Win on Points or by KO?

Where’s the Floyd fanboys? Lol, they stay in Pacquiao threads but can’t debate this logic here. They know!!

KO/TKO is supposed to be the name of the game. Point fighting is looked down upon in most combat sports.

TKO or corner stoppage is the most convincing. Cant say u just got caught

Definitely a KO. Its crowd pleasing. It builds your brand. There are no judging contorveries.

If Floyd KOed Manny then it would have no doubt been a greater win.. And the world would have been bowing nonstop to him. Instead of some boring play it safe until the end win and land 20 more punches than the opponent. When it comes to the greats against greats winning by KO is the greater win as it is harder to pull off against another great. He landed like what? 11 more pillow jabs? Those Compubox numbers were completely false too.

Technically a fighter is 'awarded a decision' vs 'being victorious by way of knockout' One is more subjective while the other is absolute. It is better to win by knockout.

To win by ko is better. That's why deonta y can be called the best with the least boxing ability. They will only say fury is the best when he officially beats deontay. Floyd was always given favours though, considered the best by out pointing everyone

Greater to win on points or by KO? I’d say to win by KO is much greater. You’re eviscerating your opponent and ending fights quicker. Much more action packed fights usually end with KO’s and it’s much more entertaining. It’s also much more difficult to pull off. If Floyd KOed Manny then it would have no doubt been a greater win.. And the world would have been bowing nonstop to him. Instead of some boring play it safe until the end win and land 20 more punches than the opponent. When it comes to the greats against greats winning by KO is the greater win as it is harder to pull off against another great.

Well if you can only win on points you don't want to fight abroad. Floyd! Floyd could have 50 losses now if he fought abroad and didn't ko his opponents

Yes but the question is which is a greater style of victory? By points or KO? If you had a choice to win by KO or by points which would you like to choose? End the fight by KO or leave it to the judges? It just depends, there isn't a one size fits all. Dominating for 12 can be just as impressive as any KO, and arguably proves more, but equally there's almost nothing in boxing equal to the spectacle of a fantastic one shot finish.

Doing both is the ultimate surely? However winning a fair decision most likely proves you're a better boxer. Winning by KO, especially if you were behind at the time, might suggest you're just a better fighter, not a better boxer necessarily. No, that makes no sense.

Doing both is the ultimate surely? However winning a fair decision most likely proves you're a better boxer. Winning by KO, especially if you were behind at the time, might suggest you're just a better fighter, not a better boxer necessarily.

KO is better. It's definitive, when a "points" decision is based on 3 judges which is not ideal because it is subjective.

Notice none of the Floyd fanboys in this thread, lol. When they know they can’t argue logic, they just avoid it period Instead they spend all their time in Pacquiao threads, LMAO! Salty losers.

It all depends. Do you want your haters to say the judges were paid off, or that your opponent took a dive? Either way, your win is getting discredited. That’s why KO/TKO is the greatest form of victory.

It all depends. Do you want your haters to say the judges were paid off, or that your opponent took a dive? Either way, your win is getting discredited.

Boxing is a sport about knockouts. Decisions came later and only ever came explicitly to soften the sport. Nothing to do with proving anything beyond doubt, just to soften boxing. I like points fighters just fine, I appreciate the skills, but, boxing is a knockout centric sport, always has been, always will be. If points ever mattered we'd just wait until the knocked out man can fight again until the full schedule has been met, or at least would have back when boxing gave no ****s if you died. They are secondary. Exactly this. You hit the nail on the head. A boxer is supposed to enter the ring with intentions of KOing/TKOing his opponent, or at least intentions of beating him up good. Points and decisions are are in place to exist in case both opponents still stand at the end of the fight. Fighters who intend to win on points from the start, despite being a technical strategy of victory, hurts the sport. And it’s not true fighting, more of a default. That’s why when a fighter avoids combat and implements the run and clinch methods, the crowd typically boos. KO/TKO is the utmost dominant and decisive victory, in other words it’s the greatest win possible.

Winning on points is good. Winning by knockout is better. Winning on points AND getting a knockout is the best.

Because he was Mike Tyson. It's an opinion question....how is there a wrong answer? I love Tyson fights, but that's because I can watch the 5 min match for free. Knockouts are exciting but do not always prove the best fighter It proves who was the better man that night, and there’s no way around it. 2 professional fighters are aiming to hurt each other physically, so when they punch each other it’s not a “fluke”. That’s their job and they know how to do it.

Because he was Mike Tyson. It's an opinion question....how is there a wrong answer? I love Tyson fights, but that's because I can watch the 5 min match for free. Knockouts are exciting but do not always prove the best fighter