What's Worse? Suffering a one-sided beating or getting KO'd early?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

What's Worse? Suffering a one-sided beating or getting KO'd early?

Shane
I was talking to someone about this today in the gym. Would you rather suffer an embarrassing 19 second knockout loss in the first round, or get your butt handed to you for 12 long rounds? Which loss has more dignity?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What's Worse? Suffering a one-sided beating or getting KO'd early?

Duggerman
Administrator
Good question. I think getting your arse kicked during a lengthy battle is worse.

This is boxing, and one punch can change things. You could get surprised by a punch you don't see coming, or you could get hit when you're off balance, or someone can set you up with a combination, in which case you won't see all the punches coming and can't block them all. Or, you can just get smashed by a brutal puncher. No shame in any of these.

I think you lose worse if you're conquered by someone over the course of a long fight. For example, Oliver McCall surprised Lennox Lewis with a sneaky right hand counter in the second round. Lewis shouldn't be embarrassed by that--he didn't see the punch coming. McCall snuck inside and destroyed Lewis with a right just as Lewis was about to unload his own right. However, Mike Tyson should have felt ashamed by getting dominated by a much inferior boxer like Douglas and then KO'd. Tyson was outboxed, outfought, outmaneuvered and then knocked out by someone he shouldn't have lost to.

So yeah, I'd rather take a quick knockout loss than get my bum kicked.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What's Worse? Suffering a one-sided beating or getting KO'd early?

Urban Legend
So you're asking if I'd rather get knocked out by George Foreman early or if I'd take an 11 round beating from Joe Frazier and then get knocked out? Most of Joe's opponents wound up permanently damaged after fighting him. (Look at Jimmy Ellis and Muhammad Ali.) I'll take the quick knockout and the money. When I wake up I'll be much richer.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What's Worse? Suffering a one-sided beating or getting KO'd early?

49-0
Urban Legend wrote
Most of Joe's opponents wound up permanently damaged after fighting him.
Rocky Marciano's opponents were no better. Many of them were pissing blood because of his body attacks. The same could be said for Joe Frazier's victims. Rocky and Joe were both of a vicious breed.

I don't recall any of Mike Tyson's opponents having long term or bodily damage. He didn't work the body enough.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What's Worse? Suffering a one-sided beating or getting KO'd early?

Shane
If you take a beatdown, people will say that you can't fight. If you get knocked out, then you'll be labeled a stiff with a glass jaw. For me it depends on who knocks me out. Losing by KO to a featherweight puncher like Chris Byrd would be humiliating. But getting stopped by Joe Frazier wouldn't be so bad because he was a massive slugger.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What's Worse? Suffering a one-sided beating or getting KO'd early?

Duggerman
Administrator
I've thought about how this relates to Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott. They fought 4 times and went 2-2. Ezzard won his two fights by decision. Walcott won one by brutal knockout and the other was a close decision. Walcott was getting better with age while Charles was declining with age. Despite Charles being much better as a light heavyweight, I still view him as a better (but less exciting) boxer than Joe Walcott. Walcott destroyed Charles with a magic punch in one fight and got a close decision in the other.