If you win one match 6-0 it doesn't show much. However, if one person wins ten or fifteen matches in a row, all 6-0 or 5-0 victories, I'm going to consider them a tougher challenge than someone who won that many matches in a row all 1-0 or 2-0 victories. Obviously to win that many matches in a row, you have to have great prowess, but if you 6-0 everyone you face, that shows that you not only defeat everyone, but you defeat them without losing a single pokemon, that shows that you play smart and run circles around your opponent, stopping every chance at offense he has.
Now if you're talking about just one battle, this doesn't really mean anything. You can't really tell anything about a battler's skill by just looking at the score of one battle.
In comparison, people might find the person that won 6-0 a better battler than the person who won 1-0. While all along a sweeper team can easily defeat a stall team.
I don't really understand what you are trying to say here. So the stall team user wins handily, while the sweeper team just gets by. This is just one match, and it doesn't prove anything. (except for the newbie he lost twice so sucks for him)
But uh... are you saying that sweeper teams can beat stall teams; therefore the sweeper user is a better battler because his team starts out with a large advantage? That makes no sense. If the sweeper starts out with the advantage and wins, that proves nothing. (If the sweeper team starts out with the advantage and still loses, that might prove something, but that's a different point).
You can't assume that just because team A is better than team B, and team B can beat team C, that team A will hold an advantage against team C. That reasoning only works in straight up math; this is strategy rather than math. Think of it like rock-paper-scissors. Rock can beat scissors, and scissors cuts paper. If you use the transitive property of math, then rock must be much better than paper, but you can't use that property because again rock paper scissors is strategy rather than math. (it's very simplistic strategy but many strategy games draw directly from the rock paper scissors triangle)
Anyway I also wanted to connect this to sports to support my argument that scores do matter somewhat. Lets say a basketball team plays two teams in a best-of-five format (remember one match doesn't really say much).
They beat the first team 95-40, 97-55, and 103-49. They beat the second team 99-98, 96-88, and 107-105.
Now the losing teams (lets assume that they play similar styles so that the strategy thing doesn't come into play, they are rock-rock if you will) play each other. Both teams lost all three games. If the scores truly don't matter, then you would have no idea which team would win. I however, look at the scores, and see that one team clearly sucks balls.
Translate this into pokemon, and it would be the team that lost 15 matches in a row, all 6-0.
Anyway tl;dr version, I say that if you 6-0 a person, it doesn't say too much unless you can do it consistently (like 10+ times in a row). However, if you consistently 6-0 people, then yes, the score does show that you are a good battler.
