In Your Opinion, What Is a Better Win For Boxer?

Have to go with 12 rds

THough the ultimate is a long schooling ended with a KO, ala Bhop/Trinidad

 

On a second note, if the particular boxer is known for quick KO's that's one thing, ( that's their particular way of showing dominance) but if the boxer is not known for that and happens to get one every once and a while, I don't rate as the same. Tyson/PAC

 

A mid round KO after Dominating is where you want to be, thats why you cant complain about Hagler.

 

A systematic domination beat down over 2 rounds culminating in a highlight reel one punch ko trumps any 12round result....and you knuckleheads know this.

 

WTF? There's no right or wrong answer. It depends entirely on the situation and who the winner is fighting.

 

A systematic dominating beat down over 2 rds what 4+ mins:rofl Sure you're right brah. by that logic, I guess you consider nutting after 100 strokes in 2 minutes with your girl you beating the ***** up.

 

One-sided TKO in 8-11 rounds.

 

Second option shows mastery over the opponent and leaves no doubt.

First option ends quick but Hagler-Hearns was outright war.

 

If it's 12 rounds like Hopkins over Trinidad or MAB over Hamed, then I'll lean that way. If it's 12 rounds but Wlad could have taken the guy out in 2, then no.

 

As a boxing fan, I feel like I'm getting my money's worth with option 2. Option 1 can be good to watch, but there's disappointment after waiting months anticipating the fight

 

Basically, A Judah-Paris result.

 

Both show different things.
Also depends on the opponent. If it's someone you should put away early and hasn't been.
12 rounds shows your ability to breakdown an opponent.
Both have plus points and it comes down to style.

 

As a fan option 2 is better. But what's better when it comes to judging a fighters ability.

 

We seem to be in agreement.