Do losses count as part of your resume?

[dans]

If you put in a good performance and it was close/robbery then yes it should count.
But those fights should not be the fights that you are remembered for, for example Vitali is best known for losing to Lewis, Kessler for Calzaghe etc.
Not to say they are bad fighters, but they need to beef up their resumes.

Great point Joe.

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

Not to me. Resume is not who you fought, it's who you beat.

Level of opposition = who you fought

Sorry man but you are wrong. In boxing all the time you will hear the announcer say things like "His resume is better, he's fought better opposition".

I understand your point though and you are right to a certain extent but if you are a fighter like Cintron for example, you can put those names like Margarito and Angulo in the same context because they are bigger names.

Even though he lost to marg twice, he still can use him as a resume because it's a major step up in competition.

It's like JMM. He fought some huge names and lost some close fights but when you look at his RESUME, you will not dismiss those names because he lost.

DLH is another prime example of it. IMO he beat Trinidad and Mosley II, that's why he gets so much credit because he fought everyone of his time. It's his RESUME....

[DrewWoodside]

I agree with both of you I'm just saying that you cannot just say for instance "JMM has Floyd Mayweather on his resume, so it's better than _____________ (insert fighter's name)."

No I wouldn't count that for much cause he didn't come near winning the fight or hurt Mayweather at any point. Although, I think Marquez lasting the distance against one of the best P4P fighters in boxing when he's a naturally smaller fighter is still an achievement. Marquez lasting distance against an ATG who is currently 2 divisions larger than him is more impressive than for instance most of fellow lightweight Edwin Valero's early knockout victories. The context of wins and losses is vital. It's not black & white(and I'm not saying you believe it is) win = good, loss = bad.

[dans]

Sorry man but you are wrong. In boxing all the time you will hear the announcer say things like "His resume is better, he's fought better opposition".

I understand your point though and you are right to a certain extent but if you are a fighter like Cintron for example, you can put those names like Margarito and Angulo in the same context because they are bigger names.

Even though he lost to marg twice, he still can use him as a resume because it's a major step up in competition.

It's like JMM. He fought some huge names and lost some close fights but when you look at his RESUME, you will not dismiss those names because he lost.

DLH is another prime example of it. IMO he beat Trinidad and Mosley II, that's why he gets so much credit because he fought everyone of his time. It's his RESUME....

I respectfully disagree. To me, level of opposition and resume are two totally different things. Not that one is that much more important than the other, just different.

[Ch@mpBox@PR]

Not to me. Resume is not who you fought, it's who you beat.

Level of opposition = who you fought

Does this make sense to you?


Level of opposition is who you fought? huh? More like the quality of opposition, not just who you fought.

Like I told you, Resume is teh presentation of who you fought. Its like when you have to present a resume for a job. You dont ommit certain job because you got fired and in the other the contract simple finished. OR you dont put a bachelors degree you have from texas tech, but ommit a associates degree you had in a comunity college just because it was a comunity collage.

Its the same thing with boxing resumes. Its the presentation of who you fought, whether you lost or won!!!

[dans]

No I wouldn't count that for much cause he didn't come near winning the fight or hurt Mayweather at any point. Although, I think Marquez lasting the distance against one of the best P4P fighters in boxing when he's a naturally smaller fighter is still an achievement. Marquez lasting distance against an ATG who is currently 2 divisions larger than him is more impressive than for instance most of fellow lightweight Edwin Valero's early knockout victories. The context of wins and losses is vital. It's not black & white(and I'm not saying you believe it is) win = good, loss = bad.

Right, Marquez has fought great levels of opposition, and that's not to be discounted. But when it comes time to rank him in 20 years, and we're comparing resumes, how much does a loss really count?

[The Gambler1981]

Why do loses not count negatively against a fighters resume? I understand if it is a tough loss, or a bad decision or even made a great showing in defeat there can be many mitigating factors in a loss that could lessen the negativity. Wins are a positive outcome of a fight and loses are the negative outcome they should be treated as such.

Some people make to much about one lose but loses do matter on a fighters dossier.

[Ch@mpBox@PR]

I respectfully disagree. To me, level of opposition and resume are two totally different things. Not that one is that much more important than the other, just different.

And what the **** we are trying to say?

[dans]

Does this make sense to you?


Level of opposition is who you fought? huh? More like the quality of opposition, not just who you fought.

Like I told you, Resume is teh presentation of who you fought. Its like when you have to present a resume for a job. You dont ommit certain job because you got fired and in the other the contract simple finished. OR you dont put a bachelors degree you have from texas tech, but ommit a associates degree you had in a comunity college just because it was a comunity collage.
Its the same thing with boxing resumes. Its the presentation of who you fought, whether you lost or won!!!

I do.

[Ch@mpBox@PR]

I do.

Oh meng!!!!