Tweet
WHEREFORE A “T.K.O.”?
So many recent boxing bouts have terminated by cuts or through the poor physical condition of one of the contestants and have been recorded by the newspaper reporters as technical knockouts, that the fight fans are beginning to ask what constitutes a knockout. Only a few days ago a Ring reader wrote of a fight in which one of the lads was so badly beaten he couldn’t stand on his feet.
“He was leg weary, groping about the ring, his face was swollen from the punishment he was absorbing and one of his eyes was closed, and the other was beginning to close. The referee stopped the fight and the scribes came out with a story the next day that the winner scored a technical knockout. Now what I want to know is, why a technical knockout? Shouldn’t the winner be given full credit for having stopped his man and not have his record tainted with the word ‘technical’ prefixed to the kayo?”
That reader is 100 percent correct. Unfortunately too many of our present day scribes don’t understand the meaning of the word knockout or don’t know the rules of boxing. It is doubtful if there is a more pertinent question relating to boxing or one that is asked more often than the one, “What is a knockout?”
The erroneous belief is that a man must be down and out, unable to get to his feet, to be knocked out. In short he must be unconscious or subconscious.
As has been stated in The Ring often, a knockout may be scored in many ways. Here they are:
1—When a fighter is completely knocked out of time—cannot get to his feet within the prescribed limit of 10 seconds after being floored.
2—When he fails to come out of his corner to answer the bell for the succeeding round, in which case the referee counts over him while the fighter is seated.
3—When he is hanging helplessly over the ropes and cannot defend himself.
4—If he is unable to carry on during a round because of poor physical condition.
5—If he is in such distress during a round that he cannot defend himself and the referee is forced to intercede to save him from further punishment.
Until the New York State Boxing Commission amended its rules in 1936, a knockout was listed in its books as follows:
1—When a fighter is unable, after being knocked down to arise unaided inside of 10 seconds.
2—When a boxer is in distress, but still on his feet, and the referee is forced to intercede to save him from punishment.
Now those definitions were correct and conformed with the general rules of boxing as handed down from the old code that preceded the adoption of legalized boxing, under state control.
Then in 1936, for no other reason than some managers complained that the record books carried the notation “knocked out,” in contests in which their boys had to give up because of cuts or because they were in distress, the commission in New York changed its rules to read:
1—Referees and judges shall, in rendering decisions, consider and declare a contestant to be knocked out when he is unable, after being floored, to rise unaided inside of 10 seconds.
2—If a referee intercedes to save a boxer from further punishment, then he and the judges shall render the verdict, “contest stopped, unable to continue, and name the winner.”
No mention is here made about a technical knockout, yet the fighter who won that bout is shorn of the honor of having stopped his man by a kayo, which he undoubtedly did, by having the record show that the contest was halted and the scribes, writing about the fight, declare it was won on a technical knockout.
Such action is ridiculous. The man who was thus stopped was as much knocked out if he was in distress as if he were down on the canvas and couldn’t rise within 10 seconds. He simply could not continue and therefore was knocked out of time. I often wonder why the boxing scribes, especially in the bigger cities, didn’t go out on the limb for this proper interpretation of a knockout instead of sticking to the erroneous statement, “technically knocked out.”
There simply isn’t such a thing as a technical knockout and THE RING, in making up its records, and in printing them for our readers monthly, take cognizance of that point and record it as a K.O.
A fighter who cuts his man so badly that the bout must be halted, or has his opponent in such distress that he cannot go on, is as much entitled to have his record show the K.O. next to such a contest, as the fellow who halts his opponent by flooring him so that he cannot get up before the ten seconds limit. Why deprive him of such honor?
Take the case of Joe Louis. It is most unfair for posterity to have “The Brown Bomber’s” record show so many T.K.O.’s listed, when as a matter of fact, each time his fights have been halted, Joe was whipping his opponent so badly that it no longer was a contest. Such was the case in his most recent bouts with McCoy, Simon, and Musto, among others.
I blame the referee in most cases for depriving Joe of his just due by stopping the fight instead of giving the opponent the full count. In many cases the count has been up to five or even more, when the referee waived his hands indicating he had stopped the fight. Why was such action necessary?
It would not have hurt the beaten boxer to have counted him out, so long as his opponent was in no position to attack again unless the defeated fighter could get to his feet. It is a gross injustice and should be rectified by the boxing commissions throughout the country.
A change in the rules is needed where a T.K.O. is permissible. Wipe that word “technical” off the rule books and let’s get back to common sense.
The compound word “knockout” was first coined by Billy Madden when he was handling the affairs of John L. Sullivan in his tour of the country. At least he was the first to bring it forcibly to the attention of the public.
It was at the time he made the historical tour with the Boston Strong Boy when the Mighty Man of New England met all comers and offered to hand out a bonus to any man whom he failed to “knock out in four rounds.” In those days the rules stipulated that “if a fighter was knocked out of time,” that is, if he was rendered incapable of continuing for a period of 10 seconds, he lost the prize money. It did not mean then, nor does it mean today, that a fighter had to be rendered senseless to lose by a knockout.
If for any reason a fighter failed to continue the combat, either through fear, because his seconds cast a sponge into the ring as token of defeat or because the referee, as an act of mercy when he saw a fighter beaten and helpless, stopped the bout, the defeated man lost the prize money and side bet.
Recently I attended some boxing bouts out West and I saw something, which convinced me more than ever that there should be no such designation as a “technical knockout.” A fighter was badly whipped. He would have been knocked into dreamland with a few more punches. The manager, preferring to give his boy the benefit of a T.K.O. rating rather than a knockout, hurled the towel into the ring and the bout was stopped with the announcement that “Al Jiminez wins by a technical knockout.”
Under such a rule, all a manager has to do to save the knockout verdict, no matter how woefully outclassed and defeated is his boy, would be to prevent him from going out for another round and thus have his fighter lose “by a T.K.O.”
Let’s forget “technical knockouts” and designate a victory by its proper term.
When a fighter cannot continue because of cuts or bruises, etc., the scribes and commissioners should realize that such condition has been caused by his opponent. His opponent, in short, had enough on the ball to cause this condition.
The epidemic of T.K.O.’s is on in full force. Either a fighter can go on or he can’t and if he can’t then he loses by a knockout. “There isn’t such an animal as ‘T.K.O.’ in my book.”
So many recent boxing bouts have terminated by cuts or through the poor physical condition of one of the contestants and have been recorded by the newspaper reporters as technical knockouts, that the fight fans are beginning to ask what constitutes a knockout. Only a few days ago a Ring reader wrote of a fight in which one of the lads was so badly beaten he couldn’t stand on his feet.
“He was leg weary, groping about the ring, his face was swollen from the punishment he was absorbing and one of his eyes was closed, and the other was beginning to close. The referee stopped the fight and the scribes came out with a story the next day that the winner scored a technical knockout. Now what I want to know is, why a technical knockout? Shouldn’t the winner be given full credit for having stopped his man and not have his record tainted with the word ‘technical’ prefixed to the kayo?”
That reader is 100 percent correct. Unfortunately too many of our present day scribes don’t understand the meaning of the word knockout or don’t know the rules of boxing. It is doubtful if there is a more pertinent question relating to boxing or one that is asked more often than the one, “What is a knockout?”
The erroneous belief is that a man must be down and out, unable to get to his feet, to be knocked out. In short he must be unconscious or subconscious.
As has been stated in The Ring often, a knockout may be scored in many ways. Here they are:
1—When a fighter is completely knocked out of time—cannot get to his feet within the prescribed limit of 10 seconds after being floored.
2—When he fails to come out of his corner to answer the bell for the succeeding round, in which case the referee counts over him while the fighter is seated.
3—When he is hanging helplessly over the ropes and cannot defend himself.
4—If he is unable to carry on during a round because of poor physical condition.
5—If he is in such distress during a round that he cannot defend himself and the referee is forced to intercede to save him from further punishment.
Until the New York State Boxing Commission amended its rules in 1936, a knockout was listed in its books as follows:
1—When a fighter is unable, after being knocked down to arise unaided inside of 10 seconds.
2—When a boxer is in distress, but still on his feet, and the referee is forced to intercede to save him from punishment.
Now those definitions were correct and conformed with the general rules of boxing as handed down from the old code that preceded the adoption of legalized boxing, under state control.
Then in 1936, for no other reason than some managers complained that the record books carried the notation “knocked out,” in contests in which their boys had to give up because of cuts or because they were in distress, the commission in New York changed its rules to read:
1—Referees and judges shall, in rendering decisions, consider and declare a contestant to be knocked out when he is unable, after being floored, to rise unaided inside of 10 seconds.
2—If a referee intercedes to save a boxer from further punishment, then he and the judges shall render the verdict, “contest stopped, unable to continue, and name the winner.”
No mention is here made about a technical knockout, yet the fighter who won that bout is shorn of the honor of having stopped his man by a kayo, which he undoubtedly did, by having the record show that the contest was halted and the scribes, writing about the fight, declare it was won on a technical knockout.
Such action is ridiculous. The man who was thus stopped was as much knocked out if he was in distress as if he were down on the canvas and couldn’t rise within 10 seconds. He simply could not continue and therefore was knocked out of time. I often wonder why the boxing scribes, especially in the bigger cities, didn’t go out on the limb for this proper interpretation of a knockout instead of sticking to the erroneous statement, “technically knocked out.”
There simply isn’t such a thing as a technical knockout and THE RING, in making up its records, and in printing them for our readers monthly, take cognizance of that point and record it as a K.O.
A fighter who cuts his man so badly that the bout must be halted, or has his opponent in such distress that he cannot go on, is as much entitled to have his record show the K.O. next to such a contest, as the fellow who halts his opponent by flooring him so that he cannot get up before the ten seconds limit. Why deprive him of such honor?
Take the case of Joe Louis. It is most unfair for posterity to have “The Brown Bomber’s” record show so many T.K.O.’s listed, when as a matter of fact, each time his fights have been halted, Joe was whipping his opponent so badly that it no longer was a contest. Such was the case in his most recent bouts with McCoy, Simon, and Musto, among others.
I blame the referee in most cases for depriving Joe of his just due by stopping the fight instead of giving the opponent the full count. In many cases the count has been up to five or even more, when the referee waived his hands indicating he had stopped the fight. Why was such action necessary?
It would not have hurt the beaten boxer to have counted him out, so long as his opponent was in no position to attack again unless the defeated fighter could get to his feet. It is a gross injustice and should be rectified by the boxing commissions throughout the country.
A change in the rules is needed where a T.K.O. is permissible. Wipe that word “technical” off the rule books and let’s get back to common sense.
The compound word “knockout” was first coined by Billy Madden when he was handling the affairs of John L. Sullivan in his tour of the country. At least he was the first to bring it forcibly to the attention of the public.
It was at the time he made the historical tour with the Boston Strong Boy when the Mighty Man of New England met all comers and offered to hand out a bonus to any man whom he failed to “knock out in four rounds.” In those days the rules stipulated that “if a fighter was knocked out of time,” that is, if he was rendered incapable of continuing for a period of 10 seconds, he lost the prize money. It did not mean then, nor does it mean today, that a fighter had to be rendered senseless to lose by a knockout.
If for any reason a fighter failed to continue the combat, either through fear, because his seconds cast a sponge into the ring as token of defeat or because the referee, as an act of mercy when he saw a fighter beaten and helpless, stopped the bout, the defeated man lost the prize money and side bet.
Recently I attended some boxing bouts out West and I saw something, which convinced me more than ever that there should be no such designation as a “technical knockout.” A fighter was badly whipped. He would have been knocked into dreamland with a few more punches. The manager, preferring to give his boy the benefit of a T.K.O. rating rather than a knockout, hurled the towel into the ring and the bout was stopped with the announcement that “Al Jiminez wins by a technical knockout.”
Under such a rule, all a manager has to do to save the knockout verdict, no matter how woefully outclassed and defeated is his boy, would be to prevent him from going out for another round and thus have his fighter lose “by a T.K.O.”
Let’s forget “technical knockouts” and designate a victory by its proper term.
When a fighter cannot continue because of cuts or bruises, etc., the scribes and commissioners should realize that such condition has been caused by his opponent. His opponent, in short, had enough on the ball to cause this condition.
The epidemic of T.K.O.’s is on in full force. Either a fighter can go on or he can’t and if he can’t then he loses by a knockout. “There isn’t such an animal as ‘T.K.O.’ in my book.”
to your mom..
Comment