Dominance as a criteria for greatness? When considering ATG Status primarily?

[joseph5620]

You wouldn't consider Roy Jones vs James Toney a domination?

I can't think of many better examples than that.

Yeah. If that wasn't domination nothing is.

[GhostofDempsey]

Dominance is a slippery slope. A fighter like Floyd did just enough to win rounds and come away with a decison and he was content wih that. While other great fighters went in with the intent on knocking out their opponent and taking the fight to them. One method is low risk-high reward, the other is high risk-high reward. Most fans appreciate those who take high risks and try not to leave the fight in the hands of the judges.

[Willie Pep 229]

No to overly parse just one point, but I have a question about the bolded portion. What do you mean by "merely outboxing" in regards to something not being domination?

For example, in Crawford v Postol, Crawford basically stuck and move for the whole fight and outboxed his opponent. I would say he dominated him (and the wide scorecards back that up). But he didn't dominate him physically, he didn't pick him apart, he basically just outboxed him.

Would an example such as that fit into what you claim is NOT domination?

Yes! But only by your description, I did not see the fight.

I believe it took SRR-LaMotta 55 plus rounds to finally decide who the dominate fighter was.Then the matter was settled, IMO

Yet SRR went into the sixth fight 4-1 in judges scoring, but that doesn't move me. They still needed that last fight.

To speak from the other extreme, look at Lopez- Kambosos as an example the other way. Should that decision really have so changed Lopez's marketing value? But it sure did.

Too much emphasis is placed on boxing skills and judges scores and has created an environment where too many fighters never seek to win the fight but content themseleves with a judges' decision. I can't find the word 'dominate' in that scenario.

[DeeMoney]

Dominance is a slippery slope. A fighter like Floyd did just enough to win rounds and come away with a decison and he was content wih that. While other great fighters went in with the intent on knocking out their opponent and taking the fight to them. One method is low risk-high reward, the other is high risk-high reward. Most fans appreciate those who take high risks and try not to leave the fight in the hands of the judges.

Along those same lines, I have seen guys get whooped pillar to post for multiple rounds, just to land a hail mary punch and score a KO. I would argue a wide decision on the score card can be more dominant than a KO.

[DeeMoney]

Yes! But only by your description, I did not see the fight.

I believe it took SRR-LaMotta 55 plus rounds to finally decide who the dominate fighter was.Then the matter was settled, IMO

Yet SRR went into the sixth fight 4-1 in judges scoring, but that doesn't move me. They still needed that last fight.

To speak from the other extreme, look at Lopez- Kambosos as an example the other way. Should that decision really have so changed Lopez's marketing value? But it sure did.

Too much emphasis is placed on boxing skills and judges scores and has created an environment where too many fighters never seek to win the fight but content themseleves with a judges' decision. I can't find the word 'dominate' in that scenario.

I get you, but thats the name of the game nowadays. If you can dominate in this 'safe new fangled way' then you are still dominating in a way that is conducive to winning the fight.

[Willie Pep 229]

[QUOTE=joseph5620;n31947461]

Yeah. If that wasn't domination nothing is. [/QUOTE]

A KO is!

It doesn't need a decision by judges.

[IronDanHamza]

A KO is!

It doesn't need a decision by judges.

A KO is decisive, not necessarily dominant.

Jones totally dominated Toney for every second of every round. That's is the epitome of a dominant performance.

[Willie Pep 229]

You wouldn't consider Roy Jones vs James Toney a domination?

I can't think of many better examples than that.

No I wouldn't.

Let me make two points in defense:

1. Would I have paid for a rematch? Yes, just to see how/if Toney could have adjusted. If I thought a fighter was dominated I wouldn't want a rematch. I never saw Jones so confident in that fight that he didn't think he was at risk.

Would you have liked to see Toney get a srcond shot at Jones?

2. I believe Toney wins that fight if it was scheduled for 45 rounds. Jones athleticism would fade in 20 or so rounds, and with legs and hand speed slowed, I think the more relaxed fighter, Toney, would have proved the better man.

But I did include the word "throughly" when I said Jones outboxed him. So, remember I saw the same thing you did.

But to me that fight was never decided. It needed at least one rematch, maybe more.

You're too loose with the word dominate. If three men at ringside have to decided who won, you probably shouldn't be using the word 'dominate.' Just say he 'throughly out boxed him.' That's enough praise for that particluiar effort.

[IronDanHamza]

No I wouldn't.

Let me make two points in defense:

1. Would I have paid for a rematch? Yes, just to see how/if Toney could have adjusted. If I thought a fighter was dominated I wouldn't want a rematch. I never saw Jones so confident in that fight that he didn't think he was at risk.

Would you have liked to see Toney get a srcond shot at Jones?

2. I believe Toney wins that fight if it was scheduled for 45 rounds. Jones athleticism would fade in 20 or so rounds, and with legs and hand speed slowed, I think the more relaxed fighter, Toney, would have proved the better man.

But I did include the word "throughly" when I said Jones outboxed him. So, remember I saw the same thing you did.

But to me that fight was never decided. It needed at least one rematch, maybe more.

You're too loose with the word dominate. If three men at ringside have to decided who won, you probably shouldn't be using the word 'dominate.' Just say he 'throughly out boxed him.' That's enough praise for that particluiar effort.

I think you're way off.

There is no scenario where Toney is competitive with Jones, let alone beats him. They are two totally different class of fighters and it showed when they fought. They could fight 100 rounds, Jones doesn't lose any.

I can't think of a rematch I'd like to see less. I want to see competitive close fights again when it's arguable who won. I wanted to see Toney-McCallum again, which happened, I wanted to see Toney-Johnson again which didn't, Toney-Griffin which did, if a fights close and arguable who won then I want to see it again. Like Jones-Tarver from the other side of that coin.

Jones-Toney was a one sided domination. A total mismatch. They could fight 1000 times, Jones schools him with one hand behind his back every time.

I don't get your second point, you're saying to me that decisions can't be dominations? So for example you are telling me that Pacquaio-Margarito wasn't a total domination because it went to a decision? As opposed to Pacquaio-Marquez 4 because Pacquaio was KO'd cold whilst being up on the cards? That doesn't make any logical sense.

[GhostofDempsey]

Along those same lines, I have seen guys get whooped pillar to post for multiple rounds, just to land a hail mary punch and score a KO. I would argue a wide decision on the score card can be more dominant than a KO.

How often does that happen though? Where a fighter is getting his ass whooped for 11 rounds and lands the dramatic Rocky Balboa Hail Mary punch to win the fight? Slick fighters content on winning decisions are unfortunately much more common. As a fan, I’d rather watch a Super Bowl that comes down to the wire with a score of 40-37 after an offensive shootout than one that ends in overtime on a field goal and a score of 3-0.