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

[The Gambler1981]

Obviously you would be the expert in that department, so you'l get no argument from me on that one. You would know.

Is that the best you could come up with?

[JAB5239]

That is all intrepretation and subjective.

How is knowing a fighter opposistion and how good they were more subjective and open to interpetation than just watch a guy and saying his skills are comparable or better than somebody else? Get real. If you don't know the opposition you cant accurately guage a fighters skills.

That was the question that you were mad about me not answering, LOL are you kidding me.

Mad? Hell, I been laughing at you the whole time son. Who could be mad?

I would rate Duran and Sugar Ray higher, while Pernell is about the same. Those are ****ty examples because I know all those fights, the true argument for using resume is using truly old fighters where there is no footage or even sound recordings exist. Even then I would still view a resume as an incomplete view, it leads to over rating of old time fighters.

Resume goes towards EVERY fighter. It is impossible to make complete judgements without having ALL the information. Resumes give us this information by supling us with who a fighter fought, when, what their record was, who they fought and how good their opponents were. It lets us know what stage of their career they were in and what they accomplished before and after a specific fight.

Still a resume is a starting point not what truly matters, it is fine to use in part but if that is your main basis I believe it leads to a flawed view.

Then WHAT is the main basis when judging a fighters career and how he stacks up historicaly?

[The Gambler1981]

Then WHAT is the main basis when judging a fighters career and how he stacks up historicaly?

The actual fighter themself.


You have made my point though, thanks there is no need to continue~.

[JAB5239]

Is that the best you could come up with?

I figure you've got a few options here. First one,you can go take a nap if you're going to act like a baby. Second, you can just answer the question an debate like a man. Third, you can just quietly back out of this thread and retain some dignity. And last, you can just keep flaming and making an ass of yourself. Whatever yo do is fine by me, Im finding this whole thing amusing.

[The Gambler1981]

I figure you've got a few options here. First one,you can go take a nap if you're going to act like a baby. Second, you can just answer the question an debate like a man. Third, you can just quietly back out of this thread and retain some dignity. And last, you can just keep flaming and making an ass of yourself. Whatever yo do is fine by me, Im finding this whole thing amusing.

Priceless~

[JAB5239]

The actual fighter themself.


You have made my point though, thanks there is no need to continue~.

Really? And how do you judge a fighter if not by who he's fought?

[andrewcuff]

Really? And how do you judge a fighter if not by who he's fought?

I'm guessing he's a Mayweather fan...therefore all fighers must be judged on skills so that Floyd's ATG status is more secure.

[The Gambler1981]

Really? And how do you judge a fighter if not by who he's fought?

That is a part of judging the fighter themself but there is a lot more then just who they fought, how they fought, what positive attributes did they posses, what negative attributes did they posses, and this is just the surface of the matter.

Just looking at a single aspect like resume which to me is a simple assement of who someone fought, if they won or lost and the dates. If extra knowlegde has to be applied, that means the resume is only a guide (or beginning) judging a fighter.

Knowledge of a fighter themself is what is truly importent in rating them~.

[The Gambler1981]

I'm guessing he's a Mayweather fan...therefore all fighers must be judged on skills so that Floyd's ATG status is more secure.

This is not really about that, this is about my overall view of assessing fighters past or present. Whatever though, think whatever you like~.

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE]

That is a part of judging the fighter themself but there is a lot mroe tehn just who they fought, how they fought, what positive attributes did they posses, what negative attributes did they posses, and this is just the surface of the matter.

Just looking at a single aspect like resume whcih to me is a simple assement of who someone fought, if they won or lost and the dates. If extra knowlegde has to be applied, that means the resume is only a guide (or beginning) judging a fighter.

One again you've tried to make it sound like resume i the only thing I look at. Truth be told, it is the foundation of determining how good a fighter is. Wihout a good foundation anything you decide to build on top of it is on shaky ground.

Knowledge of a fighter themself is what is truly importent in rating them~.[/

QUOTE]

Ok. And how canyou have knowledge of a fighter if you don't know how good his opponents were?