Quote Originally Posted by Beanflicker View Post
Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post
If we're gonna say a win's a win... then we're equating the guy who got knocked in the 1st round or embarrassed through a full 12 rounds, with the guy who gave as well as he took and still lost a hard-fought decision. Not so.
Well allow me to retort!



A dominant win is a dominant win.

Some guys were blessed with one-punch KO power in each hand, and they can get guys out of there early and consistently (Mike Tyson, Foreman, ect).

Some guys also have a very aggressive style that lends itself more towards exciting fights and KOs.

My point is I don't see why having big KO power and knocking guys out necessarily makes you better than a guy with not much power.

Floyd's not knocking guys out or really beating the shit out of them, but he is always winning in dominant fashion. So in that case, how does it make Floyd any better if he was more exciting against Canelo?


I think we're on different wavelengths here, Bean.

You're taking my argument as criticism against Floyd. Whereas I was just responding to Master who mentioned Floyd's fights vs. Canelo and Pac saying they were "the only 2 big fights in terms of challenge". I was merely pointing out that on the contrary... Cotto and Maidana both presented vastly more challenge to Floyd than Canelo and Pac ever did. Master then clarified he had meant "perceived" challenge before the fight. Point clarified. Not criticizing Floyd here.