Myth: Roberto Duran has a better resume than Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao.

The thread doesn't mean anything . .I stopped reading after I saw grandpa Baldomir's name, a weakened Canelo, and the pac fight in 2015 ,everyone knows that fight was for 2010, .. As Mayweather cherry picks his way through a watered down sport ..... the thread becomes meaningless

 

Exactly my point ... anyway I see you are greased up and ready to go again with this thread.. .so you can get back to your circle jerk ....

 

Pac was still nr. 1 except for Floyd. At WW and p4p.

And while I don't like catchweights, I haven't even heard Canelo himself say that he was done because of those two extra pounds to drain.

 

they were the #1 and #2 pfp from 2005 - 2010 . switching off years as 1 and 2 ..I might be off a year but thats the jist of it, and we are talking about a fight at 38 and 37 years old in 2015 ?? I just haven't seen many posters here put much significance into that fight ? why ? because it was for 2010

 

I dont remember the ratings but was Pac really pfp 2 at the time of the fight?

He was stopped by Marquez and his three fights after that and before the Floyd fight were Rios,Bradley and Algieri was that enough to have him at two after the brutal loss to Marquez?

I really dont remember what the rankings were at the time.

 

There's always significance in beating the other clear nr 1 besides yourself. It's a bit silly to say otherwise. It had been more significance in 2010, but that isn't the same as no significance.

 

That's how I remember it, but looking here he was nr. 3 p4p going into 2015: https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine's_Annual_Ratings:_Pound_For_Pound--2010s

But no doubt he was still the guy at WW besides Floyd, and still a p4p force,

 

agreed .. I'm saying there is other context to acknowledge as well .. thats all .. in 2015, Pac already had 64 fights ,, Floyd only had 48 .. Pac was a lot more active than him .. Looking at only ratings , doesn't tell the whole story imo .. other context needs to be applied ..

 

First of all, you need to be honest and ask yourself if you are actually open to an honest, objective debate?

Second, resumes aren’t based on statistics across different eras.

Can you not see how flawed that could be?

The numbers don’t allow for the quality of the fighters and the depths of the divisions.

For example, a guy rated low in one era, could actually have been a much better fighter than a higher rated guy from another.

Ring Ratings are okay if you’re going to use the appropriate context.


You then have to decide on whether you’re actually rating on legacy, wins or resume.

Some people will dismiss a quality resume if a fighter loses to many of the better guys he’s faced.


You then have to be objective and look at who fought who and at what stage.

For example, Floyd is undefeated, yet anyone who knows of him KNOWS that he simply wouldn’t have taken on some of the fighters who Duran faced, as he was a safety first businessman, whereas Duran wasn’t.


I don’t actually believe you’ll debate this objectively, but I’d love you to prove me wrong.


I’ll give you a helping hand.

You won’t win the debate with your Ring ratings and your Box Red stats alone.

This isn’t a numbers game.

It’s about who fought the betters fighters and at what point.

 

Well of course you do.

We wouldn’t expect anything less.


Unfortunately for you, this is way out of your league.

In a situation like this, we apply a word called: CONTEXT.


Run along while the big boys play.