Who is the better fighter in this:

[HrNY]

If a fight had fighter A dominating fighter B for 11 in a half rounds and fighter B happens to catch fighter A and knocks him out with 30 seconds left on the clock and fighter B ducks a rematch, who would you consider the better fighter, the fighter with the W or the fighter who was winning the rounds but got the L?

Do you base someone with having the W like people do with Jordan and his rings, or do you base it off of someone who actually did a better job but just didn't get the W on the record?

[dan_cov]

Fighter B
Its not how you start its how you finish.

[HrNY]

Fighter B
Its not how you start its how you finish.

Yea, I'm more on that side as well. I get the argument that rings aren't everything because a lot of greats don't have rings while a lot of scrubs do, but I still go with that W on the record

[dan_cov]

The result is what matters.

If we had a Street fight and I hit you and you go on the defensive covering up and I continue my assault, it turns into a scuffle and you're in a shell and finally get some separation and lay me clean out. You've won and nobody is remembering anything but me getting KTFO!

It doesn't matter if I outland you 20-1, same in boxing, kickboxing, MMA.

You can have 90% possession in football with 30 shots, the other team can break away in the 90th minute on the counter have 1 shot and win the game.
Its the end result that matters.

[The Big Dunn]

This actually happened with John Tate v Mike Weaver.

Tate was undefeated and well respected going in.
Weaver had many losses.

Tate won13 straight rounds and then got knocked out in the 15th. To my knowledge they never rematched

I think Tate was always considered the better boxer of the 2 even though he got ktfo. Watching that fight, other than the ko punch, Weaver didn’t really do anything but get hit.

The best fighter doesn’t always win.

I think the guy that won the all the rounds is probably better but this is an outcome driven sport so I’d lean to the ko winner.

[HrNY]

The result is what matters.

If we had a Street fight and I hit you and you go on the defensive covering up and I continue my assault, it turns into a scuffle and you're in a shell and finally get some separation and lay me clean out. You've won and nobody is remembering anything but me getting KTFO!

It doesn't matter if I outland you 20-1, same in boxing, kickboxing, MMA.

You can have 90% possession in football with 30 shots, the other team can break away in the 90th minute on the counter have 1 shot and win the game.
Its the end result that matters.

agreed.

but that would be some whack shit to have fighter B not give a rematch lol

[dan_cov]

A fine example would be Deontay Wilder.

This guy gets hopelessly outboxed every fight then lands a bomb and that is that.

Does anybody think Artur Szpilka, Gerald Washington etc are better fighters than Wilder?

[The Big Dunn]

A fine example would be Deontay Wilder.

This guy gets hopelessly outboxed every fight then lands a bomb and that is that.

Does anybody think Artur Szpilka, Gerald Washington etc are better fighters than Wilder?

No. But if the same thing happened against Fury, I think people would still think Fury was the better fighter.