Why do fighters that retired undefeated get **** all over?

The vast majority of name fighters that don't retire undefeated tend to get **** all over too lol

There's always someone with a grudge or negative take.

 

Well, no, you have several topics. Neither me nor Philosopher brought up p4p skill, you did.

I meant Joe Calzaghe, not Froch. Brain fart.

Asking a fighter's overall P4P ranking and how good a fighter's resume is are two very different things. Someone can have a great resume but they aren't necessarily a great p4p fighter. Once again, if I am uncertain exactly where I'd place Floyd in my p4p rankings that doesn't mean I'm flip flopping on my stance Floyd doesn't have the deepest resume.

Lopez is a new low? We're comparing Floyd to other undefeated champions, so Lopez obviously isn't exempt.

I don't care what the consensus opinion is. I'm asking what YOU think and to back up your assertion he has the best, deepest, resume amongst all undefeated fighters.

I have not taken back my stance that I don't think he has the "deepest" resume ever. Despite explaining what I mean by "deep"/depth around 3-4x, you have yet to address this for whatever reason. Untill you do, this discussion is over.

 

I haven't brought up skill at all.

I've been VERY clear that p4p all time rankings are based on resume.

You said that an argument can be made that Lopez's resume is deeper than Mayweather. That is amongst the most ridiculous things I've read on here. Classic and General Forum.

Do you really need me to explain why Mayweather's resume is massively deeper than Lopez's? I will do if it's required, but it really shouldn't be.

 

P4P rankings have EVERYTHING to do with skill+resume. So you are asking a SEPARATE question sir if we're only talking about resume.

Everyone I've ever talked to, including this site, evaluates skill (and often h2h ability) when discussing p4p lists. The entire point is figuring out who would be the most skilled fighter in the world regardless of weight class. So asking me where Floyd ranks p4p is not the same as asking me if I think his resume has the most depth. If you want to have a conversation about Floyd's p4p rankings historically, we can do that, but it's a separate conversation no matter how many times you repeat yourself. Would you like to do a forum poll since you're insistent that resume=p4p somehow?

No, I don't need you to explain how Floyd's resume is deeper than Lopez. That was me being facetious. What I WOULD like for you to do, and this is my 5th time asking: do you agree with how I define "depth" when it comes to evaluating the context of a boxer's resume, yes or no? And if not, how can we reach a consensus so we can move forward? Literally nothing else in this discussion matters until you address this.

 

Do you know what? Given I've given you ample opportunity to back track on something you've got wrong & you've chosen to double down, I'm not going to wait for you to answer whether you want me to explain why Mayweather's resume is deeper than Lopez. I'll do it now.

Below is my view on their respective 10 best wins. This listing factors in my view of - A) How "great" each opponent was; B) How close the opponent was to their prime; C) The opponents size relative to FM & RL; D) How dominant the win is; and E) Any other relevant context. i.e. applying the context you allude to. Rankings are according to Ring Magazine unless stated otherwise:

1) Mayweather vs Canelo - Canelo was green & possibly a little weight drained, but he was the #1 ranked LMW, 13lbs heavier on fight night & Mayweather utterly dominated. Not a bad win for guy who won his 1st title at SFW.
2) Mayweather vs ODLH SD - this was a close fight. ODLH was inactive & past prime, but he's an ATG who was much the bigger fighter.
3) Mayweather vs Corrales - Corrales was prime, ranked #1 at SFW, bigger than Floyd & the fight was horribly 1-sided.
4) Mayweather vs Pacquiao - Pacquiao was past prime & smaller, but he was also the P4P #2 & Mayweather dominated.
5) Mayweather vs Cotto - Cotto was perhaps just starting to fade, but only very slightly, he's a borderline ATG, Mayweather win fairly wide in a competitive fight & a another #1 ranked LMW. So, this former SFW beat 2 x Ring ranked #1 LMW's during his career.
6) Mayweather vs Castillo II - Castillo was ranked #1 LW going into their first match, #2 going into this fight.
7) Mayweather vs Judah - Judah was aged 28, ranked #4 at WW, three months removed from being ranked #1, the fight wasn't close.
8) Mayweather vs Hatton - The fight was at WW, but Hatton was unbeaten, in his prime & the #1 ranked LWW.
9) Mayweather vs Genaro Hernandez - 1-sided win over the #1 SFW.
10) Lopez vs Alvarez SD - Alvarez was undefeated & coming off a draw vs Lopez, was #2 ranked in an extremely thin (pun intended) Minimumweight division. Close fight.

There were other Mayweather wins I could have argued over Alvarez, but I'm getting bored & so decided to be charitable.

 

Apologies, I didn't see this post before mine above.

Were you being facetious that you could argue Calzaghe's resume is deeper than Mayweather's too?

I've only challenged you on 1 topic - that is that Mayweather clearly has the deepest win resume of unbeaten fights. You consider this arguable, I don't.

No, I don't agree with the literal definition. I think depth of a win resume refers to the quantity of wins over fighters who were world class at the time of the fight. Of course context matters when determining said quality. I think you've confused the term "depth" with the term "context". However, and more importantly, whether we use my interpretation of the term "deepest resume" or yours, Mayweather clearly has the deepest resume of all unbeaten boxers.

I'm happy for one of us to do a poll as to whether resume is each posters predominant criteria when they rank fighters p4p all time, yes, absolutely I am.

I'm equally happy for us to do a poll with the question "who has the deepest resume". With the options Mayweather, Marciano, Ward & Calzaghe. Are you?

 

Not to mention the hate for the great Sven Ottke.

 

Yes resume is the predominant criteria when ranking p4p but it's not the ONLY criteria. Resume and p4p are two different things! Why is this so difficult to get?

Obviously you use a boxer's resume as one of the primary criteria when discussing the same boxer's p4p ability, but resume and p4p are not synonymous terms.

A resume is simply a sheet showing which boxers someone faced in their career, how many wins/losses/draws, what weight classes they competed in, and how many titles they won. That's it. It's pure stats with zero opinions whatsoever.

P4P ranking is very subjective and opinion based. Now you are looking at various factors: a boxer's resume+the quality of each win+if they beat other boxers on the p4p list (bonus points), an evaluation of their skill (the "eye test", which is VERY subjective), and if people think they're one of the 10 best fighters on the planet overall+h2h (do you think they'd beat nearly everyone else if every boxer had the same weight class).

To suggest resume and p4p rankings are exactly the same is sheer lunacy and tells me you clearly don't know what p4p means.

From Google:

Pound for pound
A term used in combat sports to describe a fighter's value relative to other fighters in different weight classes. For example, some mixed martial arts promotions, including the Ultimate Fighting Championship, have pound-for-pound rankings.

From Wikipedia

Pound for pound is a ranking used in combat sports, such as boxing,[1] wrestling,[2] or mixed martial arts,[3] of who the better fighters are irrespective of their weight, i.e. adjusted to compensate for weight class. As these fighters do not compete directly, judging the best fighter pound for pound is subjective, and ratings vary.

No, I'm not confusing death with context. Simply looking at whether or not a fighter was ranked does not tell you how high quality that fighter was because you can get frauds who are ranked as high as #1 sometimes. You have to look a little deeper than that (and I've ALSO explained this before within this thread).

So yes, you are bringing up two different topics Greg. If you ask me about Floyd's resume and then ask me what I think of his p4p status...it's two different questions. And if you insist I will definitely make a poll because in 10 years of boxing discussions I've never seen this. Resume is simply facts and stats, p4p is 75% your opinion.

 

Agree. I can't see by what definition Mayweather hasn't the deepest resume by far of these guys. Marciano has the biggest names, of course, but there context is everything and that isn't depth in any case. With Kessler, Froch and Kovalev, I think Ward can match Mayweather for top wins perhaps, but if we go for top 10, top 15 or top 20 wins there's absolutely no contest. And no way Lopez can match Mayweather in depth either. In the only division he competed in he didn't beat as many ranked fighters as Mayweather did over five.

 

I don't consider resume as "simply facts and stats".

Resume is a boxer's career record, that should be viewed in context. Not just who they beat, but when and how. That's how I assess my all time p4p rankings, based on what happened in the respective fighters careers, in full context. That doesn't mean I don't factor in skill, just that the extent that I factor in skill is limited to what was demonstrated during their entire career, i.e. their resume.

Now, were you being facetious when you said you could argue Calzaghe’s resume as better than Mayweather's, too? I'll pick them em off one at a time if I have to.

 

Exactly Bokaj. You, I and the vast majority of posters know it isn't reasonably debatable.

I will explain how this issue initiated from my perspective:

I saw Philopsher post that people may disagree with him, but that he felt Mayweather had the deepest win resume of all unbeaten fighters and I thought to myself - "don't be silly, no one knowledgeable on the subject will disagree with that, it can't be credibly argued otherwise ".

Glass quoted his post questioning that assertion and then I called him out on that. Our exchange has evolved from there.

 

I would also add the amount of time that Mayweather faced top fighters, which was over more than 15 years.

I really don't like Mayweather and wanted Pac to beat him, but he gets crazy underrated. With top wins like Corrales, Castillo, DLH, Cotto, Canelo and Pac pluas another 15 or so against ranked fighters, I can't come to think of any undefeated fighter that matches his resume. Marciano and Ward aren't even close. And I like them both better, for what that's worth.

 

I wanted Mayweather to lose every fight in the 2nd half of his career.

I was a big Calzaghe fan and rank Marciano #5 at HW all time.

You're correct, Mayweather's resume isn't just deeper than Marciano's, Ward's and Calzaghe’s, it's sufficiently deeper that it is absurd to suggest otherwise.

 

Yes, your resume is simply facts and statistics. It's what you've actually DONE.

What weight class you competed in, how many fights you've had, wins and losses, titles won, etc. It has nothing to do with anyone's subjective opinions. The stuff you see on sites like boxrec, their accolades, medals won, etc is a boxer's "resume".

Are P4P lists subjective, yes or no?

Are resumes subjective, yes or no?

 

Glass, I like you & have enjoyed reading your posts before this thread, so it gives me no pleasure to say you're all over the place in this thread. You've literally forgotten what you're arguing, are contradicting your original point that I challenged and I'll prove that, irrefutably, in this post.

Here are two statements you've posted, verbatim, in this very thread:

1) "A resume is simply a sheet showing which boxers someone faced in their career, how many wins/losses/draws, what weight classes they competed in, and how many titles they won. That's it. It's pure stats with zero opinions whatsoever".

So, you claim resume is pure stats with zero opinions whatsoever. Have that front & centre of your mind as you read the next statement I quote that you've made in this thread:

2) "Yes, I did actually argue that other undefeated fighters such s Ward, Rocky, Froch (later clarified as meaning Calzaghe), or Lopez could be argued to have deeper resumes".

Using YOUR definition for resume ("pure stats with zero opinions whatsoever"), lets take a look how they compare:

• How many wins/losses/draws - of those amongst these 5 with a 100% win record, Mayweather won the most fights. Lopez had a draw. None lost.
• What weight classes they competed in/titles won - Mayweather won world titles and beat ranked fighters in 5 x weight classes, Ward/Calzaghe/Lopez in 2 & Marciano in 1 (admittedly as a HW he had nowhere else to go).
• Number of world champions beaten, both present and past/future - Mayweather by a mile.
• Number of ranked contenders beaten, both at the time of the fight & otherwise - Mayweather by a mile.

Neither Ward, Marciano, Calzaghe or Lopez have an argument as having a deeper resume than Mayweather by YOUR definition.

By definition, one of the 2 above statements has to erroneous, which is it?

I'll pay you the courtesy of answering your questions:

1) Yes, of course P4P lists contain a large element of subjectivity. Quantifiable criteria can be used as reasonable indicators as to where fighters rank, but they aren't definitive in isolation.
2) Yes, of course the depth of resumes contain a large element of subjectivity. Quantifiable criteria can be used as reasonable indicators of resume depth, but they aren't definitive in isolation.

I responded to the quote you made in point 2) above by saying that comparing Lopez's resume to Mayweather was a new low. You didn't initially respond that you were being facetious. No, you initially responded by doubling down - "Lopez is a new low? We're comparing Floyd to other undefeated champions, so Lopez obviously isn't exempt" - When I then replied that, arguing Lopez could be argued as having a deeper resume than Mayweather was the worst take I'd ever seen on this forum, you sensibly did an about turn and said you were being facetious. Now, for the third time, were you also being facetious mentioning Calzaghe in that same statement?