"I'll look for the knockout so there's no doubt"...

[Combat Talk Radio]

To me that's saying you're not sure you can beat the guy if you don't knock him out. I agree. Some opponents, a knockout or a clear outboxing masterclass (aka "running") is your only chance.

But it irritates me when fighters say this, go on to get decisioned over the distance (i.e. you FAILED to do what you said you would do) and then, make excuses. Despite the opponent being right in front of you all night long, there to be hit.

All three recent fights that have had this quoted that I recall, were close but clear for the winner.

You had one job: knock the guy out. You failed. There's nothing wrong with that; these are rugged guys who bully their opposition, very hard to knock them out. So change the strategy. But accept the close, but CLEAR, loss.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Boxing has a clear cut, well established, set criteria. If a boxer fulfills the criteria to win, he deserves to win, period. What any boxer says pre-fight is totally irrelevant when it comes to establishing who deserves to win a boxing bout.

If I say I'm going to knock my opponent out, but I don't but I still manage to out-land my opponent whilst damaging their face significantly. Then I deserve the win.

[Combat Talk Radio]

If I say I'm going to knock my opponent out, but I don't but I still manage to out-land my opponent whilst damaging their face significantly. Then I deserve the win.

Facial damage is not part of any scoring criteria. By that logic Ruslan should be undefeated.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Facial damage is not part of any scoring criteria. By that logic Ruslan should be undefeated.

Yes, it is. Otherwise, fights wouldn't be stopped by a referee if a boxer's face is significantly damaged.

And effective punching is a scoring criteria. And damaging an opponent's face = evidence of effective punches landed.

Also, making an opponent tired from landing effective punches = evidence of effective punches landed.

Effective punch = a punch that does something to an opponent or causes something to happen (an effect) to the opponent.

Inflicting visible damage (facial damage such as cuts) = an effective punch.

[Combat Talk Radio]

Yes, it is. Otherwise, fights wouldn't be stopped by a referee if a boxer's face is significantly damaged.

And effective punching is a scoring criteria. And damaging an opponent's face = evidence of effective punches landed.

Also, making an opponent tired from landing effective punches = evidence of effective punches landed.

Effective punch = a punch that does something to an opponent or causes something to happen (an effect) to the opponent.

Inflicting visible damage (facial damage such as cuts) = an effective punch.

Ok, so basically you acknowledge that Jeff "The Hornet" Horn clearly beat Manny, since Manny was the one bloodied and in greater facial distress?

[Mr Objecitivity]

Ok, so basically you acknowledge that Jeff "The Hornet" Horn clearly beat Manny, since Manny was the one bloodied and in greater facial distress?

I don't know, because I didn't watch that fight. But that also depends on how the facial damage occurred. If Jeff Horn damaged Pacquiao's face through ACTUAL punches (and not through fouls like headbutts, elbows and etc), then yes, he most likely deserves to win.

Facial damage inflicted on the opponent that is not from punches doesn't count.

[Combat Talk Radio]

I don't know, because I didn't watch that fight. But that also depends on how the facial damage occurred. If Jeff Horn damaged Pacquiao's face through ACTUAL punches (and not through fouls like headbutts, elbows and etc), then yes, he most likely deserves to win.

Facial damage inflicted on the opponent that is not from punches doesn't count.

You're just making up rules as you go.

"At the end of the day", if you're not confident you can win without a knockout, then get the knockout. If you fail, accept the loss.