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

Start an ESB poll

 

Resume,who they have beaten or how well they have competed against quality opposition. Or just plain talent, most knowledgeable fans can tell a quality fighter from a so so one..

 

Skills are very important and are a requirement, but just that some fighters are so much better applying those skills it seems the one with inferior skills has no skills. To me its only one word and one word only; TALENT. It does not matter what style, how tall or short you are, how fast or how strong, if a fighter always finds a way to win even against the odds or with any sort of disadvantage and that fighter still prevails having a knack to overcome weaknesses he was viewed as having and proving people wrong that is talent. Beating fighters much more skillful that is talent. Rj was not as skillful as Toney as Calzaghe wasnt as Hopkins yet using their talent both Rj and Calzaghe were so good at what they did they could get away with alot of things other fighters would get ko'd doing.

 

NO. I don't think all boxers are invincible at some point they will lose. Just happens.

 

Like Floyd Mayweather at WW.

 

styles!

 

Only black fighters are good, the rest are just bums.....say Mayweather.

 

Resume: You have to look at who they beat, at what age did he fight him & at what age his opponent was (somebody like BHop is an exception to the rule), what division did he beat him in (if he made somebody move up that shouldn't have moved you can't give 100% credit) or on the other side if the man shouldn't have moved up and won (you gotta give more credit). Losses count a little depending on what kind of fighter they were when they lost. Also dominating performances count for more.

Good example would be like Pac/ Mayweather for instance. I consider Pac better in every way. Even if he lost to Mayweather I'd honestly have both of them pretty close. My reasoning...Pac holds more impressive wins.
His draw & win against JMM (when they actually fought in the same division) was way better than Mayweather's win against (who had to move up nearly 2 weightclasses, and came in way to fat and slow to stand a chance).
His win over Hatton was more dominating of course. His win over DLH was more dominating and he moved up 2 weight divisions to accomplish this, Floyd only moved up around 1 IF THAT. DLH being drained does discredit Pac's win a little but still a great victory. Of course his fights with Morales & Barrera were great too.
Dominating wins over Cotto, Marg, Clottey, Mosley (I'd say about neck and neck with Mayweathers performance)...When Pac was the SMALLER MAN it's very impressive.
For those that think I'm just a hater if Mayweather moved to 160 and beat Martinez, at 168 and beat Bute, & 175 against Hopkins I'd say those wins would be better than any of Pac's wins!
Cuz he would be smaller and at a huge disadvantage (just like Pac has been the last few years really). Just giving an example of my outlook.

 

boxing ability, accomplishments, resume, common opponents (but thats very similar to head to head and not the best criteria)

record but thats a maybe