Boxing has never and will never be about knockouts.

For a casual fan it is about knockouts.

 

It's also about stamina and endurance.

 

There's nothing like watching a man lose a bout,
When as if out of nowhere he scores a knockout,
Though before he's been schooled one punch brings him back
And makes up for all the skills he may lack,

Sure to the purist that blow may lack style,
And there's more ways to win there can be no denial,
But once in a while it's a pleasure to see,
A knockout delivered quite brutally,

 

Boxing should be first and foremost about knockouts because it's the most definite ending of a fight, the point system is only there to choose a winner after both fighters weren't able to knock eachother out.

After decisions you have the sissy stuff going on, biased people who will tell you that their favorite fighter got robbed and such ****.

 

Same here. Back in the 80's and 90's so many exciting fighters and, consequently, fights...I think it would've been hard to get into the sport if I got turned off by a KO. And I can certainly enjoy a good bout the way the OP describes it, but that also depends on the fighter. For instance, I could never get into Calzaghe's style, but had no problems enjoying Mayweathers. And I remember a spectacular performance by Toney, I think it was the Jirov fight.

Seems a bit shortsighted to call only the "noble art" worthwhile, while so many fights were exciting exactly because of the always lurking danger of a hard punch... Its that part of the sport that sometimes can create so much excitement. I mean...what's a fighter gonna do when he's so much behind on points that he can no longer win the bout that way...keep slapping away at the opponent? If he's got it in him, he's gonna try for the KO ofcourse and that's also boxing!

 

Boxings about both KO’s and masterclasses but there’s nothing more nauseating than a guy who thinks he is a higher class of fan because he ‘understands’ boxing better.

 

A thread to promote Floyd of course

 

Erm, boxing has ALWAYS been about EFFECTIVE PUNCHING. Which is the most important scoring criteria. And the most effective punch that can POSSIBLY land in boxing is a knockout punch. The second most effective punch that can land in boxing, is a punch that causes a knockdown. The third most effective punch that can possibly land in boxing, is a punch that causes an opponent to be stunned. The remaining most effective punches after that are punches that inflicts bodily damage such as blood, cuts, swelling, draining opponent's stamina, snapping opponent's head / body back and etc.

So you are wrong, purely according to the scoring criteria and rules of boxing.

Everything else, such as defense, footwork, angles and etc. Are a means to an end. Which is so that it leads effective punches landed in boxing. If it doesn't, then they are useless and more accustomed to strictly come dancing or other choreographed events.

 

Even pineapple on a pizza?

 

That I like.

 

I thought the sport was created to see who was the baddest man at the tavern/pub where pugilism got its start aka bare-knuckling.
Promoters found ways to incorporate fighting as a sport like the great Tex Rickard.

His fighters found ways to keep their chances alive like Dempsey asking for a standing count. Meaning boxing judges, refs nor promoters sought it to ensure skills could prevail. Without Dempsey, today fighters would stand right over the fallen foe...just waiting for them to get up and wham! down again!~

We also know a fighter was the first to ask to put in a mouthguard/piece, but the sanctioning bodies initially called it illegal. IMO that means the sport wasn't meant to ensure safety for fighters.

To me that means over the course of time, the bad low blow, foul-fest fighters found themselves compromised by rules being implemented over the course of time...ergo reason why guys like Fritzie Zivac lasted as long as he did, and it wasnt because of his honest boxing skills.

Rounds once upon a time could go as many as needed to find a winner. Is that why guys back in the day fought 30,40 rounds, to showcase skills as opposed to not having the power to KO a fighter?

I love the skill of a fighter who can stand and make one miss, love the skills of a counter puncher. I admire the fighter with pillow punching power, yet can win in spite of having no power.

But for a fighter who has skill, speed, technique...and can still knock a mofo out? That IMO is the epitome of a well rounded boxer.
The kind of fighter that keeps the sport evolving for the better!

 

its all about ko's. the only reason defense exists as it does is because anything less results in getting put to sleep. without the danger of being stopped, it would just be a swinging competition with tallys at the end. there is a reason fights could go 60 rds, because nobody was interested in determining who the cutest fighter was.

 

It has always been and will always be about the knock out.

Boxing exist because it is a blood sport. The vast majority of paying viewers tune in to see someone get KOed.

 

I like a good knock out like the next. But maturing into boxing during the Mike Tyson era would make you think about this argument. I remember being afraid to go to bathroom, going to get a beer doing anything except watching every second of the fight or it would be over and you missed it. Knock a guy out too fast and you end up having to ask " are you not entertained?" well no im not.

I vote for box a few rounds then knock them out. displaying crisp combination, stiff jabs, position foot work, ok you got skills ktfo4