"He was winning until he got knocked out" why do people say this?

[KillaMane26]

It doesn't change the outcome of the fight, but it also doesn't erase what happened prior to the knockout. Since a fighter's career isn't necessarily over after one loss, some of the info might be useful going forward

YEAh....cuz if fighter A was getting handled on the scorecards getting outclassed and KOS fighter B n 1th round.....if they have rematch most likely fighter B will win...since he should he the 1st fight won till the KO.

[Aztekkas]

I see what you are trying to point out but boxing is a subjective sport and although a KO is non debatable, what happened prior is(unless it's a 1st round KO).

Your statement is flawed because if that was truly the case and a KO would vanquish the actions leading up to it, studying tapes would be a lot more difficult. For instance the Mickey Bey fight(since it's been discussed), although Molina won by KO the tape can be used as future reference to device a game plan following Bey's blueprint with extra caution to avoid another upset loss.

However, according to your statement Bey's loss renders his effort useless. Thus studying the tape would be idiotic since Bey lost by KO, completely overlooking all the rounds Bey was executing his game plan perfectly.

Getting caught happens, it's a term that has been used for decades in the sport and it exists for a reason. If your statement was anywhere near the truth then Upset losses via KO wouldn't exist. Since a KO would be an absolute result there would be no need to reference the action/rounds prior at any point in time, since they would become irrelevant after the KO. That would completely ignore the reality of a fight in which the fighter whom got caught was winning on the scorecards. The ultimate outcome is a loss via KO, true I agree. The window between the first bell and that KO is what tells the story of an Upset or a one sided beat down, and that matters just as much as the ending result.

[MattysEyeThough]

I see what you are trying to point out but boxing is a subjective sport and although a KO is non debatable, what happened prior is(unless it's a 1st round KO).

Your statement is flawed because if that was truly the case and a KO would vanquish the actions leading up to it, studying tapes would be a lot more difficult. For instance the Mickey Bey fight(since it's been discussed), although Molina won by KO the tape can be used as future reference to device a game plan following Bey's blueprint with extra caution to avoid another upset loss.

However, according to your statement Bey's loss renders his effort useless. Thus studying the tape would be idiotic since Bey lost by KO, completely overlooking all the rounds Bey was executing his game plan perfectly.

Getting caught happens, it's a term that has been used for decades in the sport and it exists for a reason. If your statement was anywhere near the truth then Upset losses via KO wouldn't exist. Since a KO would be an absolute result there would be no need to reference the action/rounds prior at any point in time, since they would become irrelevant after the KO. That would completely ignore the reality of a fight in which the fighter whom got caught was winning on the scorecards. The ultimate outcome is a loss via KO, true I agree. The window between the first bell and that KO is what tells the story of an Upset or a one sided beat down, and that matters just as much as the ending result.

Makes me recall Richard Steele's win over Meldrick Taylor in the 12th round.

[DondiNeverLeft]

When I hear ," he was winning until he got knocked out ", I think," wha had happened was..."

[DARKSEID]

People say it because it happens. Sometimes you're winning the fight and then you get knocked out.

Taylor vs Abraham for example, or Taylor vs Froch

[IronDanHamza]

People say it because it happens. Sometimes you're winning the fight and then you get knocked out.

Taylor vs Abraham for example, or Taylor vs Froch

Taylor was losing to Abraham before the KO.

On all 3 cards.

[crazed_z06]

I see what you are trying to point out but boxing is a subjective sport and although a KO is non debatable, what happened prior is(unless it's a 1st round KO).

Your statement is flawed because if that was truly the case and a KO would vanquish the actions leading up to it, studying tapes would be a lot more difficult. For instance the Mickey Bey fight(since it's been discussed), although Molina won by KO the tape can be used as future reference to device a game plan following Bey's blueprint with extra caution to avoid another upset loss.

However, according to your statement Bey's loss renders his effort useless. Thus studying the tape would be idiotic since Bey lost by KO, completely overlooking all the rounds Bey was executing his game plan perfectly.

Getting caught happens, it's a term that has been used for decades in the sport and it exists for a reason. If your statement was anywhere near the truth then Upset losses via KO wouldn't exist. Since a KO would be an absolute result there would be no need to reference the action/rounds prior at any point in time, since they would become irrelevant after the KO. That would completely ignore the reality of a fight in which the fighter whom got caught was winning on the scorecards. The ultimate outcome is a loss via KO, true I agree. The window between the first bell and that KO is what tells the story of an Upset or a one sided beat down, and that matters just as much as the ending result.

This is the truth. Someone gets it. By saying, "He was going good until the Knockout" tells you something about the character of the fight. Boxing is a little different that football in that how you win (OR lose) actually matters.

If we didnt look at fights as a whole and simply concentrated on the KO outcome, that would mean fights like Garcia/Salsa would be on the same level as Pac/Marquez 4. We all know those two fights dont compare, even if they had the same vicious outcome.


By qualifying the statement about the KO, we let people know that the fight wasnt a complete wipeout. Marquez didnt come in and beat on Pac down until he got the KO. It was a competitive fight and the KO put an exclamation point of the performance..

[jqSide]

Bey was winning till he got stopped in the remaining minute/s of the last round. So we should just assume Molina was the superior fighter because he KO'd Bey. You got it.

[Lords]

What about the classic, "Lucas would have beat Danny if his eye didn't shut. He was winning the fight before that happend".

[#1Assassin]

it certainly doesnt effect the outcome of that fight in any way. but if you are talking about future fights it could certainly matter.

obviously two fighters can fight multiple times with different outcomes each time, but you can still break down fights and take little things away form them. thats the whole reason people watch tape, to make assessments of the fighter they are watching.

if two boxers fought before there will be indications in that fight of how the rematch will turn out. small or big there will be things to look at and that includes things other than the potential KO.

if one fighter for example is catching his opponent with a certain punch over and over thats something he will have to deal with in the next fight. can he find a way to avoid it or will he be able to absorb it for 12 rounds? if not will he be able to get rid of the other guy before he gets taken out himself?

thats just one example, whether or not the fighter landing that same punch got knocked out later on doesnt change the fact that his opponent may have to find an answer to that shot.

just like the guy who got knocked out will have to find a way to avoid the same fate one way or another. so you break down the KO as well, was it an accumulation of body punches? was it one concussive punch upstairs? which punch was it and why did it land? was it the pace that got to him? regardless what did him in you will have to break down what he could do to avoid it the second time around.