What's worse? To be knocked out by a single punch, or to lose a decision?

It is by far worse to be ko'ed..regardless what the scorecards say or if the ko'ed fighter was ahead at the time of the stoppage. There is a tiny, very exclusive, elite group of fighters in boxing history that were never stopped. That, to me would be far more prestigious...to have never been ko'ed....there is a mystique there...a sort of badness that you've never been knocked out. Your chin becomes the stuff of legend..a very important part of your legacy.

 

To never be stopped can be attributed to your toughness, chin or defensive abilities when your legacy is evaluated by future boxing historians.

 

whether or not you like ***, holy is greater. When holy lost that decision he was over the hill.

As you can see by your own poll, you are wrong and thd majority disagrees with you.

 

LOSING to guys like that is **** THING whichever way it happens.

In my opinion, his record would look better if he'd dropped two decisions and avenged them both by KO, rather than having 2 KO defeats against the 2 KO wins.

It's a no-brainer.

 

Easily...:thumbsup

 

You think it's better to lose 20 minutes of a fight rather than 20 seconds? You think it's worse for Lewis that people say "Rahman and McCall landed two terrific punches" rather than "Rahman and McCall both fought him for more than half an hour and got the better of him over that time."?

If he dropped two decisions, that means he was twice outclassed and outfought, and twice shown to have inferior skills. Getting stopped by massive punches just means he walked into two massive punches.

:hat

 

Who givs a **** about anyones opinion on here - What does Bert Sugar think?

:nut