Is winning all that counts? It certainly cannot be discounted as a major criteria in assessing how good a fighter is. However, I think to a much greater extent than any other sport, the manner in which a fighter wins counts for a lot, or at least it should, in the evaluation of a fighter. For example, Maskaev knocked Rahman out of the ring with one punch in his victory over him. Should that count the same as Holyfield's head-butt fueled TKO over Rahman? Isn't it far too simplistic to simply talk in terms of who beat whom? And in doing so, doesn't it encourage fighters not to fight the best for fear of losing? And even in the case when they do fight the best, doesn't it perpetuate the safety first approach that so many fighters have adopted that create tedious and utterly boring fights, that quite possibly, could in large part account for the decline of boxing as a main-stream sport?