Boxing logics of Loma' sceptics - and why it doesn't work properly

Following discussion in the Loma vs Castillo thread.

As TS and others wrote, Castillo is better than Salido so he beats Loma more convincingly in a dream fight.

What don't they take into account:

1) Loma is better and WAY more experienced now having 93 rounds as a pro and having 8 fights that lasted 7 rounds or more (compared to 4 pro rounds and having never any fights lasted more than 5 rounds in his life)

2) Salido broke many rules which seriously affected the result. Would you allow Castillo to break these rules and would he do that?

3) Fighter A being better than fighter B doesn't mean he performs better vs fighter C (who has fought fighter B), even when A and B styles are somewhat similar.

Examples:

Carl Williams (A) beat Tillis (B) 8-2 or 9-1, they have similar styles but Williams is better and bigger boxer and harder hitter. Tillis lost to Tyson (C) 4-6 in a close fight. Carl Williams was KO'd by Tyson in 1.

Jesse Ferguson (B) beat Buster Douglas (C). Oliver McCall (A) has somewhat similar style to Ferguson, but better chin, and is slightly better boxer overall than Ferguson (and beat him by decision). Does that mean McCall certainly beats Douglas? (by Loma's sceptics logic - YES, as he has similar style, hits harder, has better chin than Ferguson who beat Douglas). Whereas in the real world McCall lost by wide decision and was taken to school.

You can find others if you want but I think it's enough.