Win on Points or by KO?

[BoomBapTrap]

A ko is better cuz it takes it out of the judges hands.

Also a more dominant victory.
fights won by KO/TKO are far greater than just won by decision point victories.

[Real King Kong]

Also a more dominant victory.
fights won by KO/TKO are far greater than just won by decision point victories.

in most cases, I'd agree. there are exceptions tho...like when a guy pulls a ko out of his azz after getting beat up and losing rounds. I'd say a points win where the opponent was beat from pillar to post and didn't win a round would be considered more dominant.

[BoomBapTrap]

in most cases, I'd agree. there are exceptions tho...like when a guy pulls a ko out of his azz after getting beat up and losing rounds. I'd say a points win where the opponent was beat from pillar to post and didn't win a round would be considered more dominant.

True. An example would be the PAC Márquez KO. PAC was annihilating Marquez throughout the fight and Márquez landed a monster desperation KO.

[Real King Kong]

True. An example would be the PAC Márquez KO. PAC was annihilating Marquez throughout the fight and Márquez landed a monster desperation KO.

Kind of I guess...although I wouldn’t classify it as desperation, and he’d already knocked pac down before that. He was in the fight, but pac was starting to kick his azz.

[ruedboy]

Look at it another way and the answer to your question becomes clearer. Would a fighter (especially a well known fighter) rather lose by points or get KO'd?
I remember the Pac v Mosley fight. Mosley came out strong and confident but he got knocked down early and spent the rest of the fight demonstrating how a veteran fighter loses on points but avoids getting KO'd.
The KO makes the bigger statement and is a humbling experience for the other fighter

[Ccarroll2133]

Or, you can KO/TKO them within the first 27 minutes. That’s a greater victory and shows you’re indeed the better fighter that night. No questions asked.

To continuously KO/TKO your opponent one after the other is a greater form of victory than to “decision” them one after the other.

To KO/TKO your opponent is also much more difficult to achieve than to decision than them.

This thread is hard to respond to as it seems to bounce around. Enough KOs come from flukey type punches that there's no way you can always say that a KO is fighter better with no questions asked.

To be a fighter that has 80% or more of wins coming by KO I would start to agree that is a dominant fighter.


With heavyweights I dont agree a TKO is always more difficult than a decision. Lucky punches again will come into play at times.

Is it more difficult for let's say Wilder to bide his time and land his bomb, which I do believe he is highly skilled at, or were his 12 round fights much more difficult as that right hand failed to land. Fury was debatable draw but that was tougher on Wilder than his 1 and 2nd round KOs.

If I'm a fan and got a $75 ppv I'd not want to see a 1-3rd round KO vs a good 12 round fight

[BoomBapTrap]

[QUOTE=Ccarroll2133;20278785]This thread is hard to respond to as it seems to bounce around. Enough KOs come from flukey type punches that there's no way you can always say that a KO is fighter better with no questions asked.

To be a fighter that has 80% or more of wins coming by KO I would start to agree that is a dominant fighter.


With heavyweights I dont agree a TKO is always more difficult than a decision. Lucky punches again will come into play at times.

Is it more difficult for let's say Wilder to bide his time and land his bomb, which I do believe he is highly skilled at, or were his 12 round fights much more difficult as that right hand failed to land. Fury was debatable draw but that was tougher on Wilder than his 1 and 2nd round KOs.

If I'm a fan and got a $75 ppv I'd not want to see a 1-3rd round KO vs a good 12 round fight[/QUOTE]

Lmao, then why was Tyson selling all his fights out despite KOing mofos in the first 3 rounds??

Lmao joke of an answer.
Winning on points is always the safe route, KOing your opponent is the dominant route, just more dangerous and difficult.

[Ccarroll2133]

Because he was Mike Tyson. It's an opinion question....how is there a wrong answer? I love Tyson fights, but that's because I can watch the 5 min match for free. Knockouts are exciting but do not always prove the best fighter

[BoomBapTrap]

Because he was Mike Tyson. It's an opinion question....how is there a wrong answer? I love Tyson fights, but that's because I can watch the 5 min match for free. Knockouts are exciting but do not always prove the best fighter

It proves who was the better man that night, and there’s no way around it.

2 professional fighters are aiming to hurt each other physically, so when they punch each other it’s not a “fluke”.
That’s their job and they know how to do it.

[Marchegiano]

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.