What is more impressive?

[Mr Objecitivity]

1) Winning a bout by knockout or by inflicting destructive damage upon the opponent, whilst barely taking any punches from the opponent? Such as Wladimir Klitschko defeating Eddie Chambers and Chris Byrd.

2) Winning a bout by decision, whilst barely taking any punches from the opponent but also barely inflicting any damage upon the opponent? Such as Andre Ward defeating Edwin Rodriguez.

It appears to me from reading comments from this site and from many other websites, especially from fans who find Andre Ward's, Floyd Mayweather Jr's or other feather fisted 'technical' boxers appealing, that OFFENSIVE skills of a boxer are almost totally overlooked and only defensive skills are considered to be part of 'boxing skills' whilst offensive skills involving damaging the opponent isn't given the same credit for 'boxing skills'. Sometimes, 'offensive skills' that boxers use to destroy opponents are relegated to the classifications such as 'brawling'.

So I wanted to know why knockout artists or boxers who offensively damage the opponents more than others, aren't considered 'SKILLED'. Whilst boxers who rarely get hit due to good defense, but rarely KO their opponents or damage their opponents much, are considered more skilled.

[TonyGe]

1) Winning a bout by knockout or by inflicting destructive damage upon the opponent, whilst barely taking any punches from the opponent? Such as Wladimir Klitschko defeating Eddie Chambers and Chris Byrd.

2) Winning a bout by decision, whilst barely taking any punches from the opponent but also barely inflicting any damage upon the opponent? Such as Andre Ward defeating Edwin Rodriguez.

It appears to me from reading comments from this site and from many other websites, especially from fans who find Andre Ward's, Floyd Mayweather Jr's or other feather fisted 'technical' boxers appealing, that OFFENSIVE skills of a boxer are almost totally overlooked and only defensive skills are considered to be part of 'boxing skills' whilst offensive skills involving damaging the opponent isn't given the same credit for 'boxing skills'. Sometimes, 'offensive skills' that boxers use to destroy opponents are relegated to the classifications such as 'brawling'.

So I wanted to know why knockout artists or boxers who offensively damage the opponents more than others, aren't considered 'SKILLED'. Whilst boxers who rarely get hit due to good defense, but rarely KO their opponents or damage their opponents much, are considered more skilled.

Good post...

[jay543]

1) Winning a bout by knockout or by inflicting destructive damage upon the opponent, whilst barely taking any punches from the opponent? Such as Wladimir Klitschko defeating Eddie Chambers and Chris Byrd.

2) Winning a bout by decision, whilst barely taking any punches from the opponent but also barely inflicting any damage upon the opponent? Such as Andre Ward defeating Edwin Rodriguez.

It appears to me from reading comments from this site and from many other websites, especially from fans who find Andre Ward's, Floyd Mayweather Jr's or other feather fisted 'technical' boxers appealing, that OFFENSIVE skills of a boxer are almost totally overlooked and only defensive skills are considered to be part of 'boxing skills' whilst offensive skills involving damaging the opponent isn't given the same credit for 'boxing skills'. Sometimes, 'offensive skills' that boxers use to destroy opponents are relegated to the classifications such as 'brawling'.

So I wanted to know why knockout artists or boxers who offensively damage the opponents more than others, aren't considered 'SKILLED'. Whilst boxers who rarely get hit due to good defense, but rarely KO their opponents or damage their opponents much, are considered more skilled.

Inflicting heavy damage and not getting hit is the most impressive thing a fighter can do in boxing.

I will add that I would prefer a guy who does less damage and doesn't get hit to a guy who does more damage but gets hit a lot.

[Death_Adder]

What the hell is a 'whilst'?

[JK1700]

Obviously inflicting heavy damage while barely getting hit is better than barely getting hit but not inflicting much damage. Now if we're talking inflicting heavy damage and getting hit a lot vs not inflicting a lot but barely getting hit at all I would say barely getting hit is more impressive because anyone can hit and get hit back. It's much harder to make a guy miss almost all of his punches and totally outbox him as well. It takes a lot of intelligence and skill to be able to do that.

[Larry the boss]

thing is chambers and Byrd are among Klits best victories and some of the smallest heavyweights of this era..Rodriguez was a damn tune up for Ward

[Larry the boss]

Floyd is feather fisted yet managed to remain not only undefeated in 5 divisions but was the top dog in the damn sport and on the p4p list since 1998....

[HarvardBlue]

1) Winning a bout by knockout or by inflicting destructive damage upon the opponent, whilst barely taking any punches from the opponent? Such as Wladimir Klitschko defeating Eddie Chambers and Chris Byrd.

2) Winning a bout by decision, whilst barely taking any punches from the opponent but also barely inflicting any damage upon the opponent? Such as Andre Ward defeating Edwin Rodriguez.

It appears to me from reading comments from this site and from many other websites, especially from fans who find Andre Ward's, Floyd Mayweather Jr's or other feather fisted 'technical' boxers appealing, that OFFENSIVE skills of a boxer are almost totally overlooked and only defensive skills are considered to be part of 'boxing skills' whilst offensive skills involving damaging the opponent isn't given the same credit for 'boxing skills'. Sometimes, 'offensive skills' that boxers use to destroy opponents are relegated to the classifications such as 'brawling'.

So I wanted to know why knockout artists or boxers who offensively damage the opponents more than others, aren't considered 'SKILLED'. Whilst boxers who rarely get hit due to good defense, but rarely KO their opponents or damage their opponents much, are considered more skilled.

This a false choice. The only difference in your scenario is the amount of damage inflicted on an opponent. If the objective is a clear victory without taking any punishment, why does it matter how much damage is inflicted on the opponent. Unless you're some kind of sadist, why would you want to see a boxer getting brutally knocked out when one fighter is clearly better and not taking any punishment themselves. Sometimes a KO happens in a fight because of a well placed punch and sometimes it's necessarily if one fighter is behind and needs a KO to win. However, if it's not one of those scenarios or something similar, I could care less if I see KO or severe damage on an opponent.

In the second half of your post you distinguished the difference between offensive and defensive fighters. That's a completely separate choice than the 2 you cited in the beginning. Some people prefer offensive fighters and some prefer defensive. That's a choice, it has nothing to do with which style is better IMO.

[LockardTheGOAT]

Knocking your opponent out (which includes TKO's) while taking very minimal damage yourself is the absolute pinnacle of the sweet science - Do as much possible damage to your opponent while taking the least amount of damage possible yourself. Only a ****** would argue otherwise.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

The best thing ever in boxing is if you can **** a guy out quickly like Tyson