In theory, do you rate a quick KO/TKO or a sustained domination higher as a win?

Second one for me. You need to be at the top of your game, concentrated and determined for a longer time which is harder. However, styles play a big role there. Someone like Bernard Hopkins won´t knock you out in 1-3 rounds, he lacks the power to do so. On the other hand yomeone like Tyson will always have stretches during a long fight in which he does not dominate, simply because of his style.

 

Put him against Wlad's awful opposition & he'd completely dominate the entire fight, not that many of them would last long.

 

a late KO/TKO, dominant beatdown proves more your superiority over your opponent.

But talking in very general, logical terms, an early KO/TKO is the most efficient and safest route towards the ultimate goal. Every round extra you're in, is 3 more risk-filled minutes you're in danger of being KOed yourself.

Ofcourse tactics come into play, fighters often need to pace themselves etc..but the most ideal outcome has to be the first punch you throw, in the very first round, KO's your opponent.

We're only human so the odds of that happening are slim, and putting maximum power in your shots early will wear you and the opponent will likely survive the initial onslaught, then maybe a more subtle approach becomes the more logical choice...but if you have that freak power and ability to end it quickly, the ultimate ideal outcome is definatley the early KO.

So i dont know. I dont know if i've even made sense here. I guess you have to judge whats most impressive based on the attributes that the boxer has.

 

a one punch KO is a gift of power that not all fighters have but the art of setting up the KO by strategy and actually having a short term and long term plan going into the ring is in line with the art of boxing. The Klitschko's as of late have been masters of patience and softening up their opponents for the KO...Fighters like Marciano and Louis had the natural power but always had a long term plan and were efficient at late KO's as well as the one punch power. Fighters like Lennox Lewis and Mike Tyson rarely KO'd a fighter late in the fight in fact Tyson only once and Lewis never...It may indicate the lost art of the science of the KO (excluding the one punch variety) in modern times.

 

Wlad´s opposition isn´t really worse than Tyson´s 80s competition IMO. Aside of that, I don´t go by woulda/coulda/shoulda And that was not a knock at Tyson, it´s his style, one I love even so I prefer Patterson over Tyson myself.

 

:huh

 

Thats some ****ing nostalgic bull****, Bummy D. The 'ART of the science of the KO' was rewritten by Mike Tyson

 

It depends on the style of the boxer and his opponent. To me a shut out for a few rounds and a 10 count vs. a prime or near prime fighter who has pride and not been stopped means more.

 

Each case is unique, but generally I would favour the one where the fighter looks in the class above.

 

They both have their own unique value, and I suppose it depends on how its done. Max Schmeling's dominant performance over 12 rounds against Joe Louis, was a masterful one, while George Foreman's early round destruction of Joe Frazier was equally impressive, but in a different way.

 

This

It really isn't black and white.

 

I think over the long haul people subconsciously give more credit to a sustained domination over an opponent as opposed to a short or quick KO.

I give them equal merit on the basis that if you matched them up again, all things being equal the fighter that scored the KO can never be counted out against his opponent because he's proven that he has the capability to get the job done.