Better Resume, Shane or Floyd?

[illmaticfighter]

mosley. you don't get credit for not facing people.

mosley has the better legacy defining wins. mosley over oscar and margarito. floyd's are over corrales and castillo.

both have a bunch of good solid wins. mosley over holiday,leija,molina, rivera, collazo, and vargas. floyd over genaro hernandez,chavez, carlos hernandez, hatton, judah, and oscar.

what seperates them is that mosley took on the best even in defeat such as forrest, winky, and cotto while mayweather could have fought guys like freitas, casamayor, margarito, cotto, williams, or pac but didn't. you can't reward mayweather for taking the easy path and not challenging himself.

\


so your opinion counts as a resume???


Imo it's close shane has him edged a bit but floyd can surpass him easily if he wins may 1st.

[Brz_Pugilist]

Dont forget also he never took on Kostya as well at 140.

[SirTomJones]

I am leaning towards Mosley for this one.

[savorduhflavor]

And Here is where you failed. Look at who Mosley lost to, You Think Floyd would have fought Winky at 154? Let alone beating him. He blantantly ducked Cotto and Forrest would have been a tough match.

The point Im making is, that the guys Mosley lost to are better than anybody on floyds resume!!!

But just expecting Floyd to fight Winky at 154 is NOT fair. Floyd has NO business at 154. Shane is bigger and can carry 154 fine.

That's like Cotto beating Foreman and than people giving him **** for not fighting Williams or Kirkland.

You're holding Floyd up to unfair standards.

[Ch@mpBox@PR]

But just expecting Floyd to fight Winky at 154 is NOT fair. Floyd has NO business at 154. Shane is bigger and can carry 154 fine.

That's like Cotto beating Foreman and than people giving him **** for not fighting Williams or Kirkland.

You're holding Floyd up to unfair standards.

So he can fight Oscar but not Winky? **** that. The same goes for Cotto if he beats foreman in convincing fashion, he can face those other guys.

Lets say agree with your post. What about Cotto or forrest?

And that wasnt the point. The point is that the guys Mosley lost to are bettter than anybody on Floyds resume

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

So he can fight Oscar but not Winky? **** that. The same goes for Cotto if he beats foreman in convincing fashion, he can face those other guys.

Lets say agree with your post. What about Cotto or forrest?

And that wasnt the point. The point is that the guys Mosley lost to are bettter than anybody on Floyds resume

So Shane can go through 5 weight classes undefeated?

[Walt Liquor]

We've been over this burner. Resumes consist of:

1) who you've faced and what point it was in their career.
For example, fighting at a weight that is not optimal for you and facing a certified master pfp boxer like winky gets you experience and shows mentL toughness and confidence)
2) your wins and the weight and point in their respective careers. For example, Shane's first win over Oscar>Floyds win over Oscar.
3) quality of performance in wins and losses. For example, Floyd doesn't lose a lot of rounds.

So no, I dont think zab has a better resume than Floyd. Floyd has better wins than zab (not to mention a head to head victory) and Floyd has much better performances in his wins than zab). Zab has fought better comp than Floyd (Floyd, tszyu are bot better fighters than the two best on Floyd's list considering when the fights happened). Now zab got blasted out by kostya so he doesn't get much credit for it. It shows he's not elite.

For the information of the posters that think losses are not on your resume. You must not have very good jobs or know too much about the real world. Your life/work resume consists of all of your experiences. It's what creates your skillset, mindset, confidence in different situations, and judgement. We learn from failures and how you bounce back from them is a very important part of people's mentAl makeup.

[daggum]

Even if you believe the Marg wq be better than Castillo/Corrales, the difference is small. So even giving that away, let's say Mosley has two better wins. It still doesn't make up for 5 losses to 0 losses, considering both have faced top competition for years.

and when has mayweather faced top competition since castillo? gatti, baldomir, hatton, marquez etc are not top competition no matter how hard they market it as such. if mayweather had 0 losses after facing margarito, cotto, williams, pac, tszyu then you could say he is definitely better than mosley but since he didn't do that how can you say he's better than mosley? yea maybe in fantasy fights he would win but since boxing is based on what actually happened he isn't better. what actually happened is mosley beat the better fighters and he lost to some of them in the process. if mosley fought a bunch of adrian stone's and shannan taylor's and still had zero losses you would think he's better than mayweather probably.

[dans]

And Here is where you failed. Look at who Mosley lost to, You Think Floyd would have fought Winky at 154? Let alone beating him. He blantantly ducked Cotto and Forrest would have been a tough match.

The point Im making is, that the guys Mosley lost to are better than anybody on floyds resume!!!

Even if that's the case, which I don't think is entirely true, you can't discount losses for the sake of argument. They exist. Mosley has 5 losses. Floyd has zero.

The difference is opposition is not that great that you could include 5 Mosley losses and still consider his resume better. IMO

[edgarg]

I disagree. He lost to Oscar the 2nd time despite juicing.

Floyd absolutely dominated an undefeated Corrales. He fought a razor thin fight with Castillo(I scored it a draw), immediately rematched him and beat him clear as day.

Undefeated Hatton is a solid win. Oscar at 154 is an underrated win for Floyd IMO.

The Marquez win gets nothing from me.

But Mosley has gotten dominated.....I factor that in to resumes. Some of his losses have been one sided.

One interesting point I seem to recall. That is that in the Mayweather-Castillo fights, the first fight was a good Castillo win, although the scoring widely favoured Mayweather

The second fight, although a clear Mayweather win, had very close scoring.

Strange judging??

In the Oscar-Mosley fights, the first was a very clear win for Mosley, but the scoring was a close split, whilst the second fight was very close yet it was a unanimous Mosley win.

Again, strange judging??