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

For me too.

 

Thank you! Idk why that took you 3 days and 2 threads to answer! Resume and p4p rankings are NOT the same. One is subjective, the other is primarily just facts.

So when you asked me about Floyd's p4p ranking, that was a separate topic from how deep his resume is. See how we've come full circle?

No I wasn't deflecting from those claims. I still say it's possible to argue for some of those boxers to have deeper resumes, but we must first agree on what depth means.

You didn't educate me on anything other than how petty, stubborn, and vindictive you are despite being more than half a decade older.

The manly thing to do would've been to answer my questions the first time, not 3 days, 5 pages, and 2 threads later. There is absolutely nothing you can teach me about manhood given your track record. Now, once we can hash things out in regards to the resume/p4p debate, we can get into Floyd vs Calzaghe. I'm not interested in jumping between 4 different topics, that's a feminine way of speaking.

 

I never said resume and p4p were the same thing. Talk about a strawman!

I said my all time p4p rankings are based on resume. Which, as is the case with IK and George, they are.

Do you still think a credible argument can be made for Calzaghe having a deeper resume than Mayweather? Use whatever definition of resume you like to support your argument.

 

A P4P ranking to me, is what you would call a fighter's placement if you were to rank every fighter from all the divisions with one another, and put them in order of best to worst.

The reason I say this is the same thing, is because where I rank a fighter, is about 95% based on resume. The remaining, arbitrary 5%, is the other stuff I mentioned in my previous post.

A boxer gets to my P4P #1, by having the best resume. When I say, Harry Greb is my P4P #1, that sentence could also mean, I think Harry Greb has the best resume in boxing history.

The resume is objective; the names on it are fact, but it's worth is subjective.

 

I agree with every word George.

Whilst it's represented disingenuously in the poll options, here's what I actually posted when discussing all time p4p rankings:

"the respective qualities of fighters resumes = how they rank relative to one another".

 

1) if you never said that, why on earth didn't you simply say no when I asked you to clarify if that was your stance?

2) everyone on the planet bases their p4p list off of resume, but that's obviously not the ONLY criteria for coming up with a p4p list.

3) Sure. It's not a very strong argument, but an argument nonetheless.

If we compare elite wins based on the context of the fighters at the time (age, recent wins, ranking, etc) Calzaghe loos pretty good lined up against Floyd.

Calzaghe elite opponents:

A level
Roy: the context here is that Roy was coming off 3 good wins, including a convincing decision over Trinidad. While Roy was past his prime, so was Calzaghe so that cancels things out a bit. Roy was ranked in 3 different divisions as well.
Hopkins: Hopkins had just beaten Tarver and Wright, 2 very notable world class fighters. Hopkins was the #4 ranked p4p fighter at the time. Hopkins had several impressive title defenses prior to facing Calzaghe and was a truly elite veteran fighter.

If we're sticking just to facts and statistics, these are both very impressive A class wins.

B level
Kessler: Undefeated, prime, WBA and WBC champion.
Lacy: Undefeated, prime, IBF super middle champ.


Floyd elite opponents

A level:
Pacquiao: Pac was the #3 p4p fighter, WBO champ, and had previously won titles in 7 other divisions. While on paper this is a very impressive win, and Floyd won very convincingly, there are a few asterisks* due to the combination of both Pac's athletic decline and the shoulder injury debacle.
Oscar: super welter ring champ, former 6 division champ. again, we are talking about a fighter whose past his athletic prime who lost 2 of his last 4. Despite this, he pushed Floyd to a split decision which is disputed to this day.

B level:

Cotto: Cotto was a very good fighter with a great jab, good fundamentals, combinations, etc. He pushed Floyd harder than almost anyone and was the WBC super welter champ.
Canelo: a very big, strong, young undefeated fighter. This is a sensational win somewhat comparable to Foreman vs Moore due to the age difference. However, Canelo did not have a whole lot of elite experience at the time.
Mosley: ranked #3 on p4p lists, Mosley was still a very good fighter, but past his athletic prime at 38 and a little gunshy.
Maidana: Floyd twice defeated the relentless, hard hitting Argentinan slugger who has recently won a belt against an undefeated ranked Broner. However, the first fight was a pretty rough and close affair and Floyd won by MD.
Marquez: Marquez was the #2 p4p fighter, but pretty undersized. On paper this is impressive, but there are some asterisks since Marquez has never fought north of 135 before and was undersized. What made this worse was Floyd was a little overweight.
Hatton: skilled, hard hitting, undefeated fighter. Good win.

Now we come back full circle to my original point: Floyd had lots of quantity (a high number of good wins over good/ranked names) but lacks in quality over elite opponents when you look at the context of the fights when they happened.

I'm not even saying it's a 100% fact Calzaghe's resume against elite opponents has more depth, but doing a side by side comparison you can see Floyd's resume has more issues. He barely squeezed past Oscar, and he beat an injured past his prime Pac for A level opposition. He had a good number of B level opponents he beat convincingly, but some of them have issues as well. Calzaghe's A level opponents (Roy and Hopkins) has less major asterisks and he won more convincingly against them than Floyd did against Oscar. On the other hand, Floyd's B level opposition is overall better than Calzaghe who doesn't have much outside of Kessler and Lacy.

Obviously Mayweather has the better resume OVERALL compared to Calzaghe, we're just talking about elite wins on paper (depth).

@Journeyman92

 

1. I explained my position to you very clearly on multiple occasions. If I did say resume = p4p, why don't you quote me?

2. I said my all time P4P rankings are based on resume, rather than predicted H2H outcomes, and stand by this.

3. This is the most pitiful argument I've read on this site, classic and general. The "can Calzaghe’s resume be credibly argued as deeper than Mayweather's" thread is currently 2 vs 29 in favour of no. The words "laughable" and "embarrassing" have been posted and not be me.

 

p4p has an "in the now" element that resume does not. Some wins age better than others, and some pound-for-pound 'huge fights' end up looking a bit lackluster in retrospect when you consider a fighter's resume overall.

 

what a mess

 

What evidence is there to suggest Roy was still world class when he faced Calzaghe. I don't think he ever beat a top 10 opponent post Tarver

 

The Lacy win must have been his best after Tarver, but I don't know if Lacy was ranked then.

But does the poster that disparage Floyd's win over Pac put forth Calzaghe's win over RJJ as some sort of a special achievement? Roy was beaten by everyone with a pulse at that stage, while Pac would beat Bradley in his next fight and Thurman four years later.

 

His justification for saying a credible argument can be made for Calzaghe's resume being deeper than Mayweather's, seems to centre on a view that Calzaghe's win over RJJ is of higher quality than Mayweather's over Pacquiao and ODLH, when viewed in "context", yes.

 

Sure there's some subjectivity about resume. Do you think a fighter really won/lost the fight for starters? Fortunately, I don't see anyone giving Holy props for holding peak Lewis to a draw at that stage in his career. And Ali's late wins over Young and Norton in the rubber are more often held against him than the reverse. Had Holy actually given Lewis a super close fight and Ali conclusively beat Young and Norton, these would certainly be plusses for them considering where they were at when they had those fights.

Another thing is how heavily you weight losses when a fighter is past his best and/or above his best weight. And of course what you think the conditions of their opponents were in their big wins. Some don't give Jones much credit for the win over Toney for example because they think Toney was in poor shape, and others don't make much out of Jones's losses post Tarver 1 since they don't think Roy was the same at stage.

But overall I personally think that resume gives the best picture. What's the point in guessing how someone would have done against guys in different eras and/or different weight classes when we get predictions about fights that actually take place in the same era at the same weight wrong all the time?

 

What the **** is happening?

 

The post in question is on page 2 of this thread.

It is getting rather bizarre now.