I know this logic a frowned upon when making a decision about who would win a fight between two fighters...Meaning A beats B but loses to C doesn't mean C would beat B..I know that, we all know that, or should...

The question is this: How can you really determine if a fighter is worth any thing if you don't check to see who his opponents have beaten?

They are 2 different principles,by all means check who an opponent has beaten but just because A beats B and B beats C does not mean A beats C. A perfect example of that being weak is,Pacman,Erik,MAB. That one confuses me!!
To see if a fighter is worthy,you can always look at how they have beaten their opponents,what qualities they possess etc.

Originally Posted by The Game

They are 2 different principles,by all means check who an opponent has beaten but just because A beats B and B beats C does not mean A beats C. A perfect example of that being weak is,Pacman,Erik,MAB. That one confuses me!!
To see if a fighter is worthy,you can always look at how they have beaten their opponents,what qualities they possess etc.

What if a young prospect is 20-0-16...and destroyed all his opponents...lets say one of his opponents record is 25-0...but he got his record that way by only beating guys with records like 7-20, 3-10, 0-7,
14-8-4, 1-9, and so forth, doesn't this discredit first guys level of competition aswell?

And as far as PAC,MAB,ERIK...if erik loses to PAc again that'll make erik the weakest of the 3...because he'd be 2-4..and Pac would be the best because he'd be 3-1, MAB would be 2-2...so that little circle would be solved....

I think with boxing when you get up to the world class level, you almost have to throw out their records and just compare styles. Especially when you are comparing fighters that have fought each other. Like everybody says styles make fights.

Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweather

Originally Posted by The Game

They are 2 different principles,by all means check who an opponent has beaten but just because A beats B and B beats C does not mean A beats C. A perfect example of that being weak is,Pacman,Erik,MAB. That one confuses me!!
To see if a fighter is worthy,you can always look at how they have beaten their opponents,what qualities they possess etc.

What if a young prospect is 20-0-16...and destroyed all his opponents...lets say one of his opponents record is 25-0...but he got his record that way by only beating guys with records like 7-20, 3-10, 0-7,
14-8-4, 1-9, and so forth, doesn't this discredit first guys level of competition aswell?

And as far as PAC,MAB,ERIK...if erik loses to PAc again that'll make erik the weakest of the 3...because he'd be 2-4..and Pac would be the best because he'd be 3-1, MAB would be 2-2...so that little circle would be solved....

Yeah but you solved that triangle without using the man who beat the man,you looked at individual fights. If we are going by the man who beat the man,Erik should not have beat Pac,as he lost to MAB in their last fight and Pacman crushed him. Another example: Junior Jones beat MAB twice,EM stopped him easily yet most think MAB won the first fight. The man who beat the man is rubbish,I'm sorry,I just don't like it!

Yeah,TyBuff,you are right I guess,you look at style but again,1 punch can throw styles out of the window!!! Theoretically,Zab was 100 times faster than Tszyu but look at what happened. There are various factors to take into acount,you just look at it on a fight by fight basis I guess as there is no one rule which can apply to all the various intangibles which are capable of existing in the sweet science.

Originally Posted by The Game

Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweather

Originally Posted by The Game

They are 2 different principles,by all means check who an opponent has beaten but just because A beats B and B beats C does not mean A beats C. A perfect example of that being weak is,Pacman,Erik,MAB. That one confuses me!!
To see if a fighter is worthy,you can always look at how they have beaten their opponents,what qualities they possess etc.

What if a young prospect is 20-0-16...and destroyed all his opponents...lets say one of his opponents record is 25-0...but he got his record that way by only beating guys with records like 7-20, 3-10, 0-7,
14-8-4, 1-9, and so forth, doesn't this discredit first guys level of competition aswell?

And as far as PAC,MAB,ERIK...if erik loses to PAc again that'll make erik the weakest of the 3...because he'd be 2-4..and Pac would be the best because he'd be 3-1, MAB would be 2-2...so that little circle would be solved....

Yeah but you solved that triangle without using the man who beat the man,you looked at individual fights. If we are going by the man who beat the man,Erik should not have beat Pac,as he lost to MAB in their last fight and Pacman crushed him. Another example: Junior Jones beat MAB twice,EM stopped him easily yet most think MAB won the first fight. The man who beat the man is rubbish,I'm sorry,I just don't like it!

Yeah,TyBuff,you are right I guess,you look at style but again,1 punch can throw styles out of the window!!! Theoretically,Zab was 100 times faster than Tszyu but look at what happened. There are various factors to take into acount,you just look at it on a fight by fight basis I guess as there is no one rule which can apply to all the various intangibles which are capable of existing in the sweet science.

Some very good points Game. Very true one punch can change any fight, but I think that is why along with the fighters style you have to look at the fighter also. How they take a punch, how they handle the different fighting styles, and so on. Just like you said there is no one rule which applies.

Cool click,your points are true too. That's what I meant,you have to look at various factors but the one which I believe to be least credible is the man who beat the man etc. I see no basis on truth in that equation. Think I have been watching too much of the Matrix(Architect' speech!)