Which is more impressive.. a KO or a clear decisive points victory?

Mayweather-Ortiz? LaMotta-Fox? Pep-Perez?

It really depends on the opponent. Taking a clear points decision over Ray Robinson or Ali is equally as unbelieveably impressive as knocking out Rocky Marciano. It really depends on the opponent. Cases can be made to support either as the more favourable outcome. Outclassing an opponent who is renowned for his boxing skills is just as good as knocking out a guy who has an apparently granite chin.

 

Walcott never had a decisive points victory over Joe Louis, if that's what you are implying.
Most people thought he won a CLOSE fight the first time. Several people thought he failed to do enough to deserve a win.

 

It depends more on the substance of the victory rather than the method. For instance, I will take Calzaghe's complete deconstruction of Lacy over Ali's "KO" over Liston the second time around.

 

Exactly. Sometimes guys just put on clinics. I will also take a decision against a great fighter over a KO of a mediocre fighter.

 

People seem to be forgetting that you can dominate a fight on the scorecards and still get the KO. Winning every round and then getting a knockout is obviously more impressive than just getting the shutout, and that should go without saying. I'd likely take a wide points win over a come-from-behind knockout, but to comment on KuRuPT's early question on whether or not scoring a knockout in a fight your losing really shows supremacy, I think the answer is a resounding yes. You knocked your opponent out cold, which kind of renders everything they did irrelevant. Maybe you just need that one punch to beat them, that alone makes you the better fighter, at least until proven otherwise.

 

I say the KO is more impressive. But a fight that goes to decision, even if the winner is clear, could easily be more interesting to watch, I wonder if that's getting mixed in with the feelings behind responses here.

 

Have you seen the first fight in its entirety ?

 

I agree with this to a large extent.

It's like scoring goals in football (soccer).
It doesn't matter which team is ahead with "possession of the ball" on the statistics. If the other team gets the ball and kicks it into your net, you've been beat !

 

As a general rule, I'd say a very decisive points victory is more conclusive than a KO as to who is the better man.
But it very much depends.

The best scenario would be to be a mile ahead on points and then score a KO.

 

what if a fighter enters a fight with a game plan that they know will have them behind on points but will help them get the win without the fight going to the cards? Chavez Taylor seems like a relevant example.

 

True, some fighters absolutely are measuring their opponent for the KO, and setting up the KO trap, and it might cost them in rounds while they weave that web and wait for the opportunity.
That's actually masterful boxing, even if he's being "outboxed" in the meantime.

 

This is how I see it. KO a man faster than anyone else has and you have done something. Win a decision via a wider margin than the field has vs the same man can be equally impressive.

I would have to say a clean KO is the best result.

 

i'd say it's a lot more masterful to keep ahead of an opponent and outbox\pick them apart while setting up the KO traps, than giving up loads of rounds or being behind.

Course you can always say you planned every round and punch that crashed into your face to a Tee if you get the KO at some point, but usually it's bull**** to a large extent.Fights that genuinely end up like that are usually the more physically talented big punching fighters in 2nd gear against some so-so challenger with less overall talent and not a lot of power.