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

Trinidad had been off for almost three years and never fought above MW before. This was a guy who was at his best at WW fighting at 170 lbs in his last fight. He wasn't world class.

 

Ok, the reasons your argument was genuinely the most pitiful ive seen on this site include, but most certainly aren't limited to:

1. You conceded that the 40 year old RJJ was past prime* but say so was the 35 year old Calzaghe, so claimed that "cancels it out". You didn't say the 38 old year Mayweather being past prime vs 36 year old Pacquiao cancels out Pacquiao being passed prime. Double standards and disingenuous.

2. You correctly pointed out that Pacquiao and ODLH were past prime and also referred to RJJ as past prime. *RJJ wasn't merely past prime, he was utterly shot to bits. The RJJ that was ko'd by Tarver and Johnson 4 years earlier was shot. By Calzaghe, shot isn't a strong enough term. Fancy a poll bet on who was furtherst removed from their prime, Pacquiao, ODLH or RJJ?

3. You reference the ODLH fight as being close and debatable without doing the same with Calzaghe's win over Hopkins. A higher proportion of people scored the Calzaghe fight for Hopkins than the Mayweather fight for ODLH. I'm willing to bet you that a fresh poll today would reveal the same. Yet again, double standards and disingenuous.

4. You claim your interpretation of resume depth is about context of quality wins and then cite RJJ for Calzaghe. Embarrassing. Mayweather has more than 10 wins with better "depth" when viewed in context than Calzaghe's over RJJ. Christsake, even Calzaghe has at least 5 higher quality wins than the corpse of RJJ.

Claiming that a credible argument can be made for Calzaghe having a deeper resume than Mayweather was a dreadful take and to be fair to you, left you with no where to go when I eventually succeeded in pressing you into making that argument. But centering that argument on the "depth" of Calzaghe's win over RJJ was, difficult as this is to believe, an even worse decision.

 

There's a measure of subjectivity to these things, which I why we argue them all the time. I mean we argue them now with you. You're calling the Tito who faced RJJ world class and say Ward and Clazaghe had deeper resumes than Mayweather. Almost everyone here think that's bonkers but we do argue.

But in the main I would agree that there often is somewhat at least close to consensus about resumes. Almost everyone thinks Ali and Louis has the two best HW resumes and almost everyone think Floyd has a deeper resume than Calzaghe.

Sure it can. You just include how dominant the wins and losses are and add the context at what stage/in what shape the opponents was. There is subjectivity and guess work to that, but still better than guessing how fighter A would do against fighter B if he was transported fifty years forward in time and made 60 lbs and four inches larger imo.

 

Thank you. We got there eventually.

 

Jeez, I'm almost sorry I kicked all this off....

 

Not at all mate, Glass is a big boy, I read in another thread that's he's a correction officer in a prison so our exchange will be like water off a ducks back to him and he will cope just fine.

I've enjoyed the debate and there are certainly no hard feelings from my side.

Besides, you should be gratified that a consensus agreement has been reached with the original point you made from which the debate evolved.

 

Rankings are super subjective though given blatant ducking. We don't really have enough info to make good top 10 lists at heavyweight post mid 1980s because fighters stopped facing each other. I've found evaluating Lewis difficult because the ratings of so many opponents are basically guesswork.

 

Mayweather's style wasn't affected by his athletic prime as bad as Pacquiao's. This is simply an observable fact, so it's not the same. Everyone knows Pac wasn't the same, but act oblivious if you want. You also ignored how Pac had a shoulder injury.

Oscar himself will tell you how past it he was in interview and again, we can simply review the footage compared to his prime self. The more glaring issue is Mayweather barely won by SD against said past his prime Oscar.

My argument was about "depth" from the beginning you twit. I didn't change any criteria. Anyways, this is is pointless I've already conceded that even factoring in the physical decline of Pac/Oscar, the shoulder injury, and the fact Mayweather needed a SD over an old fighter, Mayweather's resume still has more overall depth than Calzaghe.

 

Best way to handle that is to look at whose been rated across multiple sanctioning bodies with favorable rankings. There's also ring magazine to factor in.

Generally speaking, it's impossible for someone to be genuinely world class with world class wins/ranked opponents on their resume yet they themselves aren't ranked. Likewise, it's rare even today for someone to be in the top 10 with zero credible opponents

 

I don't think that's a strong argument. Floyd's style was reliant on supersharp relfexes, hand and footspeed and a very good engine, all attributes that are demonstrably affected by age, and attrition. I think Floyd's ability to continue utilising these attributes throughout his career is another sign of his grudged greatness. He also preserved these attributes going up and down weights. RJJ ruined himself, and perhaps his legacy, attempting to do the same things.

For what it's worth, I still think Mayweather's resume is rather astonishing without Pac...

 

Resume can become circular logic if you don´t rank ability.... and it can de detrimental to dominant types... Louis suffers from this, if he had a trilogy with Baer or Braddock, we would say Baer and Braddock were greater than we say today... so Louis beatng them easily works against Louis sometimes ! Think about how we rank Schmeling... but Baer and Braddock´s ability should be viewed for what it is !

Also, if you´re a gambler you know this... a worse team can win one game against a better team if they face each other 3, 4 times... it can happen because sports are like that... so, you know...

Resume are the end game, ability comes first IMO, then you can value the resume...

 

That's all I've been trying to get you to concede since you initially made the erroneous claim.

So, from my perspective, I'll leave you alone now, though I'm happy to debate further on any points you wish.

Either way, genuinely no hard feelings from me, despite the personal insult.

 

Class, pure class, would that all members acted in such a benevolent fashion.

 

Things would've gone smoother had he answered my questions and stayed on topic.

 

I answered your questions very clearly.

I explained to you that my p4p rankings are based on resume, not H2H predicted outcomes of fantasy fights. You seemed to think that I literally meant that resume (i.e. a fighters career) and p4p (i.e. relative to size) are the same thing, which is clearly nonsensical, and so made this poll thread. To be fair to you, you've said in this thread, after I challenged you to quote me as saying such - "if I misunderstood you, that's my bad. I can own that".

Given you've felt the need to post this in response to a poster who I can only describe as the biggest gentleman (figuratively Mike, not literally!) on this forum, instead of responding to my most recent post (where, as stated, I was happy to move to on), and given most posters will not go to the trouble of reading our entire exchange, here's a recap of our exchange over these past few days. If you dispute any of the below points, let me know which & I'll quote the respective posts we made verbatim, with a link to the threads they were made on:

• You claimed a credible argument could be made for the resumes of Marciano, Ward, Calzaghe & Ricardo Lopez being deeper than that of Mayweather's.
• I gave multiple sources of Mayweather ranking higher than them all in all time p4p lists. In multiple posts, you continued to ask me if p4p & resume are the same thing and also continuously asked whether resumes are subjective or just stats & facts. I kept on replying that my all time p4p rankings are based on resume & that assessing resumes are subjective. So, whilst I didn't directly answer your questions as "yes" or "no", I did answer giving perfectly reasonable answers that clarified my viewpoint in proper context.
• I said Lopez having a deeper resume than Mayweather is a new low. You doubled down on the claim. I replied it's the worst take that I've seen on this forum. You then said, after the second & not first, time of being challenged, you were being facetious.
• You made this thread with a poll with options that didn't represent anything I said. Despite this, relatively few posters have voted in this thread and in the case of the "resume is just stats" or is "subjective and opinion based", again neither of which represent what I said, the vote is currently relatively evenly split at 5 to 3.
• I made a poll asking whether a credible argument could be made for Calzaghe's resume being deeper than Mayweather's, which is exactly what you claimed. The current count is 3 for Yes and 47 for No.
• After multiple attempts, I eventually succeeded in having you make the argument you claim could be made for Calzaghe's resume being deeper. That argument has been described in both threads by multiple posters other than myself, as "embarrassing", "laughable" and "definitely on the mount rushmore of bad Mayweather, Calzaghe, takes".
• I've been in your thread from the start accounting for my views. Possibly partially on account of that, but probably mostly on account of how flawed your arguments have been, the posts of others, IN YOUR THREAD, have been more in support of my position than yours, with multiple posters quoting they too base their all time P4P rankings on resume and others heavily criticising your position on the depth of Calzaghe and Mayweather's relative resumes.
• You've stayed clear of the thread I started, wisely so, because the argument you made has been utterly ridiculed. At the time of typing, the penultimate post on that thread, which was not made by me, reads - "Look at the poll results, this may be the most lopsided poll I've ever seen on here...........................and there's a reason why it's so lopsided".
• Whilst I began our exchange firmly but politely, I concede when you doubled down on an absurd position, an absurd position that it was becoming ever clearer to me that even you knew was wrong, just for the sake of being stubborn and (initially) unable to admit you were wrong, I started to come down hard on you. However, I've limited my attacks, pointed as they may have been, to your arguments, which I found to be absurd and have described accordingly. I have been very careful not to attack you personally. Whereas you have resorted to personal insults. Which is ironic when it was you who posted "pressure burst pipes" after I made the Calzaghe/Mayweather thread. I assure you, having experienced your debating "calibre" first hand these last few days, I never have and never will feel any pressure from you. I absolutely will call out absurd arguments you make, whilst defending and accounting for my position. I won't resort to personal insults.

We've been having a debate. My sole point of contention was on your claim about Mayweather's resume depth relative to other unbeaten fighters. Everything else I've responded to has been in explanation to questions you've asked. When you have a debate on a public forum, usually the best you can hope for is that the majority agree with yours, and not with your adversaries, arguments. In this instance, not only has that happened in my favour, possibly to unprecedented levels in a demonstrable and quantifiable poll, but you've actually admitted that the initial and sole claim I've challenged you over, was wrong. It's incredibly rare during a public debate, to not only have virtually unanimous support from others, but to even get your opponent to agree with you & concede they were wrong. That said, whilst you'd have been better served conceding you were wrong earlier, I do give you credit for conceding it eventually. Not everybody would have done that, so fair play to you on that account.

I don't know how old you are, but you obviously know how old I am, as you've posted (near enough) my age recently & commented that I'm more than half a decade older than you. So, whilst I suspect you'll take this as an attempt to undermine you, I can only give you my word that it is well intentioned advice. When you realise you're wrong, own your statement & admit it was wrong it at the earliest available opportunity. The perception others have of you will actually be enhanced accordingly. Don't attempt to deflect &/or change the argument, because eventually you'll come across someone effective & persistent enough, to bait you into showing your hand and you'll come off looking a lot worse because of it.

Now, I've acknowledged that you've been man enough to admit you're wrong and said I'm happy to leave you alone and move on with no hard feelings, sentiments I reiterate now. However, if you're under the misguided notion that continuing to draw attention to our exchange is in your best interests & want to continue it, then fair notice - I will oblige and it will continue to not to go well for you. Think on it.