I am interested to know when the more serious posters compile lists of boxers {top 100 current, top 50 ATG, top 10 last 25 years etc} do you take into consideration losses ? I think that a loss should not be given too much credit ? for example :- If a top boxer {fighter A} has faced 10 other top boxers and won 5 and lost 5, he is obviously good but he is not excellent as he has only got a 50% record when facing top class opposition. If another top boxer {fighter B} has only faced 6 other top boxers and won the lot, he has a 100% record record against top class opposition. I think 'fighter B' should be ranked higher than 'fighter A' as 'fighter B' has 6 good wins to 'fighter A' 5 good wins and also 'fighter B' has a 100% record against quality opposition when 'fighter A' has only got a 50% record against quality opposition. A lot of people on here would rank 'fighter A' above 'fighter B' simply because he has been in with quality opposition nearly twice as often, i think a boxer should get respect for fighting quality opposition but not earn any points towards any ranking {well very few anyway} Lets face it i could get in the ring with loads of quality boxers lose inside the first minute every time and turn round and claim to have a strong resume !
Yes, losses have to count for something. It also matters who the boxer lost to. For instance, Hopkins losing to Roy Jones Jr. doesn't hurt him so much since Roy himself is an all-timer, etc..
Yes, losses count, but WHEN the fighter had the losses is a pretty big consideration as well, and WHO the losses were against is a consideration as well.
