Does a decision win, fully avenge / counteract / compensate for a stoppage loss in your opinion?

This is a subjective thread / poll in a boxing forum, asking what the opinion of others are in regards to a specific occurrence in boxing. As long as this remains a boxing forum, such a thread should be allowed.

I'll tell you what shouldn't be allowed. Fanatic / obsessive views and attachment of people over their favorite boxers. Or people getting overly - triggered / emotional due to a thread, that slightly threatens to criticize their favorite boxers, without actually doing so.

When people start getting overly - defensive over topics like these, then you know how out of shape the priorities of people are, in the grand scheme of things.

 

Why not (to the highlighted part)?

 

That's a fair point! I hope they have a trilogy to settle it once and for all, as to who is ULTIMATELY better.

 

Yet, all the while, it's you who comes into both these threads with an overly - emotional and an overly - defensive outburst. In doing so, revealing true 'idiocy'. As such an act, falls under the category of real 'idiocy'.

Your inability to handle any degree of constructive criticism over certain boxers (when the criticism isn't even directed at you anyway to begin with), is simply a problem of your own that you may need to consider addressing.

 

On the contrary, I'm of the opinion that two CLEAR - CUT decision wins are required to make up for a stoppage loss. Or a single more impressive / more brutal stoppage win is required in the rematch to fully avenge / compensate a stoppage loss.

Still, the fact remains, Alvarez scored 3 knockdowns in 19 rounds on Kovalev (despite not being known anywhere near as much for being a power puncher as Kovalev) whilst Kovalev failed to return that favor even once by scoring a knockdown of his own.