Should you lose a point for being KOed in the super six?

I agree that giving -1 would probably encourage negative fighting so I don't think they should do that in the S6. However, DLT obviously has a point in saying going the distance is usually a more credible way to lose than getting sparked. I think that's more of a general issue though. The pride in going the distance even when beaten quite soundly seems to be lost these days. It seems to me that more and more fighters now seem to be pulling out just for the hell of it. A fighter/corner should only really pull out if he seems to be in grave danger/is injured. Some fighters now just pull out if they're being outjabbed up to the seventh round against opponents they know they can't KO so they decide there's no reason to continue. Buddy McGirt on more than one occasion has pulled his fighter out for very weak reasons. Imagine if a football team just refused to come out for the 2nd half if they were 4-0 down or if a marathon runner just stepped off the track because the top 3 runners had already crossed the finish line.

Taylor would have been confident enough not to run, its not his style.

I guess that's a good point. Taylor probably would've been on his bike in the 12th had this been the case. Taylor would never be on his bike. He's got balls :boxing:

Even though Dirrell was in a closely contested bout, he is even with Jermain Taylor in points because they award zero points for a loss regardless of how you lose. IMO Taylor should have -1 point and Dirrell should have zero. They give an extra point for KOing someone, but don't deduct a point for getting KOed. This seems strange to me. What do you think? Actually, I was thinking the same thing. Not in regards to Taylor or Dirrell specificaly but just in general for the tourney. If you are going to give and extra point for a KO then why not take away 1 for getting KO? I also dont buy the guys getting on there bike theroy. These guys are warriors and most of them feel like they can win to the end. There is no way that Taylor was going to run in that 12th round. Shoot, he probably didnt even think he would get stopped. You guys are just looking at 1 fight but what if there is a battle for the 4th seed in the semis and they both have 2 losses but one guy lost 2 close contrversial decisions while the other guy lost every round and got KO twice? Are you going to tell me that its fair to call it a tie or put these 2 guys in the same catagory? Hell NO. You couldve gave JMM 2 losses to Pac but people still had him ranked #2 in the world while Hatton got KO twice by the 2 top guys in the sport and people call him garbage. Dont tell me that a loss is a loss

No. Why you trying to kick Taylor down some more. Plus do you want guys just trying to survive the fight so they dont get -1. I guess that's a good point. Taylor probably would've been on his bike in the 12th had this been the case.

No. Why you trying to kick Taylor down some more. Plus do you want guys just trying to survive the fight so they dont get -1.

I don't agree with it. I like the fact that an extra point for a KO provides greater incentive to actually fight. Threatening to take a point for being on the wrong end of a stoppage negates such incentive, to where a fighter would rather cross the finish line than run the risk of leaving himself open.

Nah, minus points would be stupid. A loss is a loss. Really? Jermain got concussed and had his head nearly knocked off, Dirrell lost a controversial decision. It doesn't seem fair to me.

Nah, minus points would be stupid. A loss is a loss.