You Can Lose To Someone And Still Be A 'Better' Fighter Than Them

Just because you lose to someone doesn't mean they're a better overall fighter than you. It means they were better man that night, but if your overall resume and accomplishments are better (especially if you fought likewise opponents), then you are still the overall better fighter in my eyes. Ali lost to Frazier and Norton, and even if he had never gotten revenge on them by winning rematches, he would have still been 'better' - Just look at how he dominated George Foreman for eight rounds and knocked him out after Foreman had destroyed them both in two rounds apiece. His overall career resume would have still been more impressive. Etc., etc. This falls into the depends category, but agree with the general premise. Couple posters covered it with examples but, style matchups get ignored a lot these days for some reason. Best example for me is Vernon Forrest vs Mayorga. Mayorga could'nt hold Vernon's jock strap as far as skill is concerned, but still managed to beat Vernon twice. Some guys may struggle against a style or a southpaw or sometimes a guy just has your number for whatever reason.

Course you can.. Manny Pacquiao lost to Medgoen Singsurat Hagler lost to Willie Monroe Duran lost to Kirkland Laing Marco Antonio Barrera lost to Jones JMM to Norwood Klitschko to Sanders. Dempsey to Willie Meehan Etc etc

The irony of a Mayweather fan saying this is just too much. the idiocy of you quoting me without substance to your statement....49-0....best of the generation....deal with it

There is some 'Amir Khan logic' in this thread... He was schooling Danny / Canelo, he outboxed them etc...

its not always the names but when and where you fight them in their respective careers The irony of a Mayweather fan saying this is just too much.

So Rahman was better then Lewis, then much worse after? Yes at the time Rahman beat Lewis he was better than him, Lewis was distracted Unfocussed and sloppy the night that he lost. In the rematch Lewis was much better an won by knockout. Leicester won the English premiere league this season next season Arsenal or Manchester united may win it, but last season Leicester were the best team and that won't change.

depends on the situation....like if they were both prime, size disparity, both guys respective resumes. example....Aaron pryor beat Arguello head to head but el Flacco is definitely more accomplished and IMO the greater fighter....look at who both fought and the titles they won. Pryor is the better 140 pounder but Arguello will be remembered as the greater fighter when the resumes are similar...like say Mayweather and Pacquaio, the deciding factors can be WHEN they fought their opponents, and head to head results, i.e. Mayweather fought Mosley, Cotto, Hatton, and DLH coming off career defining wins Manny fought Cotto after he looked bad in his last 2 fights and had a tko loss recently.....Hatton was tkoed by Mayweather and wasnt impressive after...Mosley was 1-1-1 and hadnt won a fight in years........DLH looked pretty bad vs Forbes and lost to mayweather before he fought them Manny won belt at 150 vs Unranked margarito...hell manny was ranked either for a vacant title....long lay off....fought a nobody and prior got beat to ***** by Mosley Mayweather fought DLH, Canelo and Cotto. For belts they won in the ring and he took them by beating them fair and square its not always the names but when and where you fight them in their respective careers Excellent analysis! Good stuff!

I disagree if you beat someone you are better than them. You could say someone has had a better career but they aren't a better fighter So Rahman was better then Lewis, then much worse after?

You sound like a "Pacquaio is better than Marquez even though Marquez KTFO Pacquaio apologist or an even though Mayweather beat Pacquaio, Pacquaio still have a better overall record fan. The response to those two statements is No and Hell No! The problem is that this thinking doesn't hold up. So Marquez is better than Pac because he beat him. And Bradley is better than Marquez because he beat him..... But Pac beat Bradley. See what I mean.

I agree but there a certain fan base that claims there a boxer who one of the best ever when he fought no one period of note....and gives him credit for "if" and fantasies fights and claims he the winner when the fight doesnt happen LOL spot on. I understand what TS is saying, although it doesn't always apply but in many cases it's true. Who is better h2h is different in terms of who is better in a general, all round sense and overall greater. The latter depends on opposition beaten, legacy, title wins, how they won etc. I think Bowe would beat Holyfield 6 or 7 times outta 10 but Id be crazy to rank Bowe higher (atg wise) in a heavyweight list. Just an example.

It's a great question. Logically, beating a fighter you'd think would make you better. But then again styles do make fights. Would anyone say Fernandez is better than Arguello? I wouldn't. Raheem better than Morales? Jimmy Young better than Foreman? The list goes on and on. Cocoa Kid beat Holman Williams 8 times. But most would say Williams is better. Agree Would you say that bumbeater Chris John is a better fighter than JMM? or had a greater career? No, styles makes fights and some styles and individual characteristics are poison for certain fighters, no matter how good they are. Master counterpunchers will struggle against ******* who force them to lead all the time, a genius inside fighter will struggle against a master clinchers, great sluggers struggle against movers who can outbox them and control the fight with the jab, etc. The only way to avoid this kind of bad match ups is to avoid certain styles, becoming a serious cherrypicker *points at Mayweather*

Just because you lose to someone doesn't mean they're a better overall fighter than you. It means they were better man that night, but if your overall resume and accomplishments are better (especially if you fought likewise opponents), then you are still the overall better fighter in my eyes. Ali lost to Frazier and Norton, and even if he had never gotten revenge on them by winning rematches, he would have still been 'better' - Just look at how he dominated George Foreman for eight rounds and knocked him out after Foreman had destroyed them both in two rounds apiece. His overall career resume would have still been more impressive. Etc., etc. You sound like a "Pacquaio is better than Marquez even though Marquez KTFO Pacquaio apologist or an even though Mayweather beat Pacquaio, Pacquaio still have a better overall record fan. The response to those two statements is No and Hell No!

It's a great question. Logically, beating a fighter you'd think would make you better. But then again styles do make fights. Would anyone say Fernandez is better than Arguello? I wouldn't. Raheem better than Morales? Jimmy Young better than Foreman? The list goes on and on. Cocoa Kid beat Holman Williams 8 times. But most would say Williams is better.

I disagree if you beat someone you are better than them. You could say someone has had a better career but they aren't a better fighter

These dudes are fighting 2-3 times a year maximum. There is no room for having an off-night. Its not baseball.

Manny Pacquiao will always be all around greater than Mayweather jr . IMO pacman beat the money man his own game and backyard ofc. the moneyman took the W the world after all revolves around money.

you have to prove you are better in the ring man...hence Ali had to rematch Fraizer and Norton to prove he was the better boxer

Well i think Calderon is better than Segura, but lost twice to him. True you gotta remember Ivan was undefeated for 9 1/2 years before finally losing twice to segura at age 35 and 36.

You can get caught with a lucky punch

Just because you lose to someone doesn't mean they're a better overall fighter than you. It means they were better man that night, but if your overall resume and accomplishments are better (especially if you fought likewise opponents), then you are still the overall better fighter in my eyes. Ali lost to Frazier and Norton, and even if he had never gotten revenge on them by winning rematches, he would have still been 'better' - Just look at how he dominated George Foreman for eight rounds and knocked him out after Foreman had destroyed them both in two rounds apiece. His overall career resume would have still been more impressive. Etc., etc. You make a reasonable point. The problem is NSB posters tend to apply what you posted as a deflective mechanism when the guy they like loses to an equal or superior fighter. What you posted applies to Spinks/Ali 1 but not, for example Frazier/Ali 1. You could make a case that Frazier was the better fighter when they fought the 1st time. It applies to Morales/Manny 1 but not Floyd/Manny. WHat you posted is very accurate As long as posters apply the theory in fights where it truly applies.