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

Calzaghe's win over Roy could be comparable to Floyd's over Judah perhaps, but even though ODLH and Pac was clearly seen as past their best at the time they were still seen as very real challengers and Pac would stay a top 5 fighter at WW for another half decade. That's a bad take.

The idea of Jones beating fighters if the quality of Bradley and Thurman after the Calzaghe fight is... I mean he couldn't and he didn't. He had been done for years when Calzaghe thought it would be good to get him.

 

Seen a lot of Floyd bashing, but that one is definitely on the mount Rushmore for bad Maywather, and Calzaghe, takes.

 

Amongst the worst 4 takes for you, it's the worst I've seen.

 

Involving these fighters, yes. If we include all takes I think I've seen worse ones during my time here ("I've seen things you people wouldn't believe" as I use to say to newcomers here ) but can't recall anyone right now.

There was a legendary one that was pro Floyd, actually. Dubblechin straight up compared Floyd's resume from his mid 30's onwards to Robinson's at the same age. I must have told him about a half a dozen times that SRR had some 150 more fights than Floyd and therefore a looot more mileage, but every time he would just come back asking if I thought Floyd would have lost to some no name fighter that Robinson faced in fight nr 194 when he was even older than Mayweather was when he retired. That was a trip for sure.

 

SRR's resume is deeper than Floyd’s to a roughly similar degree that Mayweather's is deeper than Calzaghe's, so that is some serious competition in the bad take stakes.

 

No, he wasn't. He was in his second retirement and 3 years out of the Ring when he fought Roy, and only had 2 fights in the other 3 years before that second retirement, in one of which he got utterly destroyed in a 12-0 decision by an aging Winky Wright. He was also dragged up all the way up to Light Heavyweight, despite being a career Welterweight, and never entered the Ring again. There is literally zero evidence he was still world class. The Jones fight was a circus act.

This is even worse than Mayweather dragging up Marquez. Marquez was at least an active fighter who would later go on to controversially lose to Pacquiao prior to knocking him dead in their 4th fight, and went on to have a close SD fight with Bradley before retiring. Pacquiao went on to beat Bradley right after, Broner a bit later, and Thurman a full 5 years after Mayweather beat him. The Tito win does not suggest that Roy was a world class fighter because Tito could barely even be called a fighter anymore, whereas Pacquiao is a strong win for Floyd because he was still clearly world class and because Floyd himself was past it.

 

RJJ never beat a top 10 ranked fighter after his loss to Tarver so I disagree he was still world class.

Tito was coming off a long retirement and was fighting 4 weightclasses above his best weight I don't think you can put much stock into that win. Tito had only fought 3 times in 6 years coming into the RJJ fight including an almost 3 year retirement.

 

Trinidad didn't score any wins of note after Mayorga in 2004 that I can recall and faced Roy in 2008. Where is the evidence for him being world class in 2008?

Many had Pacquiao losing the second and third Marquez fights in 2008 and 2011 so that hardly seems like proof he was past it unless you take the position he was already past it in 2008.

He went on to beat Thurman and Bradley subsequently while Roy didn't have any subsequent wins of that quality.

 

Resume is obviously subjective. For a resume to be objective, you would need to objectively rate every opponent on that resume. For each fighter on that resume to be rated objectively you would then need to rate each fighter on their respective resumes objectively. This would carry on practically until infinity and open up infinite can of worms thus rating a fighters resume is just as subjective as rating a fighter themselves P4P. This is logical and irrefutable imo.