Better resume among these three

:deal

Mojo, if you want it to be Floyd then why not cite his overall depth of contenders and titlists WITH his best wins included amongst the group. I, for one am not willing to take away the likes of Hearns, Hagler, Duran (or Benitez) from SRL or say - Chavez, Nelson, McGirt (x2) from Whitaker for example. Just, why the hell would you do that? They also beat plenty of regular contender-level opponents. It's the top wins that separate and elevate. I even made a thread to cite Floyd's body of work.

 

This.

Marquez isn't anywhere near either in terms of resume.

 

You don't have to beat a *great fighter* to be great, but fighters who had the opportunitie(s) to and did aren't going to wait up or stay in the same lane. Some have seized the chances put in front of them.

 

RIGHT...its the top wins...so your telling me he only had three?!?!?!?(SRL or Whitaker) I disagree if you are saying they only had three top wins and without them....they're resume dont hold up.

Like i said...a resume should still hold up.

this is not about Floyd either...if you did it to all three i think they all are very close in resume's not this giant gap people are alluding to...the problem is Pac gets a SHYT LOAD of boosts to his resume for three fights...the problem is its not even playing grounds...not everyone has a EMO,MAB, and JMM to fight. So to even the playing fields for fighters from all weights....you have to take the three best away and now see how it stacks....if not other fighters get penalized for not having that type of talent around them.

 

No, they hold up fine. Whitaker a lot more.. Paez, Ramirez (x2), Haugen, Vasquez (much bigger guy), Nazario. Arguably even De La Hoya. It's the best resume of the last quarter-century. Leonard will generally rate higher than him based on his top wins, though.

You want to push JMM down. That isn't my battle, I'm a MAB guy. :yep

 

Legacies is a whole other can of worms...

 

And you advocate making it an incomplete body of work. A great resume should hold up if you take away the best wins, yes, but when comparing 2, there's no reason to decapitate them of their quality.

Take two fighters, take their 3 best wins off, and often times there will be a dramatic shift. Like the ones I mentioned.

 

this is the easiest list to make
Pacman
Mayweather
Marquez

 

By taking three fights off of 40+....that would drasticly shift a fighters resume? then again the question is...how great was the resume?

 

Not all wins are equal. If fighter A has 10 wins over mediocre contenders as their worst wins, and they are all better than B's worst 10 wins, it really doesn't matter. Your best wins are what count the most.

How great was the resume? Depends on the aggregate greatness of the resume.

 

I don't care who has the better resume, Mayweather would beat both of their ass.

 

we are not talking 10 though are we? we are talking 40+ thats a pretty big number to have 3 taken away and drasticly shift the value of your resume....im sorry that just doesnt add up.

yes your best wins mean something...they should...thats just it though...if you take three away....shouldnt there be enough weight to stand on it own after those three?

dont get me wrong i see where you are comming from and Hands of Iron...i just think if a resume is GREAT it should still stand out even if you take three away...we are only talkin three here.

 

HA....if they were his top three....people would be walking around here calling him the absolute GOAT

 

Taking a fighter's 3 best wins away is always going to affect a fighter's resume. There is more quality in one fight at the elite level than 20 below it.

And if you're comparing two or more fighters, taking away those wins just doesn't make sense.

If you're only point is that a resume should still stand out when you take away one or 3 top wins, then that's correct, and we're not disagreeing. but greatness is often concentrated, not spread out. If you beat 3 ATG's and not many other fighters, you've done something special.