Is it OK To Give Fighters Credit On Their Resume When robbed?

[IronDanHamza]

Sounds like in your opinion, resume is who you beat, to me it's who you fought.

If you were a supervisor at a failing company, on your resume when you put supervisor history, you are correct.

Would you put a job that you applied for and didn't get on your resume?

Because that's pretty much the same as putting a fighter you lost to on your resume.

[D4thincarnation]

Thoughts on this?

I was always kind of on the fence about it but I can't help but give credit to Lewis in the first Holyfield fight, and to Marquez in the 3rd Pacquiao fight.

Yeah it is ok.

I give credit to fighters that lose valiantly, or for even taking on a tough fight. And just doing better that expected.

[MonsieurGeorges]

Kind of a pointless question to ask, you just have to know. A ten year old girl who has never seen a fight could read boxrec and understand the Ls and Ws

what I'm saying, when a "robbery" occurs it's "OK" to give WHOever credit for WHATever, but you will have to back it up against other knowledgable fans so it had better add up

[MonsieurGeorges]

Sounds like in your opinion, resume is who you beat, to me it's who you fought.

If you were a supervisor at a failing company, on your resume when you put supervisor history, you are correct.

It's both those things and more, it is well known Ali is considered the greatest fighter of all time mostly because he was the most culturally significant fighter in memory or possibly in history. He was a hell of a fighter sure, but like Dempsey and Sullivan he was an icon. It is hard to say his resume is just a list of wins and losses, it does not tell the story of his career

But then you have to think about the balance of all these elements. If so many things contribute to resume, who you beat, who you competed against, amateur career or straight to pro, longevity, undefeated streaks, etc. , you can see why it is often hard to compare "resumes" and it usually ends in argument. I think you have to know the fighter AND the fighters on his record plus the narrative of his career

[TBear]

Starting a thread about the Pacquiao-Marquez decision now? There have been many controversial decisions since and yet the OP keeps bringing us back to last year and Manny Pacquiao. Definitely an agenda here!

[Bushbaby]

Would you put a job that you applied for and didn't get on your resume?

Because that's pretty much the same as putting a fighter you lost to on your resume.

No, not to me. Like I said If you were a supervisor at a failing company & you put supervisor down on your resume, it is accurate. I don't even see how applying for a job made this way into your comparison, but to each his own.

It's both those things and more, it is well known Ali is considered the greatest fighter of all time mostly because he was the most culturally significant fighter in memory or possibly in history. He was a hell of a fighter sure, but like Dempsey and Sullivan he was an icon. It is hard to say his resume is just a list of wins and losses, it does not tell the story of his career

But then you have to think about the balance of all these elements. If so many things contribute to resume, who you beat, who you competed against, amateur career or straight to pro, longevity, undefeated streaks, etc. , you can see why it is often hard to compare "resumes" and it usually ends in argument. I think you have to know the fighter AND the fighters on his record plus the narrative of his career

Fabulous post my good man!!

[IronDanHamza]

No, not to me. Like I said If you were a supervisor at a failing company & you put supervisor down on your resume, it is accurate. I don't even see how applying for a job made this way into your comparison, but to each his own.

Because a failed application is the same as a fight you fail to win.

Neither belong on your resume.

Seems more logical a comparison to being a supervisor at a failing company considering you have to be originally hired to gain that kind of job.

When you fail to win a fight, it's essentially the same as failing to be hired for the job you're looking to attain.

And again, neither belong on your resume.

[boliodogs]

Sure it's OK. You are the one judging them so you should go by what you think, not by what the judges say.In my world when I am rating fighters, I am the king. However I scored the fight is all I go by. I know you think Oscar beat Trinidad and I think Trinidad beat Oscar.We both have the right to score any fight the way we see it and rate fighter's resume accordingly. If you think a fighter was robbed then give him the win and ignore the judges.

[JDezi4]

I do, but I think its essentially pointless... People will still say De La Hoya never won any of his big fights despite clearly beating Trinidad, and winning (via majority opinion) the Mosley fight

I think the best we can hope for is that the fans don't consider those victories, and don't list them as "good wins" on their opponent's resumes

If only... :'(

[baCCaT]

Sounds like in your opinion, resume is who you beat, to me it's who you fought.

If you were a supervisor at a failing company, on your resume when you put supervisor history, you are correct.

this.

regardless of the outcome, regardless of the events that transpired during that fight and regardless of when and where the fight took place, if fighter A fought fighter B, both these fighter gets credit on their resume. Now its up to you to put how much quality on that particular resume.