Discussion: Is not "going for the kill" a better way to secure a win?

[tito_bandito]

I have seen a few boxers with a decent record and a very low knockout ratio state that they do not go for the kill because it secures a victory. Boxers like Mayweather (no brainer), Tim Bradley, Robert Guerrero, and well even Chad Dawson to me seem to not grasp the opportunity when it is in front of them. Granite, Dawson did lose to Pascal when he was fighting off the back foot in a living room sized boxing ring LOL, but before the cut in the later rounds he began to inflict damage on Pascal when he was told to by his trainer, and IMO was going to take him out before the cut. Had Dawson done this as soon as the first bell rang I think he could have won. Lets even take Mike Jones for example against Karass in the first fight. Jones wanted to take off Karass's head and it bit him in the ass (no ****) when he was in the deep waters and I think he lost. The second fight was a bit more safe on Jones's behalf and he clearly won. In regards to my question, should you always go for the kill? Or is fighting with more caution and patience a better way to lengthen your career and secure a record?

[Hassan93k]

Going for the kill can make you more prone to being open and getting caught. Why take a risk when you can play it safe?

Remember these days boxing spectators see one loss as a cardinal sin so maybe thats why some fighters play it safe.

[Double_L]

See Linares-Demarco.

Granite, Dawson did lose to Pascal when he was fighting off the back foot in a living room sized boxing ring LOL

Sorry but this made me lol.

[KayDub]

See Linares-Demarco.

Sorry but this made me lol.

I'm happy you saw that too.

[The Gambler1981]

Depends on the guy and who they are facing.

If a guy thrives on battling it out is it smart to oblige him especially if the guy facing has the option of fighting in a way that allows him to do his thing without really allowing that guy to get into his fight.

Or on the flip side if a guy has really good abilities but some shaky toughness qualities, is it wise to really bring those qualities into play if you don't really have to.

There is more than one way to skin a cat, and some ways are more effective than others depending on the cats involved.

[dj Calleti]

It depends on the fighter himself, those with a lot of power and are aggresive will go for the kill.

Fans are entertained by those who go for the kill and not just jab away to win on points.

[PACnPBFsuck]

I have seen a few boxers with a decent record and a very low knockout ratio state that they do not go for the kill because it secures a victory. Boxers like Mayweather (no brainer), Tim Bradley, Robert Guerrero, and well even Chad Dawson to me seem to not grasp the opportunity when it is in front of them. Granite, Dawson did lose to Pascal when he was fighting off the back foot in a living room sized boxing ring LOL, but before the cut in the later rounds he began to inflict damage on Pascal when he was told to by his trainer, and IMO was going to take him out before the cut. Had Dawson done this as soon as the first bell rang I think he could have won. Lets even take Mike Jones for example against Karass in the first fight. Jones wanted to take off Karass's head and it bit him in the ass (no ****) when he was in the deep waters and I think he lost. The second fight was a bit more safe on Jones's behalf and he clearly won. In regards to my question, should you always go for the kill? Or is fighting with more caution and patience a better way to lengthen your career and secure a record?

I stopped reading right there.