Are resumes and p4p ranking the same thing? Are both subjective?

For context, the discussion Glass refers to took place on this thread - https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...retired-undefeated-get-all-over.727413/page-5

The main point of contention is that Glass stated that Rocky Marciano, Andre Ward, Joe Calzaghe and Ricardo Lopez can be argued as having deeper resumes than Floyd Mayweather.

Challenged once on Lopez he doubled down, challenged a 2nd time he said he was being facetious. So I'll leave the Lopez comparison there.

Despite 5 opportunities to retract his position on Calzaghe, he opted not to do so, so I've started this thread - https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...-resume-than-mayweather.727786/#post-23104532 - please take the time to visit & vote.

 

You decided to take our points of contention to a public poll. Remember that as the votes roll in.

 

I haven't voted as the opinions I expressed at represented here. My opinions are:

1) Assessing the depth of a fighters resume is about more than just stats/facts.
2) Ranking fighters p4p all time is based on their resume, not how good I think they are.

If you care to add those two options, which you won't, I'd vote for them.

 

I'm not back pedaling. Below is what I said, verbatim:

"I don't consider resume as "simply facts and stats".

Resume is a boxer's career record, that should be viewed in context. Not just who they beat, but when and how. That's how I assess my all time p4p rankings, based on what happened in the respective fighters careers, in full context. That doesn't mean I don't factor in skill, just that the extent that I factor in skill is limited to what was demonstrated during their entire career, i.e. their resume."

I stand by that. That view isn't reflected in the options in this poll. I've told you in this thread what two viewpoints represent my own and invited you to add them to the options.

 

For me, it's mostly the same.

Resume is who you beat and how good were they at the time. Greatness is that, plus other stuff. Said other stuff, could be, consistency; longevity, or dominance to name a few things. Long title runs, moving up or down in weight, total wins over ranked fighters, etc; are also important. But there's not very many cases where I'd let the other stuff over take the resume. Sure, guys like B-Hop exist where his resume isn't great, but his 'other stuff' is so damn good that the resume itself takes a back seat; but for me, resume and greatness are virtually synonymous.

To make things even plainer, I've never really dropped fighters' all-time ranking due to losses. For me, losses effect how I view them head-to-head instead.

 

Its subjective but objective facts like someones record and the record of their opponents drives the subjectivty. The subjectivity is what impresses you and why but if you dig back far enough theres eventually some pure factual basis there.

Theres 2 ways to approach P4P. One is kind of a champion seniority list a ranking of the champions. The other is trying to discern who you'd think would win if everyone was the same size.

The emergence of tweener divisions and everyone jumping divisions makes P4P feel like an actual weight class because the goal of the sport has gravitated away from being a champion and defending ones belt towards different champions fighting.

 

This question in isolation doesn't make sense. Taken literally, no, I don't think resume and p4p are the same thing. I'd define resume as a fighters career and p4p as relative to size.

As I've said, my all time p4p rankings are based on fighters resumes. I.e. they are limited to their record and my interpretation of it, whilst entirely excluding my predicted outcomes in fights that didn't happen.

This line of argument and this entire thread is an attempt to deflect from your claim that credible arguments could be made that Marciano, Andre Ward, Joe Calzaghe and Ricardo Lopez have deeper resumes than Floyd Mayweather.

When you initially made that claim, you obviously believed it. You've since been educated and now realise you were wrong. There's nothing to be ashamed about that in of itself. It's just you don't have the guts to either admit you were wrong or get in the Calzaghe thread and make the argument you claim could be made.

I'm in your thread accounting for my views. Are you man enough to either own your statement by explaining it or admit you were wrong, in mine?

 

To answer on George's behalf (I'm sure he doesn't mind), I'm almost 100% sure that we have stopped using the P4P term in the sense it was originally used. AKA, we're not comparing fighters's overall fighting abilities and saying who would win between them were they the same size, like they did back in Robinson's era. It was more simple back then, because all they were doing was basically saying ''Hey, we know Joe Louis is awesome, but we also ought to give Robinson his dues too, because he would probably beat him if he was the same size''.

Comparing hundreds of fighters to each other is a whole other story. Pound for pound has now transformed into more of a ''who has the best resume across all divisions/regardless of weight division'' for most people (myself and George included). As for whether or not it's subjective, it is for the most part. The actual resumes are objective on their own, but comparing them and deciding which one is better is a matter of what you value in a resume while adding the proper context (how good a fighter was the night when you beat him etc). Hopkins has fought historically mediocre opposition, but he showed incredible longevity, dominance and made a bunch of title defences, so people tend to look past it and rank him higher than a good deal of Middleweights who beat better fighters, but were less dominant and packed more losses. Others prefer the guys who were less dominant but beat better fighters. So on and so forth.