When the "worse" fighter wins

It doesn't really happen.
If you can see one guy is beating the other, he can't be worse than the guy he is beating.

 

DeJesus vs Duran 1.

 

Actually, after roaming the streets of Over town in Miami for weeks in a Crack Cocaine induced
haze, homeless ,and virtually out of his mind, Young was lucky to be facing that version of
Aaron Pryor and not the one from the magnificent night in the Orange bowl. Or the fights
prior. Prime Pryor would destroy Young, any version.

 

Many instances.
Tate vs Weaver.
Leonard vs Norris
Hamsho vs Benitez
Haugen vs Camacho
Baltazar vs Davis Jr.
Blake vs Crawley
Mosley vs Forrest one. (Though he did beat Mosley back to back so
was he actually the worse fighter? Mosley was a big favorite in the 1st
fight.)
Duran vs Laing
Thomas vs Mugabi
Curry vs Honeyhan
Page vs Berbick
Almost every fight Bazooka Limon won lol.

 

Well, that's absolutely untrue, IMO.

You can be overall better h2h against the wider variety of styles and opponents, but just have someone that has your #. That is by no means unheard of in boxing.

Someone brought up Forrest vs. Mayorga earlier; that's a perfect example. Forrest can beat a lot more people in their weight range historically than Mayorga can; he is unequivocally better. That said, he went 0-2 against Mayorga. If they'd fought eight more times he might well have gone 0-10. Boxing's just weird like that. You can be worse than someone and yet very speficically equipped to beat them, even if you would be guaranteed to post a less successful record versus a scientifically significant sample size of common opposition.

I get what you mean though, if you're winning you are by definition better. You could say Mayorga was "the better man" in the ring anytime he faced the Viper - but outside that contextual vacuum, you'd never find anyone describe him as better overall. Semantics, really.

 

Of course, you can be better against the field, generally, overall etc.
But I think the OP touched on "within the actual fight", example being Barkley v Hearns 2. Barkley apparently "looked worse" but imposed himself. My point being, if you can see and be impressed by him imposing himself and winning, you can't really conclude he is looking worse. It possibly is semantics but it could be that we just hold biases for and against certain styles.

But your point is correct, yeah.

 

Since Wlad has lost to Brewster and Sanders in wipeouts doesnt that sort of damage his credentials as being truly the better fighter? We can call the Purity fight a product of inexperience, but much more difficult to do that in the first two examples.

 

Like JMM and Pac

Even though Pac is 2-1-1. So even though in the macro Pac fairs far better among a group of fighters historically from 126-147, he still got the best of JMM in the micro world too.

 

Not really. That was before Wlad really came into his peak years, once Emanuel Steward unlocked his potential and forged him into a serious weapon. That boxer/coach tandem only ever lost once - their first assignment together, in Lamon Brewster I. From then on Wlad got better and better and never lost again while Steward was alive; their overall record together was 16-1. (you could extend to include Wach and call it 17-1, as Steward passed away during training camp for that one).

Wlad from 2004-2012 is a different animal than his pre-Kronk self. But then, you could argue that Wlad as of the latter career losses to Fury and Joshua wasn't the same fighter either, due to a combination of no longer having Manny in his corner (see: Tyson's decline after Cus passed away) plus just age.

 

You bring up a good point because an 8 year run is nothing to look over. Looking at his 8 year run I dont see a whole lot of top guys. There was David Haye and Povetkin. But I'd say Fury goes through that bunch without much trouble.

 

Wilfredo Gomez looks like a better fighter than Salvador Sanchez on film. ( in my opinion)

 

Marquez beating Pacquiao

 

Problem was he wasn't a better featherweight.
Same with Arguello vs Pryor.
All of Gomez's losses came at feather and above.

 

The superior fighter on any given night always wins, by definition. Just because this self-evident reality may not agree with your assessment doesn't make it not so.