How do you personally rate a fighter?

I have always been curious on this. Since people never seem to agree on who the best fighter is and pound for pound list while have basically the same fighters on it tend to vary in the order they are placed. I was just wondering on how the different members here judge a fighter and his ability or should I say what do they favor.

Here is an example of what I mean- We will pretend there are 2 fighters who reside in the same weight class both have the exact same record of 30-0, both men have won titles in the exact same 2 seperate weight classes ( lets say at Junior Welterweight and Welterweight). Each man has the exact same opponents on their resume since winning their titles.

Fighter A is a boxer/puncher that has 26 KO's out of the 30 wins on his resume. While he has never been close to being stopped he has been down 4 or 5 times in his career.

Fighter B is a defensive fighter with only 10 KO's on his resume but all his other wins came by way of UD, he is very slick and his chin is solid as steele and he has not ever come close to even being rocked.

Which fighter would you be the bigger fan of or consider the better of the two? They have the same resume and same credential's one has the better chin the other more power. Which fighter just by reading the scenario would you sway towards? The fighter with good skill and KO power or the top notch defensive fighter who has a rock solid chin?

Personally, I'd lean towards the defensive fighter as the better boxer, but I'd probably rather watch the other guy as his fights would be, to me, more exciting - unless he was just some sloppy brawler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

Personally, I'd lean towards the defensive fighter as the better boxer, but I'd probably rather watch the other guy as his fights would be, to me, more exciting - unless he was just some sloppy brawler.

---

Thats why I stated they would have the same resume and accomplishments, I agree I would also lean towards the defensive fight but of course we all like to see the KO ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Body Puncher

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

Personally, I'd lean towards the defensive fighter as the better boxer, but I'd probably rather watch the other guy as his fights would be, to me, more exciting - unless he was just some sloppy brawler.

---

Thats why I stated they would have the same resume and accomplishments, I agree I would also lean towards the defensive fight but of course we all like to see the KO ;D

---

I can appreciate both styles, which is what it comes down to. I've watched power punchers involved in some pretty boring fights, and I've seen defensive wizards in some great fights as well.

I'd go the boxer puncher. Love to watch guys who have good skills yet can stil KTFO someone when they have the opportunity.

I rate fighters a lot more on who they have fought rather than their records in numbers. If a guys record is 25-5 but he has fought tough opposition, i respect that more than someone who is 40-0 yet never really been tested. So yeah i rate guys mainly on opposition fought and how much they have challenged themselves. This could include going up in weight, willingness to travel, and fighting the best available.
Dont really rate guys who just go after alphabet titles, or just fight for the money.

I always look at:
Style
Opposition
Wins vs. Losses
Titles

From the 2 that you listed I prefer the boxer/puncher.

Boxer/Puncher all the way. I love it when a skilled fighter comes with a killer instinct and has that awesome precision in his punching. I don't like pure brawlers, I like cold, calculating, efficient KO artists.

Defensive slick boxers can be a beauty to watch, but there is something about a fighter that is more concerned with not getting hurt than hurting the other guy that just doesn't do it for me. I can watch his fights and appreciate his skills but I just don't get exited. But that's just me.

When i view a fighter for the first time i view it almost as an amateur judge,
Do they connect cleanly, how straight are his straight shots/how perfect his hooks?
I watch his movement and defensive style and I pay close attention to his reactions when he is hit.

However usually i no immediatly how i feel about a fighter.
Immediatly i respected Mayweather, Whittaker, Benvenutti, Hopkins etc.

But when a "favourite fighter" comes along i get the tingle in the back of my neck that only guys like Ali, Leonard, Hagler, Monzon, Arguello, Hatton and Jones Jr. give me.

In a situation like that I would have to closely scrutinize their fights and see who executed there game plan better, based on the descriptions you gave, I would personally give it to the defensive fighter, that's just my taste.
Overall I rate fighters on the following.

1) How well do they execute their individual style
2) How does that style match-up with others in their weight class
3) General conditioning, and chin
4) Willingness to use all above said in worthwhile match-ups

Thanks for all the input guys if I could give out cool clicks I would

Personally, I rate fighters on their haircut. It simply has to suit the fighter, otherwise they go right down in my estimations. ;D

Alot of ways I rate a fighter. Foremost would be heart and determination to win the fight, especially when they are behind. Adaptability is high on the list, guys like Mayweather or Sweet Pea could adapt at will, and shows a deep understanding of the Science. Obviously opponents fought would be on a rating scale. Going to different weight classes is hard to not take notice of also, win or lose.