What is a more convincing win

A win's a win.

I just think fighter A and B should get it on to settle it.

 

from what i understood from the OP, two wins you could compare here are say Cotto over Quintana or Floyd over Baldomir. I would say both are equally convincing.

But Cotto's win was as convincing over a higher caliber fighter, so he gets the edge in this specific scenario.

 

B, if he is also a decent boxer.

 

fighter A = Wlad and fighter C = Iggy

U can dominate a guy and still get called a coward and a bum. but iggy wouldn't beat klit once if they fought 10 times.

as for the scenerio, id rather be A because it shows u can negate your opponents offense and not get touched at all. what would be different in the rematch since C cant hurt you. id rather take less punishment and get the lopsided W than take big shots and get a ko. sure he can land a lucky shot, but B gets hit much much more so he is more likely to get stopped in a rematch.

obviously, the second situation is more viewer friendly

 

Definitely fighter A. I appreciate the "sweet science" aspect of the sport. Surgically embarrassing another fighter is as sweet as it gets.

 

so why doesn't mayweather just do that

 

I don't think you can say one is more convincing than the other. It's a style thing.

 

if fighter B was not significantly hurt then i say thats convincing, but if he was convincingly hurt(e.g corrales-castillo) thats why rematches are an option. But all in all i regard both options equal

 

I look at them as equal, a clinical execution of a guy ala Mayweather - Gatti vs. tearing a person apart ala Ding-a-ling man both show dominance.

 

Mayweather did tear Gatti apart, he was landing multiple punch combos, it was brutal.

 

They're both equal. A is going to be a huge favorite in the rematch and it's rare for a lucky punch to win a fight at least at the highest level. Besides, if A has a good chin it's virtually impossible for C to win the rematch. Also, there'd be no point to a rematch if the fight was that one-sided. Fighter B was able to beat fighter C at his own game without getting hurt at all so no need for a rematch there either.

 

who fought fighter C first A or B ?

 

Fighter B's win is more exciting but fighter A's win would be more convincing.
A few people may critize A for "running". Most will talk positivly about his mastary of fighter C.