KO VS UD

[BAD INTENTIONS]

There's a tendency to rate KO wins over UD wins. Why?

Fighter A beats a fighter 120-108.
Fighter B KO's a fighter in the 1st round.

Why is fighter B's win regarded as better?
Even worse, why do we compare how long it took common opponents to KO a fighter?
"Fighter A got him out in 4, but Fighter B took 7." So F'ing What!!!
I don't see any merit in it. It's such a amateur assessment of a fight.

I think this mentality stems from some sort of capitalist obsession with efficiency.
However, that mentality does not translate to sports in any way.
Sports is supposed to be about utilizing the best strategy based on your abilities to win.

Right?

Please don't litter this topic with any discussion of the business of boxing or your need for violent entertainment. Both exist.
This is about how we rank fighters.

[BAD INTENTIONS]

One more example.

Fighter A and Fighter B fight the same 10 fighters.
Fighter A beats them all by KO 2.
Fighter B beats them all by KO 8.

Why is fighter A regarded as better?

In this scenario each fighter fights the other's KO victim,
so it's not like one fighter running behind the other's defeated foes like Manny did Floyd.
Fulfilled the Manny/Floyd quota.

[JCS]

Assuming this is serious....

A KO is a finish. A UD is not. The goal should be a finish and when a fighter finishes his opponent quicker, it means it took him less time to do the ultimate task. Why beat around the bush for 12 rounds and leave it to the judges if you don't have to?

[punchoutsb]

I think this mentality stems from some sort of capitalist obsession with efficiency.
However, that mentality does not translate to sports in any way.
Sports is supposed to be about utilizing the best strategy based on your abilities to win.

Right?

I'm guessing you're just trying to be holier than thou again, but I figured I'll give the benefit of the doubt and answer this.

I'm not sure why you bring up capitalism or efficiency, but the mentality of winning decisively is the exact mentality athletes have to have at the highest level. It's part of being an athlete. Nobody wants to break the world record in discus by one cm, they want to crush it by five meters. No football team wants to win by three points, they want to win by twenty and so on and so on. Fans know that athletes are striving for the most decisive victory possible and this colors their perspective.

All that being said, I don't think ratings are as biased as you think. We just lost a p4p number one who couldn't finish a hooker on ecstasy, and his lack of power didn't hurt him rankings. The current ring p4p rankings has only 4 out of 10 punchers, and thats counting Wlad who is definitely a puncher but doesn't go out there looking to end things early.

[BAD INTENTIONS]

Assuming this is serious....

A KO is a finish. A UD is not. The goal should be a finish and when a fighter finishes his opponent quicker, it means it took him less time to do the ultimate task. Why beat around the bush for 12 rounds and leave it to the judges if you don't have to?

That my friend is efficiency, it's not the goal of boxing.

The goal of boxing is to win. You win by doing whatever it is you can do best.
There are few 10-2 fights scored as robberies. Most are of the 8-4 variety, and get over-amplified by a passionate fan base.

I've seen a kickboxing match where one guy just danced around the ring and landed quick jabs and little kicks with no power.
He was also making the other fighter miss like 95% of the time.
The crowd was totally into it. They were going crazy about his skill display.
They were cheering loudly for jabs and ducking.

Like I said, I think it's an obsession with efficiency.

[diddy]

Because a knockout makes a statement? And is definitive? There is no need for debate. Or opinion. A knockout reveals fact. A decision involves opinion.

This thread cannot be serious. But I think it is.

[punchoutsb]

I'm not sure you understand what efficiency is in regard to sport...

Efficiency is the path of least resistance to the goal. You have to put yourself out there for a knockout.

[koolkc107]

There's a tendency to rate KO wins over UD wins. Why?

Fighter A beats a fighter 120-108.
Fighter B KO's a fighter in the 1st round.

Why is fighter B's win regarded as better?
Even worse, why do we compare how long it took common opponents to KO a fighter?
"Fighter A got him out in 4, but Fighter B took 7." So F'ing What!!!
I don't see any merit in it. It's such a amateur assessment of a fight.

I think this mentality stems from some sort of capitalist obsession with efficiency.
However, that mentality does not translate to sports in any way.
Sports is supposed to be about utilizing the best strategy based on your abilities to win.

Right?

Please don't litter this topic with any discussion of the business of boxing or your need for violent entertainment. Both exist.
This is about how we rank fighters.

With all things being equal, there is indeed a tendency to rate the quicker stoppage as a better victory.

But, that is a convenient generalization that doesn't always hold up to closer scrutiny.

A recent example, in my opinion, involved Daniel Geale.

Golovkin's victory over him was clear and decisive.

But, even though Cotto took a round more than Gennady did to defeat Geale,
I feel Miguel's win was the much more dominant and complete performance of the two.

Now of course, some will say Golovkin softened Geale up for Cotto.
While I think that does happen in some cases, I am not sure it did in this one.
But, I won't argue much with those who feel it did.

Golovkin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9--oCRYGIg

Cotto:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bexh5Jm56i0

[Ricky_]

Decisions are nothing but interpretations from pissy old bums in suits watching from a poor angle through the ropes. Often crap opinions at that.


I couldn't care less how most "judges" score a fight. Call ut arrogance if you like but why would their opinion and scorecard mean shit to me? It doesn't. If a fight doesn't reach it's natural conclusion then i make my own mind up and form my own opinion thanks. Most of the time i switch off at the final bell.


To be honest i wouldn't even be opposed to scrapping judging all together and either fighting overtime, calling it a draw or giving it to the guy who scored the most knockdowns.

There's nothing purer in the world of sport than a boxing KO. A stoppage is definitive, pure & undisputable (provided the ref does his job properly).

[JCS]

Assuming this is serious....

A KO is a finish. A UD is not. The goal should be a finish and when a fighter finishes his opponent quicker, it means it took him less time to do the ultimate task. Why beat around the bush for 12 rounds and leave it to the judges if you don't have to?

That my friend is efficiency, it's not the goal of boxing.

The goal of boxing is to win. You win by doing whatever it is you can do best.
There are few 10-2 fights scored as robberies. Most are of the 8-4 variety, and get over-amplified by a passionate fan base.

I've seen a kickboxing match where one guy just danced around the ring and landed quick jabs and little kicks with no power.
He was also making the other fighter miss like 95% of the time.
The crowd was totally into it. They were going crazy about his skill display.
They were cheering loudly for jabs and ducking.

Like I said, I think it's an obsession with efficiency.

There's no way in hell you can argue a KO2 isn't better than a KO8. That one is as simple as it gets.

The only argument you can have w/ regards to arguing a dominant UD over a KO1 is that there is a lesser probability luck was involved. I can see the logic with this argument, but I'll take a KO1 over a dominant UD... because the dominant UD can just as easily involve poor judging or one fighter just barely edging all the rounds, taking no chances.

[Bobbyptsd]

It's all about violence and money, happy?

[ikorolev]

With all things being equal, there is indeed a tendency to rate the quicker stoppage as a better victory.

But, that is a convenient generalization that doesn't always hold up to closer scrutiny.

A recent example, in my opinion, involved Daniel Geale.

Golovkin's victory over him was clear and decisive.

But, even though Cotto took a round more than Gennady did to defeat Geale,
I feel Miguel's win was the much more dominant and complete performance of the two.

Now of course, some will say Golovkin softened Geale up for Cotto.
While I think that does happen in some cases, I am not sure it did in this one.
But, I won't argue much with those who feel it did.

Golovkin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9--oCRYGIg

Cotto:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bexh5Jm56i0

The fan of Floyd "No Knockout" Mayweather had his feelings hurt ? You conveniently forgot that Cotto had Geale go down 3 pounds.

Replying to BAD INTENTIONS, boxing is about beating your opponent. UD is an incomplete beating. Nobody knows what outcome would be if they kept fighting. KO is an undisputed win.

[koolkc107]

With all things being equal, there is indeed a tendency to rate the quicker stoppage as a better victory.

But, that is a convenient generalization that doesn't always hold up to closer scrutiny.

A recent example, in my opinion, involved Daniel Geale.

Golovkin's victory over him was clear and decisive.

But, even though Cotto took a round more than Gennady did to defeat Geale,
I feel Miguel's win was the much more dominant and complete performance of the two.

Now of course, some will say Golovkin softened Geale up for Cotto.
While I think that does happen in some cases, I am not sure it did in this one.
But, I won't argue much with those who feel it did.

Golovkin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9--oCRYGIg

Cotto:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bexh5Jm56i0

The fan of Floyd "No Knockout" Mayweather had his feelings hurt ? You conveniently forgot that Cotto had Geale go down 3 pounds.

Replying to BAD INTENTIONS, boxing is about beating your opponent. UD is an incomplete beating. Nobody knows what outcome would be if they kept fighting. KO is an undisputed win.

Sooooo, let me get this straight.

I was merely answering the OP, directed my comments to the OP.

Mentioned an example to support my opinion involving Daniel Geale, Gennady Golovkin, and Miguel Cotto.

Included youtube footage of said 3 fighters.

But, somehow you, IsoKorny, got Floyd Mayweather out of what I said.

(scratches head)

BTW, a UD is not always an "incomplete beating". And, any victory (KO or decision)
doesn't have to always be the last word between two fighters.

Rios KOed Alvarado the first fight.
Alvarado earned a clear victory the second.
Rios then KOed an obviously unprepared Alvarado the 3rd fight.

Boxing is a martial art, as in self-defense.
And those who show they can defend themselves best, win.

If that defense take the form of incredible skill, that is equally amazing
(and counts just as much) as it taking the form of great power punching.

As a boxing fan, I am happy to have appreciated both and in any combination as well.

[davie]

It depends the nature of the KO or the point win

If a fighter beats his opponent mercilessly for 6 rounds, winning every round and knocking his opponent down twice before sparking him clean out in the 7th I'd rank that above a narrow unconvincing points win achieved by negative tactics

where as if a fighter wins every round comfortably on way to a resounding UD 120-108 using both great attacking and defensive technique and ring generalship, I think that is worth more praise than a fighter who was getting soundly beaten and pulls an Andy Lee right hand out of his arse to get the win.

everywhere in between is a grey area of course and I'd lean towards preferring the stoppage over a points win, if the wins were of a similarly convincing nature, as the final result is clearer and more resounding.

[koolkc107]

It depends the nature of the KO or the point win

If a fighter beats his opponent mercilessly for 6 rounds, winning every round and knocking his opponent down twice before sparking him clean out in the 7th I'd rank that above a narrow unconvincing points win achieved by negative tactics

where as if a fighter wins every round comfortably on way to a resounding UD 120-108 using both great attacking and defensive technique and ring generalship, I think that is worth more praise than a fighter who was getting soundly beaten and pulls an Andy Lee right hand out of his arse to get the win.

everywhere in between is a grey area of course and I'd lean towards preferring the stoppage over a points win, if the wins were of a similarly convincing nature, as the final result is clearer and more resounding.

Exactly.

Look at some of the fights John Molina has been in.

Anyone think that KO loss vs DeMarco proved anything?

And while getting schooled, two last minute KOs vs Lundy and Bey became Ws, and rightly so.
Yet, I'd argue his loss vs Matthysse was a better showing than both of those.

[sucracristo]

Alvarado earned a clear victory the second.

alvarado was lucky to survive the early rounds and "leonard-ed" (fought 1st and last 30
2nds and ran the rest of rnd) the 2nd half of the fight to steal a really close decision in
rios-alvarado II. this is the opposite of the point you are trying to make. alvarado's
"win" over rios was crap. say what you want about alvarado not preparing or whatever
for the third fight but i said he would get mauled for months before that third fight and
he did. excuses after don't change the fact that it was a forgone conclusion that rios
was going to rip alvarado a new one in the 3rd fight no matter what alvarado did.

[Lackeos]

Why is a KO 5 better than a KO 10? And follow-up question, why is a 120-108 UD better than a 116-112 UD? Why is a win better than a loss? Why is being good better than being bad? Ultimately, none of these are indicators of how good a fighter is. The biggest loser may be the biggest winner.

[jezzamundo]

There's a tendency to rate KO wins over UD wins. Why?

Fighter A beats a fighter 120-108.
Fighter B KO's a fighter in the 1st round.

Why is fighter B's win regarded as better?
Even worse, why do we compare how long it took common opponents to KO a fighter?
"Fighter A got him out in 4, but Fighter B took 7." So F'ing What!!!
I don't see any merit in it. It's such a amateur assessment of a fight.

I think this mentality stems from some sort of capitalist obsession with efficiency.
However, that mentality does not translate to sports in any way.
Sports is supposed to be about utilizing the best strategy based on your abilities to win.

Right?

Please don't litter this topic with any discussion of the business of boxing or your need for violent entertainment. Both exist.
This is about how we rank fighters.

With all things being equal, there is indeed a tendency to rate the quicker stoppage as a better victory.

But, that is a convenient generalization that doesn't always hold up to closer scrutiny.

A recent example, in my opinion, involved Daniel Geale.

Golovkin's victory over him was clear and decisive.

But, even though Cotto took a round more than Gennady did to defeat Geale,
I feel Miguel's win was the much more dominant and complete performance of the two.

Now of course, some will say Golovkin softened Geale up for Cotto.
While I think that does happen in some cases, I am not sure it did in this one.
But, I won't argue much with those who feel it did.

Golovkin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9--oCRYGIg

Cotto:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bexh5Jm56i0

I'm a GGG fan, but I think you're 100% right here regarding their respective fights with Geale, although Cotto's performance loses a little luster due to his making Geale come down to 157lb. I actually had Geale winning the second round against GGG up until the KD and the third up until the KO. Cotto, on the other hand, outclassed him in every round.

[Aaronide_ger]

There's a tendency to rate KO wins over UD wins. Why?

Fighter A beats a fighter 120-108.
Fighter B KO's a fighter in the 1st round.

Why is fighter B's win regarded as better?
Even worse, why do we compare how long it took common opponents to KO a fighter?
"Fighter A got him out in 4, but Fighter B took 7." So F'ing What!!!
I don't see any merit in it. It's such a amateur assessment of a fight.

I think this mentality stems from some sort of capitalist obsession with efficiency.
However, that mentality does not translate to sports in any way.
Sports is supposed to be about utilizing the best strategy based on your abilities to win.

Right?

Please don't litter this topic with any discussion of the business of boxing or your need for violent entertainment. Both exist.
This is about how we rank fighters.

With all things being equal, there is indeed a tendency to rate the quicker stoppage as a better victory.

But, that is a convenient generalization that doesn't always hold up to closer scrutiny.

A recent example, in my opinion, involved Daniel Geale.

Golovkin's victory over him was clear and decisive.

But, even though Cotto took a round more than Gennady did to defeat Geale,
I feel Miguel's win was the much more dominant and complete performance of the two.

Now of course, some will say Golovkin softened Geale up for Cotto.
While I think that does happen in some cases, I am not sure it did in this one.
But, I won't argue much with those who feel it did.

Golovkin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9--oCRYGIg

Cotto:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bexh5Jm56i0

I'm a GGG fan, but I think you're 100% right here regarding their respective fights with Geale, although Cotto's performance loses a little luster due to his making Geale come down to 157lb. I actually had Geale winning the second round against GGG up until the KD and the third up until the KO. Cotto, on the other hand, outclassed him in every round.

Geale did NOT win the 2nd round till the KD PERIOD, Go watch the punch stats.

Also in the fight against Cotto Daniel was SEVERELY weight drained And fight night he rehydrated up to 185Lb (Full clothes on) Which means around 178-180 Lb fight night, WHICH is a 20+ Lb weight gain.

If you know anything about boxing thats a BAD thing, Geale had zero punch resistanse not to mention he was Less active and more stationary than The GGG fight.. You really CANT compare these two fights.

[Bobbyptsd]

Assuming this is serious....

A KO is a finish. A UD is not. The goal should be a finish and when a fighter finishes his opponent quicker, it means it took him less time to do the ultimate task. Why beat around the bush for 12 rounds and leave it to the judges if you don't have to?

I think this about sums it up. I'd also like to add the human element. In virtually any fight, we'll argue about how the judges saw it. There's no argument to be had when one fighter is concussed or has his body hurt so bad he's unable to continue.

[Tony1244]

A win is a win. I don't necessarily think a KO should be given more merit when you rank fighters. Some of the All-Time Greats like Ali, Leonard, and also the much maligned Mayweather certainly went the distance, or at least many more rounds with opponents that much lesser fighters KO'd earlier.

Guys like Shavers, and even guys like Mac Foster stopped some of the same opponents early that Ali went the distance with. Regarding ratings, going the distance should be irrelevant IMHO, but if you can get a guy out of there, do it, you don't get paid for overtime.

[crusader]

What makes a win impressive in terms of what it suggests about how good the winner is usually comes down to how the outcome (e.g. UD or KO) was reached rather than the simple fact that a stoppage or decision was scored. There is great variance to how a bout unfolds prior the result being determined and hence there is great variance to whether a particular stoppage win is more impressive than a particular decision win. I think one fighter stopping an opponent another fighter beat by decision can often be a sign of a greater disparity in general ability, but it can also be explained in some cases by stylistic differences and particularly discrepancies in power rather than overall ability; that's why you get someone like Mayweather consistently decisioning opponents that clearly lesser fighters stopped.

[littlepug]

Whose win over Barkley was Better, Benns or Toneys ?

[caldo2025]

I think that most Boxing critics and fans have a problem with these fighters that just go out to win rounds at the 10 second clapper of every round while fighting ultra defensively the majority of the round. They never take any chances in the ring and have no intention of pushing for a knockout. Some people have built a great career in this fashion but in terms of legacy, their lack of significant KO's or will to even pursue them in the ring will end up hurting them.

As a fan, I don't think KO's make a great fight but i do like it when both fighters are actually trying for them and there's a threat of a KO.

[Bobbyptsd]

Whose win over Barkley was Better, Benns or Toneys ?

Toney's win is better, because he's James Toney.