BoxRec

Bobbyptsd wrote:

littlepug wrote:Whose win over Barkley was Better, Benns or Toneys ?

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

Benns win is better because he's Benn

jezzamundo wrote:

koolkc107 wrote:

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.

I think Cotto should have fought at the 160 limit.

I am only for catchweights when there is no advantage to either fighter
or when fights that normally would not be possible are made possible.

That being said, I will not argue about if luster was lost- but if there was some lost it wasn't all that evident in the ring.

In other words, I didn't see a huge difference in the Geale that Miguel faced as opposed to the Geale Gennady faced.

I see folks mentioning that Cotto made Geale drain himself and maybe they are right to.
But Geale, by his own admission, has trouble these days even making 160.
And not one of those folks who mentioned Cotto's draining talked about the fact that
even trying to make the middleweight limit is difficult for Geale.

I saw basically the same Geale against both men.

http://www.BS.com/geale-admits ... ugh--91812

littlepug wrote:Whose win over Barkley was Better, Benns or Toneys ?

Toney was better, he demonstrated in every department he was superior to Iran and he got the stoppage as a natural consequence of his superiority - he didn't rush or try for a KO or stoppage - that to me shows mastery and control.

A wide UD also shows great superiority, a bout that goes to points even though one of the boxers has tried and tried for the KO doesn't.

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.

I'll have to rewatch it. Aside from the gap in power and chin, I thought Geale was very competitive with GGG and Cotto outboxed him more comprehensively.

Geale rehydrated to 182lb but that was fully clothed, with shoes on, and possibly a wallet and mobile phone. I'd be very surprised if he was actually much more than 175lb - Geale was never a big middleweight. That said, I agree that the catchweight hurt Geale - he definitely looked a lot better for the GGG fight than he did against Cotto.

On face value I would rather be the fighter who is KOing his opponent in round 1 or 2 then the fighter that wins a un dec but its been proven over and over again KO all your opponents and sooner rather then later you will come unstuck when you can't KO your opponent as per usual
you the KO merchant will end up looking at the ceiling.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote: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?

because it is more difficult to ko a
fresh opponent who has all faculties
perfectly intact.

man wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote: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?

because it is more difficult to ko a
fresh opponent who has all faculties
perfectly intact.

I can understand that point but do enjoy watching a boxer work out the other, set traps and generally manoeuvre his opponent into a clean knockout shot - I'm thinking James Toney v Prince Charles Williams.

The difference between some KOs and TKOs these days is so marginal it is getting harder and harder to decipher how a fight was actually stopped. This is largely because current day referees are so very aware of their duty of care to the fighters. For that reason I grade them equally, except where a devastating KO occurs of course.

A ko seems more convincing... Its sometmies not the case, but in general the better fighter is the one to score the ko. The sooner, the bigger the difference between the athletes in the ring... More or less, and thats why fighters with a high ko pct. Often is higher regarded than fighters with similar records but without the ko.

KO win, dominant UD, closely-fought dogfight or cerebral chessmatch, they're all fvcking brilliant, is the answer, because boxing is a beautiful fvcking sport, the greatest in the world.

palooka wrote:

man wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote: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?

because it is more difficult to ko a
fresh opponent who has all faculties
perfectly intact.

I can understand that point but do enjoy watching a boxer work out the other, set traps and generally manoeuvre his opponent into a clean knockout shot - I'm thinking James Toney v Prince Charles Williams.

you didn't ask what is more entertaining,
you asked why the fighter who lands and
early KO is regarded better.

Like a Boss wrote:The difference between some KOs and TKOs these days is so marginal it is getting harder and harder to decipher how a fight was actually stopped. This is largely because current day referees are so very aware of their duty of care to the fighters. For that reason I grade them equally, except where a devastating KO occurs of course.

the thread is KO vs UD, not
KO vs TKO.