It sure is a weird way of looking at it.
Evolution works to allow a population to fit the environment of the time better. If the resitent bacteria are in an environment with the antibiotic, they are not "weaker" they are alive and the others aren't. If the enviroment then becomes one without the antibiotic then they are 'weaker' and will die out.
In the world of the hand chopping dictator the left handless are "better" than the two handed. Period, better. Doesn't say they are better in all environments just the one that they have evolved for.
It may be that almost any change also has some undesirable side effects. An organism survives based on the sum of all it's characteristics and the sum of all things about the environment.
It has been described as a "red queen race" -- from through the looking glass -- where you have to run as fast as you can to stay where you are.
If the environment stays with antibiotic in it the resistant bacteria are the "better" ones. Eventually there will be other mutations and these will not be good enough to survive and you'll find antibiotic resistant bacteria that are also better at handling something else as well. Will they be "stronger" than non antibiotic resistant ones?? Who cares if they are the best able to survive and are only in antibiotic environments.
Is this boy going to be "better" than anyone else?
http://12.31.13.113/healthnews/healthday/040623HD519696.htm
He has a mutation that produces stronger muscles than "normal"
At some things it seems he will be. Will he die of some complications early? Maybe. But it doesn't matter if his increased strength allows him to reproduce first and more than others. Will it allow him in our environment? Maybe not, maybe smarter would be better. Would it in other environments? Possibly.
™ Version 4.2