Why do fighters that retired undefeated get **** all over?

No, you didn't prove I contradicted myself at all. This is a matter of reading comprehension that you are failing at.

Somehow you missed the half a dozen times when I explicitly stated knowing the context during which fighter A beat fighter B is important when evaluating a resume. Are you going to lie and pretend I never said this? Because that was one of the first things I said when you replied to me.

Part of the context of a resume is knowing, for example, that Pacquiao was past his athletic prime when Floyd beat him. That is not a matter of opinion, it's an observable, irrefutable fact. If you go back to my older posts, I also EXPLICITLY mentioned this.

Furthermore, I did not set out a specific criteria on how you add up each of these stats/raw numbers to determine whose greater. Case in point:

Adrian Broner won titles in more weight classes than Andre Ward. Does Broner have a better resume than Andre Ward? Of course not. So Floyd winning more titles in more weight classes than Ward wouldn't automatically prove he has a deeper resume.

"Winning the most fights" is also flawed. That simply proves longevity, not necessarily greatness. Without context, this doesn't mean ****. It's like me saying I'm a better ladies man because I've been with 5x more women than you have, and you find out 90% of the women I've been with are morbidly obese, ugly, triple chinned single moms with missing teeth.

"Number of ranked contenders beaten"--again, we have to look at context. Case in point: Arreola and Norton both ranked #1, are these equal wins? You ignored this example as well, and basically any that challenged your understanding of the word depth.

Lastly, do you know what "could be argued" means? It's a qualifier. It also doesn't mean I am 100% emphatically stating the following/previous claim is a fact with no room for debate.

You have once again made it incredibly obvious you are more interested in catching me in a gotcha moment than having an actual discussion. We have gone back and forth 7x without ACTUALLY discussing the merits of Floyd's resume (the real topic at hand). You don't need to say it, your actions show it. I am not interested in a pissing contest where you want to try and outwit me just for the sake of outwitting me with no end goal in sight. That's for children and I expect better from you in the future.

Resumes aren't subjective at all, they are simply facts. But thank you for FINALLY admitting that a fighter's resume is different from where he stands on a p4p lists after I asked you about 7x. A ****ing resume is what you've ACTUALLY done. Did you win a championship, or not? Did you beat him, or not? Did you compete at light heavyweight, or not?

And yes, depth literally suggest looking at the proper context of the resume. You're silly for thinking otherwise. The word depth has everything to do with going past the surface.

 

Describing a resume, you said "pure stats with zero opinions whatsoever".

Pacquiao being the Ring's p4p #2 is a fact. A statistic. Is Pacquiao being sufficiently past his best that he was no longer the 2nd best fighter in the world relative to size, a statistic or an opinion?

In my opinion the Pac that fought Mayweather was no longer a top 2 p4p fighter in the world. My interpertation of resume makes allowance for this opinion. Your definition of resume very clearly doesn't.

For the fourth time, and you really are ducking this question, were you being facetious when you said that you could argue Calzaghe as having a deeper resume than Mayweather?

You want to discuss the merits of Floyd's resume depth relative to Ward, Marciano, Calzaghe or Lopez? Great! That's EXACTLY what I want us both to do. I've compared Mayweather's and Lopez's combined top 10 wins on this thread. You're yet to argue for the relative merits of the depth of Marciano's, Ward's, Calzaghe's or Lopez's resume.

So, here's a challenge I guarantee you will duck - can you back up your claims by making an argument that either Marciano, Ward, Calzaghe or Lopez have a deeper resume than Mayweather? I appreciate you didn't definitively say they did, just that it can be argued. If it can be argued credibly, surely you can argue it?

Furthermore, can you please do so using YOUR definition of resume as "stats with no opinions whatsoever"?

If, for whatever reason, you're not up to the challenge, please confirm which of them you think can be argued as having deeper resumes, by your definition of resume, and I will reply by comparing the relative merits of the depth of their resumes from a purely statistical basis. I'm a sufficiently sad boxing anorak that I already possess those stats, so it won't take me long.