Do KO's even matter any more?

Collapse
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • .Mik.
    I'm a ****ing caveman!
    Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
    • Jan 2007
    • 2397
    • 257
    • 37
    • 10,151

    #1

    Do KO's even matter any more?

    I quite often read threads noting how certain fighters havent had a genuine knock out in a long while. Two of the prime examples being two of the most popular topics of discussion on this forum: Joe Calzaghe and Floyd Mayweather Jnr.

    My question is...how much does it matter? Yes, it is undoubted that we are getting less genuine knock outs because of all the high-profile cases of injury causing referees to get more protective and thus we're getting many more TKOs and stoppages than KOs. Also, if you study most boxers, you'll find that after they get outside of their first 20 fights or so (ie after they are not fed lower classes of boxers anymore) their knockouts start drying up. There are many more boxers that do follow that trend than those who dont.

    But what difference does it make? Calzaghe throws flurries, the majority of his fights are stopped because of these flurries. He wears his opponents down.

    Floyd Mayweather is a grinder. Like Calzaghe he blatantly DOES have power. Also like Calzaghe, he has quite brittle hands. Like Calzaghe to combat the risk of breaking his hands and leaving him at a disadvantage he isnt always looking for knock out punches. He wears his opponents down by making them chase him and by counter-punching and then tries to get stoppages by precision punches on a tired fighter...NOT by going for the KO (not often anyway).

    Why should they be criticised for this? Why is knocking an opponent out a more prestigious victory considering what we know of the effects of such occurances, as opposed to skillfully and technically out-flanking the opponent and beating them over the duration of the contest, showing a greater stamina and tactical display than a simple knockout?

    Sure, I can see why opponents with huge power are lauded for their ability to knock people out, but I dont see why people are criticised for not doing so.

    With that said, those PBF fans who constantly run around shouting about how PBF is going to 'knock Hatton's head off' and 'kill him' need to realise that he is not this type of fighter and by claiming he will do so you are looking like a ****. I dont see many people making the same claim about Calzaghe, they much more realistically say Calzaghe is more likely to stop or UD Kessler.

    Discuss.
  • jaredleto
    Banned
    Silver Champion - 100-500 posts
    • Aug 2007
    • 157
    • 3
    • 0
    • 204

    #2
    yeah mayweather could ko hatton but he aint gonna do it hes so afraid of receiving one punch

    Comment

    • FightNight 2007
      Kimbo Slice > Klitchko
      • Aug 2007
      • 562
      • 100
      • 61
      • 661

      #3
      KO's are prestigious.

      You can make all the excuses in the world when you lose a decision.
      "Oh, I wasn't ready for this fight." or "The judges robbed me." or "He kept hitting me low so I was taken out of my fight."

      When you KO an opponent, what the **** can they say?

      "I made a mistake, he reacted and I got knocked the **** out."

      KOs > Decisions

      Comment

      • frankpaganini
        Banned
        Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
        • Aug 2007
        • 1110
        • 47
        • 19
        • 1,207

        #4
        Originally posted by FightNight 2007
        KO's are prestigious.

        You can make all the excuses in the world when you lose a decision.
        "Oh, I wasn't ready for this fight." or "The judges robbed me." or "He kept hitting me low so I was taken out of my fight."

        When you KO an opponent, what the **** can they say?

        "I made a mistake, he reacted and I got knocked the **** out."

        KOs > Decisions

        i agree.

        a decision win can always be disputed...a KO can not be disputed.

        close decisions (especially split decisions) are often argued and i believe you can make a legitimate arguement ANYTIME there is a very close split decision since its sooooo close you cant really get too much heat for thinking one guy should have won when in fact he was on the losing side of the split decision.

        however when there is a KO you cant argue that you werent knocked out.

        you layed on the floor for the count of 10. its black and white...you cant argue that.

        Comment

        • Dempsey's Fan
          Up and Comer
          Interim Champion - 1-100 posts
          • Jun 2007
          • 83
          • 10
          • 1
          • 6,133

          #5
          To be frank, hell yes. Were talking about boxing here, and a knockout victory is flawless, and thus the desired result of every match.

          Comment

          • .Mik.
            I'm a ****ing caveman!
            Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
            • Jan 2007
            • 2397
            • 257
            • 37
            • 10,151

            #6
            Originally posted by FightNight 2007
            KO's are prestigious.

            You can make all the excuses in the world when you lose a decision.
            "Oh, I wasn't ready for this fight." or "The judges robbed me." or "He kept hitting me low so I was taken out of my fight."

            When you KO an opponent, what the **** can they say?

            "I made a mistake, he reacted and I got knocked the **** out."

            KOs > Decisions
            Of course they are more prestigious. I said that myself.

            You dont think that people can make excuses for being knocked out? Lewis did. People made them for him too. I'd say that taking an mutual decision where you've took a beating over 12 rounds gives you less excuse and reason to complain than winning a fight for 8 rounds and then losing it due to one punch.

            But I dunno.

            Comment

            • BrooklynBomber
              Banned
              Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
              • Oct 2004
              • 28365
              • 1,563
              • 1,541
              • 44,979

              #7
              Knock out is an epithamy of boxing as a martial art. Note, decision victories are a relatively new thing in boxing, it was always about one man falling.

              Comment

              • frankpaganini
                Banned
                Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
                • Aug 2007
                • 1110
                • 47
                • 19
                • 1,207

                #8
                Originally posted by Miksterious
                Of course they are more prestigious. I said that myself.

                You dont think that people can make excuses for being knocked out? Lewis did. People made them for him too. I'd say that taking an mutual decision where you've took a beating over 12 rounds gives you less excuse and reason to complain than winning a fight for 8 rounds and then losing it due to one punch.

                But I dunno.
                also true.

                Comment

                • .Mik.
                  I'm a ****ing caveman!
                  Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
                  • Jan 2007
                  • 2397
                  • 257
                  • 37
                  • 10,151

                  #9
                  I've no doubt that winning a split decision where it could be argued one way or another, should never be considered as impressive as a conclusive knock out. But winning almost every round and utterly dominating an opponent for the full duration of the contest...should that not be considered on a par, or close to as prestigious as a knock out? Or at the very least, not be criticised for not knocking the man out?

                  Comment

                  • BrooklynBomber
                    Banned
                    Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
                    • Oct 2004
                    • 28365
                    • 1,563
                    • 1,541
                    • 44,979

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Miksterious
                    I've no doubt that winning a split decision where it could be argued one way or another, should never be considered as impressive as a conclusive knock out. But winning almost every round and utterly dominating an opponent for the full duration of the contest...should that not be considered on a par, or close to as prestigious as a knock out? Or at the very least, not be criticised for not knocking the man out?
                    It all depends on what do you expect from a fighter.


                    Take Wlad for example, do you think he would get as much credit for decisioning Ray Austin(although beating him conclusively in every round) then knocking him out in 2?

                    So, it applies differently in different cases and match ups.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    TOP