What is resume?

[[T][B][E]]

so if resume is legacy then lets include things fighters have done outside the ring as part of their resume?!!!?

so ali's exceptional contribution to raising the popularity of the sport is part of his resume?

I never said resume is legacy. u tripping. lol

[AVDB]

so if resume is legacy then lets include things fighters have done outside the ring as part of their resume?!!!?

so ali's exceptional contribution to raising the popularity of the sport is part of his resume?

Just what I think..

Resume: everything you've done in the ring
Legacy: everything you've done inside and outside the ring

[[T][B][E]]

Just what I think..

Resume: everything you've done in the ring
Legacy: everything you've done inside and outside the ring

I agree, Everything. and not just things to highlight "how good a fighter is"

[Grimgash]

im asking what makes a resume so when someone asks you who has a better resume you say a certain fighter based on either:

- wins if you think thats what a resume is
- all fights if you think thats what it is

It's wins...then you make slight exceptions for controversial losses. I.E. I don't give Pac credit for losing to Bradley, but I don't really give Bradley credit for beating Pac. Cotto for instance doesn't have a great resume as some people say. Tough guy and takes tough fights, but not a "great" fighter. When talking resume in terms of who's better, you go almost solely on wins and when. Controversial losses or close fights, do get some acknowledgement though.

[AVDB]

It's wins...then you make slight exceptions for controversial losses. I.E. I don't give Pac credit for losing to Bradley, but I don't really give Bradley credit for beating Pac. Cotto for instance doesn't have a great resume as some people say. Tough guy and takes tough fights, but not a "great" fighter. When talking resume in terms of who's better, you go almost solely on wins and when. Controversial losses or close fights, do get some acknowledgement though.

A resume is your entire body of work. That includes the events that don't shine as brightly. Otherwise it's just highlights

[Grimgash]

A resume is your entire body of work. That includes the events that don't shine as brightly. Otherwise it's just highlights

A resume is, but when discussing who has a better one....it's not. It depends HOW you want to define it and how it's being used. A resume is the entire body of work....when talking about who's on his resume....but when discussing is his resume good...it changes.

[WilkinsOlajuwon]

This is all pretty much splitting hairs. Fighters are judged on many things.

However, traditionally the term resume has referred to a fighters body of work, not ppv and ratings...because well, quite simply, not every fighter has the luxury of fighting on PPV.

When rankings/p4p lists are put together, PPV and ratings are not a factor.

[marvelousmatt]

- just wins

- wins and controversial losses which should have been wins (e.g. pacquaio-bradley)

- wins, controversial losses and "special losses" (losses vs great fighters in close or epic fights)

- all fights

A resume by definition is a complete body of work.

[techliam]

A resume is whatever your angle of agenda is...

However, I do pose the question - why shouldn't all fights be included as part of a resume? There's merits in each win, loss or draw that you can draw from.

Don't be simple minded and offer the Boone example again, you are taking it out of context. In my view, Boone's resume shows he's a really good gatekeeper and trouble for any top fighter, albeit he has lost many of them. Ignoring things just because they are labelled a loss is limiting your scope.

[jas]

I'm talking about resume when you compare fighters....