How come a beautiful KO is counted as a TKO?

That always pisses me off... refs never ever count to 10 anymore

I think there a wrong impression by some people that a TKO is a weaker stoppage than a KO. That's not always the case such as what happened with Hatton. I think it was even a more emphatic stoppage because the ref didn't see the need for a count.

It was a TKO only because Bayless didn't count to 10.

I was excited then I quickly quieted down... I didn't like it.

That KO in my opinion is a likely candidate for knockout of the year. I agree. It was like he'd been hit by Tyson. Instant sleep as soon as it connected. 100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3

Even if Bayless counted to 10 it was practically a moot point that Hatton wasn't getting up so I think the TKO is fine because it still counts as a KO in the record books. That KO in my opinion is a likely candidate for knockout of the year.

Thats what I keep telling some ****** boxrec fans on here. Oh he's only got 3 real KO's on his record, the rest are TKO's, I've seen this mentioned on here time after time about different fighters. 100x more fights these days are TKO's than back 30-40-50 years, only because the refs back then didn't give a shit.

Because it was a referee stoppage, a KO is if they don't get up after 10 count i think (if there is a count that is). Dead on point. :boxing:

Because it was a referee stoppage, a KO is if they don't get up after 10 count i think (if there is a count that is).

The referee could have counted to a hundred Hatton wasn't getting up.

True though... it wasn't a technical knockout... it was a knockout.

Does it matter? It still goes on Pac's res as a KO win and Hatton's as a KO loss.