of 2007 it was just after mosley and cotto had fought their great fight. Floyd took a look at both these guys and thought, nah dont fancy this, might get KO'ed, im off! Seriously, he saw something he didnt like and did a runner :nana: If floyd had waxed a few of the top welters there would be no argueing about his cv anymore. We would all say ok, hes one of the best and there is no doublt. He may be one of the best but his cv dont back this up, its true and all you die hard floyd fans should see this. If you want to enjoy the reward you got to take the risks imo :cool2:

Ok I can agree with this to a certain degree. But lets say you do decide to undertake this massive research, where would you start. The resume. What have I said exactly about resume, "it is a good starting point". How many times have I said that, in this thread? I have never said it was not important, or not a key aspect, I just said the information that is applied to the resume is more important, to me. I never said a resume was not needed to needed, to compare fighters I just do not view it as the most important (I do not understand why you even brought up this point, it made little sence in our argument, I said all knowledge about a fighter is important so you ask me to take out a large portion of information in responce?) I told you a long time ago, my point was made and all we were arguing about is semantics.

If you do not have real knowledge of a fighter, opinions that are formed on faux gauzi knowledge hold no real weight, which is what I would call an opinion that is formed mostly based on a resume. What I said in that post is not new though, that has been my point all along. I do not understand how you did not get that. And my point ALL ALONG has been, without a list of fighters a fighter has fought, a resume, you can't know his history. If you've watched a fighter fight someone you've seen him fight someone on his resume. If you don't know who a fighter is and need information on him to compare to other fighters, you start with his resume. I don't understand how you don't get that. All all time great comparision lists are basically bullshit unless massive research is done and even then it is massively subjective (P4P, in a single weight class they are a little easier to do and is much more apple to apple comparison). It is pssoible to come up with a top 100, but listing it 1-100 is no doable (imo), it can possibly get broken into tiers but actually listing in order is to much. Ok I can agree with this to a certain degree. But lets say you do decide to undertake this massive research, where would you start. The resume.

Lmao!!! is somebody getting pissy? Maybe you should take that nap after all! Not really, although it is tiresome to constantly type the same thing since you do not get what I am talking about. If that is what you need to think, go right ahead though I will not stop you.

You may be right about this, but its still done all the time and an integral part of figuring out who's place is who's throughout boxing history. It not perfect, but its all we have. As I've already stated....resume's are not the end all, ut are the most important thing when comparing fighters. Without them comparisons cannot be made. If you do not have real knowledge of a fighter, opinions that are formed on faux gauzi knowledge hold no real weight, which is what I would call an opinion that is formed mostly based on a resume. What I said in that post is not new though, that has been my point all along. I do not understand how you did not get that. All all time great comparision lists are basically bullshit unless massive research is done and even then it is massively subjective (P4P, in a single weight class they are a little easier to do and is much more apple to apple comparison). It is pssoible to come up with a top 100, but listing it 1-100 is no doable (imo), it can possibly get broken into tiers but actually listing in order is to much.

I like floyd but his cv is not particularly great. How many future hof'ers has he got on his cv (prime or not) It could be argued that the only one is de la hoya, and when he fought him he was past his best. Hatton is ok, baldomir has 13 ko's, 12 loses and 6 draws. Juddah has lost all his big fights. Corrales is a good win, but not wow. Who else is there? Its a pretty decent cv up to welterweight, but he never actually fought any top welter when he got there. Its a strange one but he must not be in any way interested in his legacy. If he did he would have fought say a mosley and cotto regardless of anything else. Just to have them on the cv. But he retired. Oh well thats floyd hes rich, hes still pretty and well hes gone. Pity really. :cool2:

look man, everything in a fighters resume is subjective...it's conditional too. Just asks yourself what makes a fighters resume good. Other good fighters right. Then what made those good fighters good fighters. And it goes on an on. That is what grustler is saying when he says subjective. It depends on what fighters you value. If you want to really compare fighters, then u compare accomplishments like 5 division champ, undefeated fighter thru the ranks. Top fighter of his generation, # of title fights, things like that. Historicly can you or can you not compare two fighters and their place in history WITHOUT their resumes? If you can't, resume is the most important factor when starting a comparison. That is my point.

Whatever, I do not care about your bullshit loaded question. Look in the mirror, it will be faster~. Lmao!!! is somebody getting pissy? Maybe you should take that nap after all!

If you have true knowledge about a fighter you do not need a resume because all the stuff that a resume includes would be invovled in that comprehensive knowledge. Ok, now we're getting somewhere!! If you have comprehensive knowledge of a fighters opponents than you have a comprehensive knowledge of what? Go ahead...don't be shy, just shout out the answer if you know it!! If you watch the fights, know the results first hand you can come to a much more complete conclusion about a fighter then just the list of names and numebers on a resume. Knowledge is the key factor to me, sorry that we will never agree~. And what happens when you can't watch every fighter or know about every fighter? Thats right, you need resumes to gain information. You'll learn a little something today whether you want to admit it or not. Talking and comparing across era is a flawed idea anyways, it implies everything is equal when there are vast differences in the way the game was played (both inside and outside the ring). You may be right about this, but its still done all the time and an integral part of figuring out who's place is who's throughout boxing history. It not perfect, but its all we have. As I've already stated....resume's are not the end all, ut are the most important thing when comparing fighters. Without them comparisons cannot be made.

"i ask you....for the upteenth time....how do you guage one fighter against another without resumes?" can you answer this question or not? No matter what you do when comparing fighters, you need their resumes. That is why it is the most important factor when comparing different fighters. If you have nothing to build upon, how can you even begin to make a historical comparison? Game over. look man, everything in a fighters resume is subjective...it's conditional too. Just asks yourself what makes a fighters resume good. Other good fighters right. Then what made those good fighters good fighters. And it goes on an on. That is what grustler is saying when he says subjective. It depends on what fighters you value. If you want to really compare fighters, then u compare accomplishments like 5 division champ, undefeated fighter thru the ranks. Top fighter of his generation, # of title fights, things like that.

Ok, so you should be able to answer the question from my previous post with no problem then. I'll be waiting, and we'll find out who the real fool is. Tick tock, tick tock.......hurry up!! Whatever, I do not care about your bullshit loaded question. Look in the mirror, it will be faster~.

If you have true knowledge about a fighter you do not need a resume because all the stuff that a resume includes would be invovled in that comprehensive knowledge. If you watch the fights, know the results first hand you can come to a much more complete conclusion about a fighter then just the list of names and numebers on a resume. Knowledge is the key factor to me, sorry that we will never agree~. Talking and comparing across era is a flawed idea anyways, it implies everything is equal when there are vast differences in the way the game was played (both inside and outside the ring).

It does not matter, it can be a key factor but that does not mean it is the most important. If you think that is the point, whatever you are ever more of a fool then I thought. Ok, so you should be able to answer the question from my previous post with no problem then. I'll be waiting, and we'll find out who the real fool is. Tick tock, tick tock.......hurry up!!

"I ask you....for the upteenth time....how do you guage one fighter against another without resumes?" Can you answer this question or not? No matter what you do when comparing fighters, you NEED their resumes. THAT is why it is the most important factor when comparing different fighters. If you have nothing to build upon, how can you even begin to make a historical comparison? Game over. It does not matter, it can be a key factor but that does not mean it is the most important. If you think that is the point, whatever you are ever more of a fool then I thought.

I never said I looked at fighters without resumes, so I do not see why that is important point. I have said since the start, that is it a good start. It is not the most important part though, it is one of the key parts, but without the knowledge it is just a list of names and numbers. "I ask you....for the upteenth time....how do you guage one fighter against another without resumes?" Can you answer this question or not? No matter what you do when comparing fighters, you NEED their resumes. THAT is why it is the most important factor when comparing different fighters. If you have nothing to build upon, how can you even begin to make a historical comparison? Game over.

And like I said, you're obviously the expert in that department. I never said I looked at fighters without resumes, so I do not see why that is important point. I have said since the start, that is it a good start. It is not the most important part though, it is one of the key parts, but without the knowledge it is just a list of names and numbers. Continue on thinking you actually have a point on this matter with me, I have told you why I think the way I do, I do not care to try and change your views but your views are that of a foolish man, who can only look at things in some black and white view. Whatever though it is subjective, so even if I think your views are flawed (I never called you wrong, like you did to my views) I can only point out why I think those views are flawed. There is no right or wrong, and that is why I find this whole thing laughable and think you are a fool.