How do you determine if one fighter is better than another?

Even if they fight each other and are both in top shape, the winner isn't always the better fighter. Example: Tommy Hearns lost twice to Iran Barkley but absolutely nobody thinks Barkley was a better fighter than Hearns.

What makes one guy definitively better than another?

 

Styles, speeds, staminas, endurances, mental resiliences, heights, intimidation factors, desires, personal dislikes, powers, reactions(es), stances, histories, recent fights ....... make fights. Some fighters are bad against one kind of guy, good against another. It's how they do, or would do, across the board that counts. Hearns would lose to Barklay virtually every time, but he could still kick the butt of many fighters who would be totally wrong for Barklay.

 

you have to consider factors like style or are they fighting in their respective comfortable weight? for example if a fighter is on a stylistic disadvantage but still makes it close losing or gets the win, then it is worth noting that he could be the better fighter.

 

skills & styles bro'

 

style match ups are important. Too important to just say that the winner of a fight is the better fighter.

I made the comparison recently between Ali and Norton, and Pacquiao and Marquez.

In both cases the better fighter came out almost even with a lesser fighter.

You judge every fighter by his entire body of work.

 

If you like them more then they are better.

 

Well styles make fights but... Skills and accomplishments would be the contributing factors of who's better.

 

And this is what makes Boxing so great. So many variables in a sport with just 2 competitors. Long Live Boxing!

 

So performance against common opponents with a variety of styles is a better determiner of superiority than a head to head matchup?

 

Better is subjective. More successful would be determined by a fighters resume and accomplishments.

 

I assume you mean in the all-time sense? Like Hearns being unanimously regarded as better than Iran Barkley in spite of Barkley beating Hearns twice is because Hearns did things like knocked out Roberto Duran in 2 rounds, fought Sugar Ray Leonard to a draw(many believe he won), was ahead on the cards against Leonard in the first fight before being stopped, etc. In short, if you mean whos better in an all-time sense....resumes is the answer.

 

Resume, the interpretation of which is also pretty subjective.

 

To subjective. The main criteria is body of work. If they fight each other in their primes, with an even body of work, you'd give the edge to the winner. But mainly body of work.

 

Yup and your avatar is a perfect example. We all know Morales is/was a better fighter than Maidonna will ever be, however he lost the match. What makes him greater is resume, skill, etc... Just because the shell of Morales lost to Maidonna doesn't mean he's a lesser fighter.

 

Skin color and bicep size, generally.