Win on Points or by KO?

[SN!PER]

Winning on points is good.

Winning by knockout is better.

Winning on points AND getting a knockout is the best.

[BoomBapTrap]

Boxing is a sport about knockouts. Decisions came later and only ever came explicitly to soften the sport. Nothing to do with proving anything beyond doubt, just to soften boxing.

I like points fighters just fine, I appreciate the skills, but, boxing is a knockout centric sport, always has been, always will be.

If points ever mattered we'd just wait until the knocked out man can fight again until the full schedule has been met, or at least would have back when boxing gave no ****s if you died.

They are secondary.

Exactly this. You hit the nail on the head. A boxer is supposed to enter the ring with intentions of KOing/TKOing his opponent, or at least intentions of beating him up good. Points and decisions are are in place to exist in case both opponents still stand at the end of the fight.

Fighters who intend to win on points from the start, despite being a technical strategy of victory, hurts the sport. And it’s not true fighting, more of a default. That’s why when a fighter avoids combat and implements the run and clinch methods, the crowd typically boos.

KO/TKO is the utmost dominant and decisive victory, in other words it’s the greatest win possible.

[GGG Gloveking]

It all depends. Do you want your haters to say the judges were paid off, or that your opponent took a dive?

Either way, your win is getting discredited.

[BoomBapTrap]

It all depends. Do you want your haters to say the judges were paid off, or that your opponent took a dive?

Either way, your win is getting discredited.

That’s why KO/TKO is the greatest form of victory.

[BoomBapTrap]

Notice none of the Floyd fanboys in this thread, lol.

When they know they can’t argue logic, they just avoid it period

Instead they spend all their time in Pacquiao threads, LMAO!
Salty losers.

[Blackclouds]

KO is better. It's definitive, when a "points" decision is based on 3 judges which is not ideal because it is subjective.

[Articulateboxin]

Doing both is the ultimate surely? However winning a fair decision most likely proves you're a better boxer. Winning by KO, especially if you were behind at the time, might suggest you're just a better fighter, not a better boxer necessarily.

[BoomBapTrap]

Doing both is the ultimate surely? However winning a fair decision most likely proves you're a better boxer. Winning by KO, especially if you were behind at the time, might suggest you're just a better fighter, not a better boxer necessarily.

No, that makes no sense.

[Citizen Koba]

Yes but the question is which is a greater style of victory?

By points or KO?

If you had a choice to win by KO or by points which would you like to choose?

End the fight by KO or leave it to the judges?

It just depends, there isn't a one size fits all. Dominating for 12 can be just as impressive as any KO, and arguably proves more, but equally there's almost nothing in boxing equal to the spectacle of a fantastic one shot finish.

[hugh grant]

Well if you can only win on points you don't want to fight abroad. Floyd!
Floyd could have 50 losses now if he fought abroad and didn't ko his opponents