Boxing Results

[Ezzard]

I read the arguments over retired and TKO on another thread and thought I'd raise this point...

KO, TKO, etc are not that menaingful.

I think the British Boxing Year Books adopted a different notation.

WCO - Win Count Out
WRSF - Win Ref Stopped Fight
WRet - Win Opponent Retired

Maybe adding a

WRSF (cuts) would also be beneficial...

Seems that TKO is just too generic to mean anything.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I can't stand when someone said fighter X was knocked out, when the referee stepped in, or they retired in their corner. A knockout should be properly defined - a 10-count, or else call it a TKO. I can understand listing TKO's as KO's in a fighter's record as a matter of convenience (Besides, with boxing being what it is nowadays, there are almost no clean KO's in big fights anymore) but I think the definition between KO & TKO has slipped too far.

What is wrong with, "Result TKO8" for example?

[Ambling Alp]

You guys are right that it would tell you more if it's a little more specific.

I have seen rsf, ret, in some books, without the W in front of it. Haven't seen the co, usually it says KO. Adding something that says stopped on cuts would be a good idea as well.
I do think they should all count as KO's in a fights record of KO's.

Actually I may go one step farther:
Should a DQ count as a KO on a fighters record of total KO's?
If you think about, it doesn't seem fair to the winner that his opponent gets himself disqualified and so it doesn't count a KO win even though it may have been if the loser hadn't been disqualified.

If a fighters gets disqualified, shouldn't it be count as a KO loss? It's not, but should it be?

[Ezzard]

You guys are right that it would tell you more if it's a little more specific.

I have seen rsf, ret, in some books, without the W in front of it. Haven't seen the co, usually it says KO. Adding something that says stopped on cuts would be a good idea as well.
I do think they should all count as KO's in a fights record of KO's.

Actually I may go one step farther:
Should a DQ count as a KO on a fighters record of total KO's?
If you think about, it doesn't seem fair to the winner that his opponent gets himself disqualified and so it doesn't count a KO win even though it may have been if the loser hadn't been disqualified.

If a fighters gets disqualified, shouldn't it be count as a KO loss? It's not, but should it be?

I think there's a difference.

I want to know at a glance if

1) there was acount of ten

2) Whether the ref intervened because in their opinion the the winner had got the other guy into a place at which he was in danger.

3) whether the corner wanted to pull their man out or if the fighter themselves could take no more

4) if a cut or injury played a part

5) if it was a DQ

[granberry]

I think there's a difference.

I want to know at a glance if

1) there was acount of ten

2) Whether the ref intervened because in their opinion the the winner had got the other guy into a place at which he was in danger.

3) whether the corner wanted to pull their man out or if the fighter themselves could take no more

4) if a cut or injury played a part

5) if it was a DQ

Exactly.

The Leonard-Duran fake (#2) is in the record book as a KO for Leonard.

Raw horsesh*t.

[Musashi]

Bouts can officially be ruled a "Knock Out" even without reaching the count of 10 if the referee immediately calls it off.

Boxer gets hit by a brutal punch and completely folds to the canvas. No sense in counting to 10. It's not "technically" a knock out. It is a knock out. However, the call for a "KO" must be made by the referee.

Just thought I'd throw that in there.

[Ambling Alp]

You guys are right that it would tell you more if it's a little more specific.

I have seen rsf, ret, in some books, without the W in front of it. Haven't seen the co, usually it says KO. Adding something that says stopped on cuts would be a good idea as well.
I do think they should all count as KO's in a fights record of KO's.

Actually I may go one step farther:
Should a DQ count as a KO on a fighters record of total KO's?
If you think about, it doesn't seem fair to the winner that his opponent gets himself disqualified and so it doesn't count a KO win even though it may have been if the loser hadn't been disqualified.

If a fighters gets disqualified, shouldn't it be count as a KO loss? It's not, but should it be?

I think there's a difference.

I want to know at a glance if

1) there was acount of ten

2) Whether the ref intervened because in their opinion the the winner had got the other guy into a place at which he was in danger.

3) whether the corner wanted to pull their man out or if the fighter themselves could take no more

4) if a cut or injury played a part

5) if it was a DQ

I'm pretty much agreeing with you. It would give you you a little more information about the fight if somehow it stated why the fight didn't go the distance (rsf,ret,Ko etc.)

I just think it would still be a good idea if they all count as KO's when when compiling a fighters total record. For example, lets say a fight had 50 fights and won 30 that weren't by decison.
I don't think it should say 7 Ko's, 16 rsfs's, 3 rets, 4 won by cuts or something like that.
I think it should just say 30 KO's. (As is done now, except for DQ wins.)

[Ezzard]

You guys are right that it would tell you more if it's a little more specific.

I have seen rsf, ret, in some books, without the W in front of it. Haven't seen the co, usually it says KO. Adding something that says stopped on cuts would be a good idea as well.
I do think they should all count as KO's in a fights record of KO's.

Actually I may go one step farther:
Should a DQ count as a KO on a fighters record of total KO's?
If you think about, it doesn't seem fair to the winner that his opponent gets himself disqualified and so it doesn't count a KO win even though it may have been if the loser hadn't been disqualified.

If a fighters gets disqualified, shouldn't it be count as a KO loss? It's not, but should it be?

I think there's a difference.

I want to know at a glance if

1) there was acount of ten

2) Whether the ref intervened because in their opinion the the winner had got the other guy into a place at which he was in danger.

3) whether the corner wanted to pull their man out or if the fighter themselves could take no more

4) if a cut or injury played a part

5) if it was a DQ

I'm pretty much agreeing with you. It would give you you a little more information about the fight if somehow it stated why the fight didn't go the distance (rsf,ret,Ko etc.)

I just think it would still be a good idea if they all count as KO's when when compiling a fighters total record. For example, lets say a fight had 50 fights and won 30 that weren't by decison.
I don't think it should say 7 Ko's, 16 rsfs's, 3 rets, 4 won by cuts or something like that.
I think it should just say 30 KO's. (As is done now, except for DQ wins.)

Yes, you still want an at a glance run down of

30-2-2 (25)

The 25 should represent wins that didn't go the distance no matter how it ended.

Hmm, what about a Technical Decision? An accidental butt means going to the scroecards after 8 rounds or so? IMo, these should always be a draw.

I also think the three KD rule should also be noted in results.

[Ambling Alp]

I guess I'm on the fence on whether there should be technical decisions.

On the one hand, it just doesn't seem right to say one guy lost when he wasn't really stopped, but only because he was losing (maybe by only one point) on the scorecards when the fight was stopped because of an accidental headbutt.

On the other hand, what about this scenario: One guy has won every round and is clearly dominating. Then with a minute left to go in the last round, there is an accidental headbutt and the fight is stopped. Would you really want a fight like that scored a draw?

I don't think there is a good solution to what should be done when a fight is stopped because of an accidental headbutt. Fortunately, it doesn't happen a lot.

As for compiling a fighters career record, a win by technical decision isn't counted as a KO win and that should stay that way.

[barry]

Good obsevation Ezzard...Being very specific is always good when researching anything and in this case adding new stat abbreviations to describe a result, other than just TKO, well it would present a much more clear picture of a fighters career. It's certainly a time consuming way, but I think it would be nothing but positive, not to mention that it would make records much more accurate.