Who has a better resume, Mayweather or Pacquiao?

Pacquiao is definitely the greater fighter but H2H i rank Floyd higher

 

Both have good opponents on their record, but the only one that matters when you compare the two is the result of when they both fought each other.

If Pac is that great and Floyd has the W on him, that makes Floyd’s resume better. That’s simply based on them both having good-great fighters on their records but Floyd having the W against and all time great whereas Pac carries that L against one

 

More skilled boxer?

 

But the timing matters. Yes if it was 2009 or 2010. At the time of the win it didnt matter that much.
Yes Floyd was older but had a better style to be better at an older age than Pac.

Imagine it like if Bhop and RJJ never fought and they only had the second fight as an only fight? Would that make Bhop better than RJJ xausw he beat him?
No, cause circumstances matter.

I rate Duran above Leonard for the same reasons despite having a 2-1 record against him.

 

Pacquiao
But Floyd is a better fighter and doesn't have the losses

Manny is the greatest of the era and floyd the best

I have both neck and neck all time
Haters of either fighter should show respect to 2 all time greats, despite what you think of them

Nobody is near their level right now

 

When people ask who has a better resume in boxing, I think for most people that just means "who fought better fighters". But "resume" is more than just who you fought but how you fought in those fights. When we talk about someone's work resume, it's more than just what company they worked for, it's what they did at that company, what positions they had, what they accomplished there, etc.

So when people say Pacquiao had the better resume, I think what they mean is that he fought more great fighters. But he also lost a lot of those fights and got KO'd several times, where Floyd didn't. So even if you think Pacquiao fought better fighters than Floyd, that doesn't necessarily mean he has a better resume. There's a difference between winning all your fights and losing a lot of fights, and getting KO'd.

I mean, getting KO'd on a boxing resume is like failing at a job and getting fired on a work resume. Someone might work for better companies over his career than someone else, but if he did crappy at those companies, if he didn't ever move up within that company, then he doesn't have a better resume than someone else who might not have worked for as prestigious companies, but had a better position with more responsibility or did better at the jobs he did work.

So resume is more than just how good the fighters you fought throughout your career were. How you performed in those fights is a big part of how good your resume is. On the other hand, Pacquiao did have a longer career than Floyd and fought a lot more fights, so that's something to consider to. But merely fighting tougher competition alone doesn't make your resume better. Successes and failures need to be factored in if we're talking about a boxer's resume, and too often when we bring up resume in boxing, it seems to only be about how good your opponents were instead of the bigger picture. Accomplishments are also important. How many belts you won, did you unify a division, etc. There's a lot more that goes into someone's resume than just who you fought.

 

Floyd is the better fighter. Floyd was the perfect blend of talent, skill, and hard work.

 

Floyd wasn't Floyd when canelo fought him. He was 36 and faded.

 

Pbf I factor in wins and loses when I evaluate resumes. If it was just about who you fought then Zab Judah would be an atg.

 

Floyd had the more impressive performances.

Floyd at 130 was one of the best fighters I've ever seen.

 

Wrong! Pbf retired earlier than pac and he was younger. Pac fought until 2021 pbf retired in 2016, pbfs style didn't age better it's an excuse. When they fought a shot pbf schooled the younger pac easily.

People who automatically rank Duran over srl are ridiculous as well. They make excuses for Durans loses and downplay all of srls wins. Srl beat Duran in an immediate rematch, making him quit srl also holds wins over hearns who stopped Duran, Benitez who beat duran and Hagler all who beat Duran. Duran like pac was more well liked by fans so they excuse all their loses while they overhype their succes when both pbf and srl were better more talented and had better careers and resumes. If Duran had srls record and career and srl had his and if pac had pbfs record and career and pbf had Pac's no one here would claim srl was greater than Duran nor would peolpe say pbf was greater than pac, it's a simple popularity contest nothing more.

 

Norton > Ali?

 

Norton lost to Ali 2x.

 

I think this sums it up, perfectly. People will argue semantics but I think most boxing fans would agree with this, as long as they remove their ego/pride.

 

Marquez lost to Pac twice? Those were controversial wins.
Norton had his number stylistically.
No shame in that