What difines a good fighter?

E.g. Keiran Keddle is always out there fighting in various countries and shows but loses nearly has many fights as he wins. Does this mean he's a good fighter or an active fighter?

Then you may get someone else like say Liam Harrisson who doesn't fight as often but wins more often does this make him a good fighter? or in the publics eyes does this make him not as good as Kieran because he doesn't fight as much.

I just used these 2 guys as examples because they are well known. My opinion is this. The facts say Kieran isn't as good as the public think he his but because he's always active people get the impression he's the best around which doesn't seem to be the case does it?

And Liam looks like an up and coming fighter just because he doesn't fight as often but in reality is probably the best one out there at that weight

If a pro boxer at the top of his game fought 30 times and lost 13 he'd be seen as a nearly man or journey man. Surely to be classed as good you should be winning 95% of the time and not be classed as good because you'll fight anybody every week

Ive probably started a war of words here which I didn't intend to. back to the original question. What makes a good fighter? Activeness? Success? Countries he/she has fought in ?