Which fighter would be better?

Fighter B will be rated higher because his six matches with the three ATG's would be remembered more if they were great battles. Does 'great battle' = 'highly competitive'? However, the stage in the career of these ATG's when they fought B needs to be considered.

Look at next week, for example. If Pavlik beats Hopkins that's big for him but not as big as it would be if it happened even three or four years ago.

Fighter A will be respected and praised but there will always be that little nagging thing about his resume not having a bunch of great names. However, is this because A dodged the other greats of his time or was it just a matter of there not being any other greats at the time. I don't know, fun to think about though.

 

My bad about analyzing Fighter A. I misread the post the first time. So, if all A had was B and C dudes to brutalize then he'll be rated high for being so dominant and never slipping or fighting down to his opposition. Like he never had a Tyson-Douglas moment. know what I mean?

 

:good Immediately came to mind upon reading.