Did Foreman vs Frazier I end in a knockout?

[The_Demon]

Its called a TKO you pathetic alt.and let me tell you this,their is no shame in losing by TKO to one of the biggest punchers in boxing history,the majority of heavyweights would have permanent brain damage after the amount of punishment smokin joe took that night

[nightowl]

Should I? You should figure out a way to respond without whining about it....."computer genius".

That link you sent didn't lead to a photo. It leads to a private message that only you can see because it's your account.

It was recorded as a TKO, because technically he wasn't fit to continue. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

Vitali would have lost an eye, had he been allowed to continue. That's what's important.

Everyone who is man enough to admit that Frazier lost uses those definitions.

KO = knockout that reaches the count of 10.

TKO = knockout in which the fight is stopped because the fighter is not fit to continue.

Why don't you tell me what's incorrect about them?

I'm not going to waste my time to try and fix your stupid quoting mistakes. You do that yourself. Everyone else is able to quote normally and so should you.

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE]

That link you sent didn't lead to a photo. It leads to a private message that only you can see because it's your account.

What does that have to d with you lying about not sending me a PM in the first place?

It was recorded as a TKO, because technically he wasn't fit to continue. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

He was cut, not incoherent and unable to fight or defend himself. Technically he was fit to continue, but in the better interests of the commission and sport as a whole it was stopped. Much, much different than a KO and exactly why there is another definition (tko) on stoppages.

Vitali would have lost an eye, had he been allowed to continue. That's what's important.

This is an ASSumption., nothing more, nothing less. It cannot be backed by any kind of fact.

Everyone who is man enough to admit that Frazier lost uses those definitions.

KO = knockout that reaches the count of 10.

TKO = knockout in which the fight is stopped because the fighter is not fit to continue.

Why don't you tell me what's incorrect about them?

With a KO there is never any doubt as to who the winner is. A TKO is open to interpretation on whether a fight can go on and is often questionable, ad at times out right wrong. Nothing the same about them except the signify the end of a fight.

I'm not going to waste my time to try and fix your stupid quoting mistakes. You do that yourself. Everyone else is able to quote normally and so should you.

Boo freakin hoo! Go whine some where else or just deal with it. Everyone else understands the difference between a KO and a TKO...so should you.

[prinzemanspopa]

He is right,though,gabby.It's not really difficult to qoute others like everyone else does,is it?


The way you multi-qoute others is annoying and creates pointless complications



If you want respect,then stop being so damn lazy and qoute the proper way.

[JAB5239]

He is right,though,gabby.It's not really difficult to qoute others like everyone else does,is it?


The way you multi-qoute others is annoying and creates pointless complications



If you want respect,then stop being so damn lazy and qoute the proper way.

If I want respect? Bwaahaahhaaa!!!! From clowns like the two of you? I get plenty of respect. Its why I've never been banned and am in the green.

[nightowl]

Boo freakin hoo! Go whine some where else or just deal with it. Everyone else understands the difference between a KO and a TKO...so should you.

It has to do with you having no proof of such lies, except for a link that leads everyone to nowhere.

Yes, he was cut. It was such a bad cut that it could have cost him an eye, had he been allowed to continue. So, it was a technical knockout, as he was not able to continue. Why do you deny this?

It's far from an assumption. It was arguably the worst cut I've ever seen in a heavyweight fight.

So if a TKO doesn't decide the real winner of the fight, I guess we can say that a fight like Whitaker vs Hurtado remains unsolved?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf9iZHHTBgQ

Another great poster, prinzemanspopa, also thinks your lack of quoting properly is beyond stupid.

[JAB5239]

It has to do with you having no proof of such lies, except for a link that leads everyone to nowhere.

Private Messages in Folder: Inbox

Date Reverse Sort Order
Title / Sender

Messages: 4 Sunday


06-20-2010 Re: Knockout of the year
08:19 PM nightowl


06-20-2010 Re: Knockout of the year
08:04 PM nightowl


06-20-2010 Re: Knockout of the year
07:52 PM nightowl


06-20-2010 Knockout of the year
07:17 PM nightowl

Are you denying these are your messages? The photo's of them come next. Now why would I make ANY of that up?

Yes, he was cut. It was such a bad cut that it could have cost him an eye, had he been allowed to continue. So, it was a technical knockout, as he was not able to continue. Why do you deny this?

why can't you understand the difference between not being allowed to continue and being unable to continue?

It's far from an assumption. It was arguably the worst cut I've ever seen in a heavyweight fight.

Tell me the facts that point out he would have lost his eye had he continued. Not your opinion, the facts. I'll be waiting.

So if a TKO doesn't decide the real winner of the fight, I guess we can say that a fight like Whitaker vs Hurtado remains unsolved?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf9iZHHTBgQ

Who said that? I said it often leaves a stoppage open for interpretation such as V-Lewis, Tyson-Ruddock and plenty of others. A KO is clear cut, decisive. This is exactly why there are different definitions of each and neither means the same thing.

Another great poster, prinzemanspopa, also thinks your lack of quoting properly is beyond stupid.

Lmao!!!! Being banned a dozen times and continually being in the red must be the new prerequisite for being a great poster.

What ever happened to Slimey Limey?

[boxing boy]

I know what the terms mean. I've probably been watching boxing longer than you could speak.

The point is, if you don't consider a TKO a knockout, you're an idiot. If you do consider it a knockout but not for this fight, you're a biased idiot.

You have probably been watching boxing longer than I could speak?

Maybe,maybe not.I'm 53 years old and have been watching boxing since I was 9 years old when I watched the Ali-Cooper 2nd fight on TV.I have been watching and closely following boxing for 44 years.How about you?

A TKO is a technical knock out.

A KO is a knock out.

It's that simple.....And your calling me an idiot?

[nightowl]

Lmao!!!! Being banned a dozen times and continually being in the red must be the new prerequisite for being a great poster.

What ever happened to Slimey Limey?

I don't doubt those messages are real, as they're the one you sent me after I made this thread.

If you feel the need to Photoshop some fake private messages, feel free to do so. You'll be the only one trying to sell it as real.

If a fighter is unable to continue, he will not be allowed to continue.

Everyone who has seen the fight knows how bad the cut was. You don't need to be provided facts to know he would have lost an eye. It's common sense.

You're wrong. KO and TKO have different definitions, but they have the same meaning. That meaning is that the fighter is no longer fit to continue.

I'm in the red because I hurt some people's feelings by stating the reality of things. It's not my fault, if you can't handle the truth.

[boxing boy]

You have probably been watching boxing longer than I could speak?

Maybe,maybe not.I'm 53 years old and have been watching boxing since I was 9 years old when I watched the Ali-Cooper 2nd fight on TV.I have been watching and closely following boxing for 44 years.How about you?

A TKO is a technical knock out.

A KO is a knock out.

It's that simple.....And your calling me an idiot?

nightowl....Please read the above,you idiot.