how would you define Resume? ofcourse, it includes the list of fighters you have fought and beaten. it also takes into consideration whether the opponent is still in his prime.. but does resume includes the way you defeated the opponent? does it also includes the list of opponents that defeated the boxer and how the boxer is defeated? does resume exactly the same as accomplishment?
Resume is purely a fighter's record, the list of fighters he has beaten. Who the fighter they have beaten has fought and beaten himself, and how you rate that fighter, are entirely seperate arguements. This is how you come to judge a fighter's resume. The resume itself is something official.
^^^so it does not include the fighters that beat a particular boxer? so trinidad is not part of dela hoya's resume?
The resume of a fighter is the list of the fights he has had throughout his career. Simple as that. It includes any bit of information on those fights that you can get your hands on.
A fighter's resume to someone who has seen all his fights might be different than to someone who has just looked at the outcomes of those fights on boxrec. Both are looking at that fighter's resume but one of them has a more complete version of it since he has more information on it.
Of course he is. Because De La Hoya beat him. Rightly or wrongly he beat him, so is 'officially on his resume'. But then you go further into assessing the strength of De La Hoya's resume by questioning whether he did rather really beat him, going on towards his 'actual' resume, and whether he was at his best way, in his prime etc. I misunderstood you at first, and now I get what you mean by assessing the fighters that beat him. The simple answer is yes, the fighter's that also beat De La Hoya would be included in his resume. I mean simply if you went onto Boxrec and searched the Oscar De La Hoya, what comes up is his 'official' resume, his record. You then go into detail assessing that to come up with his 'actual' resume, ie the Felix Sturm fight, on his 'official' resume he beat him, on his 'actual' resume he didn't because we all know he lost that fight.
i don't get it, why in the other thread; which has the better resume: jones and dela hoya, the vote results are close..it's clear that dela hoya's resume was tarnished greatly by his defeats
Because many people are going on 'actual' resume. A lot of people think he beat Trinidad, as well as properly assessing his resume, for example the Hopkins fight which was all the way up at 160/158. Jones Jr's resume is also greatly tarnished by his defeats aswell don't you forget.
but oscar's loss to manny settles the score on who has the better resume. that lost is a big loss for him. it is more impact than his wins over vargas and chavez i initially voted too close because the thread starter does not include the fighters that beat them. and it did make sense. when you are applying for a job, and the company asks for your resume, you only include in your resume, the great highlights of your career. you do not include your lows in the resume...
But people take into account that Oscar was shot, and weight drained, if he wasn't both of those things Manny wouldn't of stood a chance.
Nah. who has jones fought? Toney, Bhop, Bums.........Ruiz.Tarver,shot trinidad, Calazaghe Oscar shot JCC, shot Pea, Prime Trinidad, Vargas, Mosley, Floyd, pac
i guess the posters here have different definition of resume...but to me, it's the fighters you beat, how you beat them...it is also important to note whether the opponent is in his prime.. i do not include losses in a fighter's resume. resume is all about the winning highlights of a career of a fighter.. i just decided to use this definition. i just come up with it just now. i thought that the posters here have the same definition of resume but i guess each has his own.