Mosley has a better resume then Floyd because he lost to Winky and Vernon?

[B.U.R.N.E.R]

Ok I will take a lost to Winky and Vernon>A victory over David Diaz and Oscar Larios.

I will take a lost to Winky and Vernon>A win over Bruseles and Ndou

I will take a lost to Winky and Vernon>A win over Mamadou Thiam and Hassine Cherrifi(spelling?)

I will take a lost aginst a guy who has a great chance in beating you>A win against a guy who has zero chance.... That is how I go by when it comes to resume. Not every win is a good win IMO. And, not every lost is a bad lost IMO...

Im not a fan of counting a lost as an achievement.

Emmanuel Burton has a better resume then Calzaghe. I mean afterall he did fight a 135 Pound Maywether.

[Frank Martin]

Ok I will take a lost to Winky and Vernon>A victory over David Diaz and Oscar Larios.

I will take a lost to Winky and Vernon>A win over Bruseles and Ndou

I will take a lost to Winky and Vernon>A win over Mamadou Thiam and Hassine Cherrifi(spelling?)

I will take a lost aginst a guy who has a great chance in beating you>A win against a guy who has zero chance.... That is how I go by when it comes to resume. Not every win is a good win IMO. And, not every lost is a bad lost IMO...

My point.......

[B.U.R.N.E.R]

My point.......

So why does Boxing have a LOSS column?

Why if you lose a fight you gain an L? Or the belt changes hands? Or you drop in the ranks?

Now losses dont matter? I mean hey lets March Oscar up to GOAT status then.

[deliveryman]

Ok I will take a lost to Winky and Vernon>A victory over David Diaz and Oscar Larios.

I will take a lost to Winky and Vernon>A win over Bruseles and Ndou

I will take a lost to Winky and Vernon>A win over Mamadou Thiam and Hassine Cherrifi(spelling?)

I will take a lost aginst a guy who has a great chance in beating you>A win against a guy who has zero chance.... That is how I go by when it comes to resume. Not every win is a good win IMO. And, not every lost is a bad lost IMO...

If you would rather lose than win, well then... to be blunt: you're a loser.

Nothing wrong with that, it's just your mentality.

[B.U.R.N.E.R]

If you would rather lose than win, well then... to be blunt: you're a loser.

I guess Clottey has a better resume then most guys too. I mean he fought Marg and Cotto.

[jrosales13]

....I like using Oscar...

Hernandez
Chavez 1
Chavez 2
Whitaker
Camacho
Quartey
Trinidad
Mosley 1
Mosley 2
Gatti
Vargas
Sturm
Hopkins
Mayorga
Maywether
Pacquiao


I mean ****....lmao.

And, Leonard resume is not better even with his losses? Who has Oscar fought that was as good as Duran?

Then you add Benitez, Hagler, Hearns 2x, Norris, Camacho(and I just threw him in there cuz you threw in guys like Gatti, Vargas, Chavez) Lalonde, Kalule(I threw him in there cuz you threw in guys like Mayorga and Sturm), Duran 3x.... Ray resume is better than Oscar even if you count the losses. Quality>Quantity... Bad example to use for Oscar, I can say Duran resume is over Oscar with losses included, Robinson resume is better with losses included. At least say Oscar resume is the best in the last 20yrs... But, to say ever even with the losses is just blasphemy...

[Frank Martin]

So why does Boxing have a LOSS column?

Why if you lose a fight you gain an L? Or the belt changes hands? Or you drop in the ranks?

Now losses dont matter? I mean hey lets March Oscar up to GOAT status then.

Yes, it can affect the look of the resume. But It DEPENDS on how you win and lose.

You are saying that a fighter with wins less ELITE competition and no loses is better that a fighter with more ELITE competition WINS and LOSE. I didnt say lose only. I said BOTH

[B.U.R.N.E.R]

And, Leonard resume is not better even with his losses? Who has Oscar fought that was as good as Duran?

Then you add Benitez, Hagler, Hearns 2x, Norris, Camacho(and I just threw him in there cuz you threw in guys like Gatti, Vargas, Chavez) Lalonde, Kalule(I threw him in there cuz you threw in guys like Mayorga and Sturm), Duran 3x.... Ray resume is better than Oscar even if you count the losses. Quality>Quantity... Bad example to use for Oscar, I can say Duran resume is over Oscar with losses included, Robinson resume is better with losses included. At least say Oscar resume is the best in the last 20yrs... But, to say ever even with the losses is just blasphemy...

Like I said we can go all day about resumes. I could say Ezzard Charles. I use Oscar cuz everybody is familiar with him.

Burley 1
Burley 2
Maxim 1
Maxim 2
Maxim 3
Maxim 4
Maxim 5
Moore 1
Moore 2
Moore 3
Bivins 1
Bivins 2
Bivins 3
Bivins 4
Walcott 1
Walcott 2
Louis
Marshall 1
Marshall 2
Yarosz
Marciano 1
Marciano 2

[jrosales13]

If you would rather lose than win, well then... to be blunt: you're a loser.

Nothing wrong with that, it's just your mentality.

What holds more water, who gets more credit... Castillo in loosing to Corrales or Berto beating a Mexican cop for a title? Who do you give more credit to?

Is not that you rather lose and is not that is your mentality... Is that not every lost is a bad lost and not every win is a good win...

Another example Calzaghe win over Manfredo bull**** opponent, bull**** stoppage, bull**** victory... Explain how is that a good win?

Miranda goes to Germany fight a top MW, breaks that top MW jaw and losses a close decision. Gave a great acount of himself... How is that a bad lost?

[B.U.R.N.E.R]

Yes, it can affect the look of the resume. But It DEPENDS on how you win and lose.

You are saying that a fighter with wins less ELITE competition and no loses is better that a fighter with more ELITE competition WINS and LOSE. I didnt say lose only. I said BOTH

Im saying it makes no sense to say Shane has a better resume then Floyd because he LOST 4 times to Winky and Vernon which is how all this started. Its a dumb argument. Now if you want to say Oscar ok well fine lets debate it. But when you say because he fought those guys and lost that makes no sense to me.