"Lost to the best fighter they fought"

It is an unwritten rule that if you beat somebody you devalue them, and if you lose to them, then their stock goes up.

This makes me wary of saying that a fighter who beat a faded champion, was better than everybody that champion beat in their prime.

 

Holyfield is a good example of how this can be misleading.

For example you could argue that George Foreman and Larry Holmes were the best that he fought, but that he came up against them when they were past their primes.

 

I'm pretty confident "best" takes into account career stage and peak quotient.

 

And when those rare occasions do actually happen, people don't even agree whether both fighters are actually in their primes or not.

 

Yes that is what attracts critics to Lennox.
He did however avenge both and there is zero doubt that he was superior to both fighters that initially beat him.

 

He beat the top guy in 4 of the 5 divisions. That's a pretty good ratio.

 

Good fighter's that have a loss , is needed sometimes .

 

Joe Frazier. Only losses were to Ali and Foreman, the two best fighters he faced.

 

Because Frazier had only 37 fights .Otherwise Frazier couldn't beat the bum Cummings.

 

Frazier was almost 38 and had been out of the ring for 5 1/2 years when he fought Cummings. That fight shouldn't really count against him.