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

[JAB5239]

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.

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE=The Gambler1981;4928471]

Whatever, I do not care about your bull**** loaded question.

Look in the mirror, it will be faster~.

Lmao!!! is somebody getting pissy? Maybe you should take that nap after all!

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE=cortdawg25;4928499]

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.

[Smash]

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.

[The Gambler1981]

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 bull**** 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.

[The Gambler1981]

[QUOTE=JAB5239;4928521]

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.

[JAB5239]

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 bull**** 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.

[andrewcuff]

Jeff Lacy is a better example because he was actually thought of as a decent fighter. He gets **** on after the fact though right?

Lacy (a good fighter that held a strap at one point) has more in common with most Mayweather opponents then Pudwill (a never was).

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.

[The Gambler1981]

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.

[Smash]

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

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