Originally Posted by Archer

The Patton in 1965 was believed to have more advanced fire control, better ammunition and better armour.

Believed by whom? The Centurion had a first-rate fire control system to go with its stabilised armament. The gun was very effective for its time (although changed to the 105mm in later marks of Centurion, and existing early marks were up-gunned to the new calibre). The efficiency of the armour depends on many things, thickness, type, treatment and avoidance of shot traps amongst them. The Centurion was well up to snuff here.
In conflict, the Indian crews turned out to have better training, the Pakistanis hadnt drilled enough on their ballistic computer equipped tanks, while the Indian side was adept at ranging and putting rounds on target quickly. Tactics also counted, India demonstrated integration with infantry (Tanking 101) and proper use of terrain for ambushes. When Indias tankers discovered that APDS was not penetrating at range, it was quickly decided to hold fire till half range (iirc) and then fire- that worked. Before the conflict, the Patton had built up a very solid mythos- including amongst Indian tank crews who regarded it as a modern tank than what they had.

But their experience in battle should have nailed that myth for all time. Compare the loss figures. Of course crew training and resolve are among the factors that can greatly influence the outcome of any battle.

Post conflict, it became a symbol of how technology alone would not suffice in the Indo-Pak battlefield.
Another example of the above was the Gnat vs F.86 Sabre issue. The Gnat, a much lighter, smaller and generally more "basic" aircraft - when well handled- proved to be a match for the Sabre in air to air combat.