Should KO's and TKO's be seperated on a fighters record?

They already are separate on boxrec. Do we really need to have announcers and stuff going "20 wins, 6 by knockout, 14 by technical knockout" or what? If a fan is dumb enough to think all knockouts are unconscious people, that's their problem.

TKO KO KTFO How's that :boxing:

Like others have said before me, KO and TKO are the same thing. If you want to say KTFO, I guess you could make that distinction although most television networks and the FCC would censor your obscenities for the record.

no because at times when someone is out cold, the ref wont count to 10 I totally agreed. Pavlik vs Taylor 1 is a perfect example... people hardly remember that it was a TKO, not a KO Posted from Boxingscene.com App for Android

No. Most TKOs are just the ref stopping the fight before the fighter has time to finish him off and clearly would have finished him off like Kovalev-Pascal. They stop fights so early now that the only way to get a straight KO is a one punch KO. If you beat a man bad enough that the ref had to rescue him then you deserve a KO win. I consider KOs and TKOs as the same thing unless the TKO was about a cut. Robinson scored a TKO over La Motta because the ref stopped the fight with La Motta still on his feet. The ref didn't want La Mootta to be killed.

No, it a good way to spot casual fans who try and pass of being knowledgable about the sport from what they read on Boxrec

a stoppage is a stoppage

Wonder how many real KO's Sir Joe Calzaghe would have then.....four?

Anyone having chicken for dinner tonight?

A points victory is a points victory regardless of it being close or not. A stoppage by ref and being knocked unconscious are 2 different things. Yes they are both stoppages but by definition a Knockout is when your knocked unconscious. Not when someone stops the fight to prevent further damage. Its the same result though, a fighter was beaten until he couldn't continue. Hell a lot of brutal KO's go down as TKO's because the ref stops it before he counts. Pacquaio vs David Diaz for example was a TKO win for PAc, but there was no chance of Diaz getting up for a 10 count

Should we then start differentiating between wide points victories and close ones? so it would be Tom Cruise (200-0, 89 ko's, 30 tko's, 50 wpts, 31 cpts) :thinking: If we are doing it for the casuals benefit we might as well keep it simple lol A points victory is a points victory regardless of it being close or not. A stoppage by ref and being knocked unconscious are 2 different things. Yes they are both stoppages but by definition a Knockout is when your knocked unconscious. Not when someone stops the fight to prevent further damage.

Should we then start differentiating between wide points victories and close ones? so it would be Tom Cruise (200-0, 89 ko's, 30 tko's, 50 wpts, 31 cpts) :thinking: If we are doing it for the casuals benefit we might as well keep it simple lol

All fine and dandy if it was classified as stoppages rather than KO's. Is Pacquiaos KO of Hatton the same as his stoppage of Oscar? No but both are classified as knockouts when in reality only 1 of them were actually knocked out. I never viewed knockout in sports to mean knocked lights out cold in casual talk. To me a KO is putting a beating on an opponent until he is unable to continue whether he's knocked out with one punch or beaten down from accumulation. Put it this way. Is anyone's KO ratio misleading? Typically the hardest punchers have the highest percentages so who is being mislead? It's not like Paulie has a 85% KO ratio from slicing guys up with his jab and casuals will think Paulie has game changing power.

All fine and dandy if it was classified as stoppages rather than KO's. Is Pacquiaos KO of Hatton the same as his stoppage of Oscar? No but both are classified as knockouts when in reality only 1 of them were actually knocked out. If you put it that way, all of our fave fighters would have a ratio under 10%. Money would have none....

No And boxrec does distinguish in case you wanted to see

No because it takes power to win by stoppage either way. Maybe if you separate TKOs from cuts and injuries from actual stoppages caused by punches or an accumulation of punches. All fine and dandy if it was classified as stoppages rather than KO's. Is Pacquiaos KO of Hatton the same as his stoppage of Oscar? No but both are classified as knockouts when in reality only 1 of them were actually knocked out.

not only is it unnecessary but it doesnt accomplish what you want anyways. you say they should be seperated so you can tell if a fighter is a lights out puncher or not. but a good portion of TKOs would have been KOs if the ref just let it go a bit longer or vice versa had he decided to stop it. its a matter of circumstance. either way the point is how many guys did he get out of there, how exactly doesnt matter that much once its over with. no need to drag out the introductions further, the very notion is ridiculous imo.

No because it takes power to win by stoppage either way. Maybe if you separate TKOs from cuts and injuries from actual stoppages caused by punches or an accumulation of punches.

If thats the case, might as well add how many clinches/holds a fighter has. I mosdef wouldnt want to see a fighter who has a lot

I think a stoppage is a stoppage No point splitting hairs Keep the current system Then call it stoppages rather than knockouts.