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

[KLockard23]

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.

[juggernaut666]

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.

Being better doesn't over rule being more effective. If a fighter cannot beat a certain one he is not better period.

Bowe defeated the much better Holyfield not because he could fight better but he had weight and size on him,so who was better? Bowe was,out of 3 fights he lost one.Ali did not dominate foreman,he laid on the ropes for 6 rnds and then the last two rnds he k.od the tired foreman.One does not dominate a fight eating or blocking punches on the ropes. Ali never beat a prime frazier either so its all what ifs......at the end of the day its who you beat and when not resumes. Resumes are great to have but it means little in contrast to who you defeated and how you pwerformed in your prime which really is all that counts because if you lose out of your peak the value of the win for your opponent drops.

some guys are just harder to figure out,for example Lewis was pretty much always in prime form as was Vitali...Holyfield in the mid 90's was stronger and Wlad is a great example of why trainers are the key b/c without steward he would have never went on a decade long run.so you have to put that into equation as mike Tyson never lost a fight under Rooney and so on.....etc...etc...

[Rudiamonds]

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

[therealpugilist]

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

^^^^sounds familiar.....you dont get credit for fights that never happened. That fan base is the most illogical and delusional in the sport. Some of them got the nerve to call other fighters paper champions when the guy was handed two belts and didnt fight for them.

[therealpugilist]

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.

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

[The Big Dunn]

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.

[yngwie]

Well i think Calderon is better than Segura, but lost twice to him.

[vaborikua2014]

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.

[Larry the boss]

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

[TheUnbiased]

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.