On the fly adjustments, and style alterations.

Even granting such a shallow definition of "resume"... The persons you were reacting to aren't exactly the sort without the requisite knowledge of boxers' styles, strengths and weaknesses... My point was you have to take what they say in the such context: that with such requisite knowledge, a shallow "resume" can be used for distinction; that such knowledge can be used to evaluate the opposition faced, and the mere numbers of a "resume" can be made useful. Cheers. Why I mess with him all the time.

i told you i agree with you on the concept. i agree with your point of view as far as judging fighters. i just don't agree with your definition of resume. Which is fine :luvbed:

I might suggest you take a step back: You are arbitrarily restricting the definition of a resume ("must not exceed one page, must be abstract, etc.) to fit your argument that it is "the refuge of the weak". The point being made originally was that with knowledge of two fighters' styles, strengths and weaknesses, as you require, what might then separate them is "resume": what they have actually done or failed to do with their strengths and weaknesses. A guy with all the talent and skill who accomplishes little will not fare better, HOF/ATG-wise, than a guy with all the accomplishments despite possessing less talent/skill. I disagree with his definition and have found that how people use it is not how he defines it. If he defines it as such and uses it in that way fine, but to me that is not how it is generally used thus what I said at the beginning. If all I knew about a guy was his resumes I would consider my knowledge on the guy to be severely lacking, it might be enough to find out if I want to learn more but I would never base an argument off it.

I have had this exact argument before, which was why I said at the start we were never going to agree. It is fine because you get the concept so however you wish to call it it is no big deal. i told you i agree with you on the concept. i agree with your point of view as far as judging fighters. i just don't agree with your definition of resume.

:lol1: okay. I have had this exact argument before, which was why I said at the start we were never going to agree. It is fine because you get the concept so however you wish to call it it is no big deal.

That is all it is to me, so right there we are never going to agree. Thus why i think resume is not the be all and end all, and will never agree. Disagreements like this only make me feel stronger in my beliefs. :lol1: okay.

i'm not defining it as i wish. i'm telling you what "resume" means when referring to a "fighter's resume". i know it's the same word but a "boxer's resume" is not exactly the same as the resume you turn it applying to a job. it's similar but not exactly the same. like i said you're confusing a boxer's resume with just a list of dates and names. that's not all it is. That is all it is to me, so right there we are never going to agree. Thus why i think resume is not the be all and end all, and will never agree. Disagreements like this only make me feel stronger in my beliefs.

That is the definition of resume. All I am saying is you better know the facts and the story, whatever you want to call it. I find most people don't treat resume as you are saying, but you can define it however you wish. Understand that is also part of the problem though. i'm not defining it as i wish. i'm telling you what "resume" means when referring to a "fighter's resume". i know it's the same word but a "boxer's resume" is not exactly the same as the resume you turn it applying to a job. it's similar but not exactly the same. like i said you're confusing a boxer's resume with just a list of dates and names. that's not all it is.

again , you are confusing a "work resume" you turn in applying for a job to a "boxer's resume" That is the definition of resume. All I am saying is you better know the facts and the story, whatever you want to call it. I find most people don't treat resume as you are saying, but you can define it however you wish. Understand that is also part of the problem though.

Resume's should never be more than 1 page~ To me there are the fact's who won, on what date, where. That is the resume Then there is the story of what happened, that explains the resume. two different things to me. again , you are confusing a "work resume" you turn in applying for a job to a "boxer's resume"

To me that is how resume is used in boxing, and resumes by definition are short and to the point just including facts (names, numbers, dates w/e), if someone can fill in the details they can use it because they know what all those things mean. I would say this all goes into the problem of comparing across era because there is so much to disagree on. are there people who just list dates and fights when talking about resume? of course. that doesn't mean that's what all a resume is. in the context of a boxer's career , a fighter's resume is everything about his career. when the previous posters used the word "resume" , they are not just talking about win-loss records. they're referring to a fighters entire career , story , legacy , etc. oddly enough , they were referring to the same things YOU were.

everything is a short summary. you can write a 300 page book of a boxer's career and it's still a short summary of his story. like i said you're confusing a boxer's resume with boxrec which is just a list of dates and names. Resume's should never be more than 1 page~ To me there are the fact's who won, on what date, where. That is the resume Then there is the story of what happened, that explains the resume. two different things to me.

again you're confusing a boxer's resume with a resume you turn in applying for a job. of course if you're applying for a job , you leave out the negatives because you want to get hired. but a boxer's resume is EVERYTHING. resume as i said before is a short summary of a boxer's career. negative and positive. i'm not disagreeing with you on your views on how you have to know the full story and not just win/loss records. i agree with that. i'm disagreeing with you because you think the term "resume" when it applies to a boxer means just a list of names , dates , wins , etc. To me that is how resume is used in boxing, and resumes by definition are short and to the point just including facts (names, numbers, dates w/e), if someone can fill in the details they can use it because they know what all those things mean. I would say this all goes into the problem of comparing across era because there is so much to disagree on.

I disagree because that is not how it is used in arguments. People never fill in the facts they state names numbers and dates saying very little about what takes place before, during or after. A resume by definition is a short summery not the whole story. I like the whole story I also don't think you can get the full story without seeing/living through the fights first hand. everything is a short summary. you can write a 300 page book of a boxer's career and it's still a short summary of his story. like i said you're confusing a boxer's resume with boxrec which is just a list of dates and names.

agreed. but what you fail to understand is that the full story is part of a boxer's resume. again you are confusing a resume you turn in applying for a job with a boxer's resume. you discussing a boxer's story is you telling a boxer's resume. you're confusing a boxer's resume with a list from boxrec. a boxer's resume is not only a list of just wins and losses and dates and names. I disagree because that is not how it is used in arguments. People never fill in the facts they state names numbers and dates saying very little about what takes place before, during or after. A resume by definition is a short summery not the whole story. I like the whole story I also don't think you can get the full story without seeing/living through the fights first hand.

Yea they are, a resume is what whatever someone needs to explain their point and they almost never include the negatives. Like for example you take some old school guy all you know is the positives and that he fought all these guys who are highly thought of, how can you compare that against a current guy who you have watched and know all the positives and negatives about, it is a shitty way to compare Sorry that is a poor way of looking at it. You don't have to agree because I will never agree with what you are saying I have had this argument before, so I know this ain't going no where fast. again you're confusing a boxer's resume with a resume you turn in applying for a job. of course if you're applying for a job , you leave out the negatives because you want to get hired. but a boxer's resume is EVERYTHING. resume as i said before is a short summary of a boxer's career. negative and positive. i'm not disagreeing with you on your views on how you have to know the full story and not just win/loss records. i agree with that. i'm disagreeing with you because you think the term "resume" when it applies to a boxer means just a list of names , dates , wins , etc.

Unless you know the full story behind everything, it is not the whole story, just some rosy picture someone wants to portray. agreed. but what you fail to understand is that the full story is part of a boxer's resume. again you are confusing a resume you turn in applying for a job with a boxer's resume. you discussing a boxer's story is you telling a boxer's resume. you're confusing a boxer's resume with a list from boxrec. a boxer's resume is not only a list of just wins and losses and dates and names.

Was just winding you up. Joe did make good adjustments though, Kessler fight is probably the best example. Calzaghe has ATG skills there is no denying that. However he had a chance to stamp his legacy since unless he got stopped he would have beat Dawson, Pascal and the others. Too bad. The adjustments he made in alot of his fights were great.

Resume means everything when evaluating a fighter's ranking in history.It's what allows the likes of Harry Greb and Sam Langford to be consistently ranked as highly as they are.If we were to simply rank fighters based on what we've seen on film,then these guys would have been forgotten a very long time ago. Nobody ranks Manny Pacquiao as the best fighter in the sport based on him being a more skilled boxer than Mayweather,that's for sure.

you're thinking of "resume" too much in the context of a "resume" you turn in while applying to a job. and while it is that and a boxer's resume is similar , resume also means a short summary of one's accomplishments and experience or a summary of someone's story. a boxer's resume is not just a list of numbers , dates and names. Yea they are, a resume is what whatever someone needs to explain their point and they almost never include the negatives. Like for example you take some old school guy all you know is the positives and that he fought all these guys who are highly thought of, how can you compare that against a current guy who you have watched and know all the positives and negatives about, it is a shitty way to compare Sorry that is a poor way of looking at it. You don't have to agree because I will never agree with what you are saying I have had this argument before, so I know this ain't going no where fast.