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

[JAB5239]

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.

[The Gambler1981]

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.

[The Gambler1981]

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.

[Smash]

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

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