BoxRec

The term regarding being knocked out certainly has two fundamental yet related meanings. The actual 10 count vs creating circumstances that do not allow the opposing fighter the ability to continue. Being "knocked out of the fight" vs being Laid out flat.

I think however you manage to bring the fight to the point where your opponent either can not or is not allowed to continue it's fair game to call it a "knock out". And of course that "T" has much in the way of meaning indicating that no one counted out the opponent....perhaps the cuts were too severe, or in the eyes of the ref or the fighters corner the beating transcended the damage of the actual unconcious state requiring stoppage, or if the fighter himself decides he's had enough, you have been "knocked out" of the game.

Some fighters like Frazier and Ali needed an intervention or they would have walked semi conciously to there demise. It's nice to have some safeguards.

Gran

You have a PM.

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:

John Galt wrote:toih08, I knew I couldn't trick you. You are like Colonel Klink (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q ... 1&ct=title) , no escapes around you. How did you determine that I am Granberry?

You seem to be just as astute in your boxing knowledge as you are in your detective abilities. Keep reading those Hauser, Mailer, Sugar books and ignore the guys who really know boxing like Granberry and you will always be a typical message board poster.

As I told your doppelganger " if I can see further than other men it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants."

Oh- Is granberry the genius who opined that Ali spent the entire time he fought The Rabbit running away from him?

"Yet Ali, who had just "knocked out" Sonny Liston with a single "punch" in the first round IN HIS PREVIOUS FIGHT, ran for his life against sore-backed Patterson ..."

-granberry

This clip should disabuse anybody of that silly notion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGKQ7d5zOcY

Ali would have won the Patterson fight in '65 anyway, but Granberry is quite right about Patterson's back trouble during the fight. I remember photos of Al Silvani, Patterson's trainer at the time, vainly lifting Patterson up and down between rounds in an attempt to relieve the lumbar region of the back.

Patterson was practically an immobile target for Ali during the fight, but Ali still couldn't put him away with his pitty-pat punching.

I can watch the Johansen KO' and the Liston blow
outs 100 times before I can sit through the entire
first Ali-Patterson fight.

Patterson just did not look right the whole fight, and
not to make an excuse for Floyd, but his back was
clearly hurting him.

As for Patterson losing to Ali in that era, most likely
he would have. But look how devastating Patterson
was against Cooper thereafter once his back was
less painful.

Robinson wrote:I can watch the Johansen KO' and the Liston blow
outs 100 times before I can sit through the entire
first Ali-Patterson fight.

Patterson just did not look right the whole fight, and
not to make an excuse for Floyd, but his back was
clearly hurting him.

As for Patterson losing to Ali in that era, most likely
he would have. But look how devastating Patterson
was against Cooper thereafter once his back was
less painful.

Kym,

You are right about Patterson's devastating performance against Cooper.

He was cat quick with those punches in that fight. True knockout, btw.

I just think that Ali most likely would have beaten Patterson in '65, but Patterson had no chance with the back trouble. You can see in that youtube clip how immobile he was.

Terry D wrote:Small answer, you are wrong. Sorry but you are. You may enjoy this simple approach to the sport but there is a difference between the terms, as evidenced by their differing. I call a 'TKO' a stoppage. If someone says to you "Man, Larry Holmes knocked ALi the f*ck out!" you may nod your head and agree with them but I point out that Ali was not knocked out. He was stopped. I then make sure that they understand that Ali was never knocked out. It matters.

Ditto for Evander-Rahman. I do not jump around screaming "knockout!". It was a TKO.

Also, if I am watching a fight and it is boring, with little action, only for one sole clean blow to cause a cut-eye stoppage I do not leap around as the commentators scream "Fighter A has just KNOCKED OUT Fighter B in the most vicious KO I have ever seen!" I shake my head and despair for the 14 year olds who will take them at their word and content myself in the knowledge that the 'KO' in question will not be appearing on a KO highlight reel any time soon.

The KO/TKO/RSF distinction was dropped in the US simply so the announcements of 'X KO's', however erroneous, would get the casuals excited, I see it worked. I can dig out the evidence for you when I get home.

Plus accusing people over-elaboration for the littlest lateral thinking is getting boring, why not open a strand with the title 'Holmes KNOCKED Ali the F out' and have done with it?

Incorrect, not surprisingly. Perhaps if you spent more time watching boxing and less time boring us with your pedantic lecturing you would have known that Holyfield-Rahman was a technical decision win for Holyfield, not a TKO. That is a mistake on your part, and a mistake worth pointing out. Saying that Ali-Frazier III was a knockout, on the other hand, is not a mistake; it was a knockout. It was a TKO, to be more specific; but TKO's fall under the category of "knockout", they always have, and most are aware of this. You and robinson apparently are not. People on a boxing forum also likely know the circumstances of what happened in Manila, being that it was a rather famous fight, which is all the more reason why I do not need to go into specifics. If it were a more obscure fight, maybe I might strain myself to add the "T." Reffering to TKO's as "knockouts" and putting them under that category is not something that began with boxing commentators, by the way, nor did it begin with me, but was established long ago in the history of this glorious sport. This is also how actual boxers talk. I can recall Robinson talking about how he "knocked out" LaMotta and I can recall Ali saying that he "knocked out" Frazier as well. Perhaps you know more about boxing than they did, but I think you're taking yourself a bit too seriously; we all get the difference between being counted out and being stopped on cuts or by the referee or by the corner, we did not need Terry D to explain it to us; I sort of figured out the difference at about the age of 10.

I'm sorry that you feel the need to be anal about how posters describe fight results, and that you're new to the vagaries of boxing terminology, but its not my job to carefully select my language lest I confuse the more boring posters of this forum.

And if you want to get "technical", TKO is not a very specific term either. Boxrec adds the distinction of "RTD" for fighters who quit in their corners, but there are also TKO's where the fighter is stopped by the ref because the fighter has taken too many punches, there are TKO's on cuts, TKO's on swelling, TKO's on injuries. Do we need categories for all of these? Perhaps, but again, its a bit tedious, and there are aspects of boxing that are a bit more serious and consequential and more worthy of attention and reform. We'll leave it to the uninitiated to remember to remind us of the differences.

If someone seemed to be unaware or misinformed on the specifics of Holmes-Ali, sure, I would likely explain to them what happened and that it was a corner stoppage. But this isn't a conversation among people who are new to the sport; I doubt that there is a poster here who hasn't seen Ali-Frazier III.

Perhaps I have a limited frame of reference, or perhaps I know stuff that is just common knowledge and am not boring enough to think that I need to waste time worrying about how I describe the result of a fight that nearly everyone, non-boxing fans included, knows the result to. Nor did Sugar Ray need to stop and correct himself when he said that he "knocked out" LaMotta, because he a) had a life and trivial nonsense like that probably never occurred to him, but more importantly b) he knew that it was not improper to call that result a "knockout", being that he had been around boxing for most of his life, which you apparently have not, and so he had no reason to correct himself.

You and your points are uninteresting. You're not telling us anything we don't know when you try to enlighten us on the differences between a KO or a TKO, or the subsets of a TKO, and the difference between a SD and a UD; its pretty simple stuff, so simple that we don't have to agonize over it, as you, out of ignorance, feel the need to. Maybe next you'll try to explain to me the existence of the sanctioning bodies and that there is a difference between "WBC" and "WBA" or that when a boxer throws a straight punch with his lead hand that its called a "jab". Thanks, but all of this stuff has kind of found its way to me having seen the sport for several years now; I didn't start watching boxing last weekend, and Klitschko-Thompson was not the first match I ever saw. And to prove it, I know the proper use of boxing terminology, which you do not. Don't waste my time, terry; go and get yourself a copy of Holyfield-Rahman.

Oh, and yes, it may come as a surprise to you, but there are indeed some boxing fans who actually say "Fighter A won a decision over Fighter B" without mentioning what the nature of the decision was. I'm not sure what should be done about this; hopefully you'll have an idea.

yancey wrote:

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:

John Galt wrote:toih08, I knew I couldn't trick you. You are like Colonel Klink (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q ... 1&ct=title) , no escapes around you. How did you determine that I am Granberry?

You seem to be just as astute in your boxing knowledge as you are in your detective abilities. Keep reading those Hauser, Mailer, Sugar books and ignore the guys who really know boxing like Granberry and you will always be a typical message board poster.

As I told your doppelganger " if I can see further than other men it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants."

Oh- Is granberry the genius who opined that Ali spent the entire time he fought The Rabbit running away from him?

"Yet Ali, who had just "knocked out" Sonny Liston with a single "punch" in the first round IN HIS PREVIOUS FIGHT, ran for his life against sore-backed Patterson ..."-granberry

This clip should disabuse anybody of that silly notion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGKQ7d5zOcY

Ali would have won the Patterson fight in '65 anyway, but Granberry is quite right about Patterson's back trouble during the fight. I remember photos of Al Silvani, Patterson's trainer at the time, vainly lifting Patterson up and down between rounds in an attempt to relieve the lumbar region of the back.

Patterson was practically an immobile target for Ali during the fight, but Ali still couldn't put him away with his pitty-pat punching.

That wasn't the point ...Granberry said Ali (Clay ) "ran for his life against sore-backed Patterson "... A less charitable person would call that a lie as the documentary evidence demonstrates....

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, that's granberry and his nom de guerre, galt...

Pattterson lost two fights to Ali because Ali was the infinitely better fighter...That's also why The Rabbit lost to men Ali beat including Sonny Liston, Jerry Quarry, and Jimmy Ellis ...

Quarry and Ellis were not 'infinetly' better.

Watch the fights and show me your score
cards. Very close and controversial fights.

Robinson wrote:Quarry and Ellis were not 'infinetly' better.

Watch the fights and show me your score
cards. Very close and controversial fights.

Respectfully, that isn't what I said...I said Ali was infinitely better than Patterson...His two knockouts or technical knock outs of Patterson demontrate that... That and the fact Ali beat rather convincingly three men-Liston, Quarry, and Ellis, who beat Patterson...

GranGalt also said Ali "ran for his life against Patterson" That's plain old fashion libel, ergo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGKQ7d5zOcY



You go to other sites and you see sixteen year old kids making all kinds of outlandish claims that easily be disproven using google...You would think a grown man like Galtberry would know better...

Granny, come out, come out, wherever you are... "You can run but you can't hide." :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E03mTh5_ ... re=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbCZc52r ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7o30NHF ... re=related

If you were writing a novel you couldn't make this cat up...

I know you're here...

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:

John Galt wrote:toih08, I knew I couldn't trick you. You are like Colonel Klink (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q ... 1&ct=title) , no escapes around you. How did you determine that I am Granberry?

You seem to be just as astute in your boxing knowledge as you are in your detective abilities. Keep reading those Hauser, Mailer, Sugar books and ignore the guys who really know boxing like Granberry and you will always be a typical message board poster.

As I told your doppelganger " if I can see further than other men it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants."

Oh- Is granberry the genius who opined that Ali spent the entire time he fought The Rabbit running away from him?

"Yet Ali, who had just "knocked out" Sonny Liston with a single "punch" in the first round IN HIS PREVIOUS FIGHT, ran for his life against sore-backed Patterson ..."

-granberry

This clip should disabuse anybody of that silly notion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGKQ7d5zOcY

Game. Set. Match

observer1 wrote:

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:

John Galt wrote:toih08, I knew I couldn't trick you. You are like Colonel Klink (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q ... 1&ct=title) , no escapes around you. How did you determine that I am Granberry?

You seem to be just as astute in your boxing knowledge as you are in your detective abilities. Keep reading those Hauser, Mailer, Sugar books and ignore the guys who really know boxing like Granberry and you will always be a typical message board poster.

As I told your doppelganger " if I can see further than other men it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants."

Oh- Is granberry the genius who opined that Ali spent the entire time he fought The Rabbit running away from him?

"Yet Ali, who had just "knocked out" Sonny Liston with a single "punch" in the first round IN HIS PREVIOUS FIGHT, ran for his life against sore-backed Patterson ..."

-granberry

This clip should disabuse anybody of that silly notion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGKQ7d5zOcY

Game. Set. Match

"

Yet Ali, who had just "knocked out" Sonny Liston with a single "punch" in the first round IN HIS PREVIOUS FIGHT, ran for his life against sore-backed Patterson ..."

-granberry

Proposition

Ali "ran for his life against sore-backed Patterson"

I'll take the negative.

We will use the Socratic Method...We will ask each other questions in a search for the truth.I'll go first...

How does a fighter who ran for his life beat his opponent so badly that the referee had to intervene and stop the fight?

Here's the youtube page with the entire fight. Please feel free to reference it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0twVkgS ... re=related

crickets chirping.....

Buzz, the Thomas Hauser regurgitator,

is in his glory as boxrec, the Grovel for Ali "boxing" site he engineers, has a thread now plastered with posts

by buzz' fellow Ali worshippers.

An Ali worshipper sees nothing odd about the fact that their hero supposedly "knocked out" Sonny Liston with a single "punch"

and IN HIS VERY NEXT FIGHT against a sore-backed Floyd Patterson showed he had no punching power at all.

Where did the "magic punch" disappear to so suddenly?

That's not something Ali worshippers worry about, because Thomas Hauser has instructed them that Ali had a titanic win over sore-backed Patterson in that fight.

LOL

Terry D wrote:You would explain to them it was a corner stoppage? Why? Because after telling them it was a KO they would say "so Ali got knocked out" and you would immediately have to defend him. It sounds like a tepid conversation. Call it a TKO from the start and the technical part comes because Ali was not actually put out on his back. Your first statement confirms my terminology as correct.

You than rant a bit because people who actually believe in being precise annoy you, and then guess what you go and do?

The governing bodies have historically had slightly differeing interpretations of the rules, hence their being more than one. Differing rules for rankings, IBO for instance, differing origins, generally they differ, if you can grasp that concept. Hence the unified rules. Plus the state rules differ. I guess at a rules meeting you are the voice shouting "Sod all that, just KOTFO some guy! Whoo!"

You see that thing about the bodies not needing differentiating, that is a mistake on
your part, and a mistake worth pointing out. We differ in many ways. Mostly in respect of the fact that I'm correct. Hence the KO/KO/RSF/UD/MD/SD distinction. I guess you thought Wlad was defending his WBC belt didn't you, they are all the same, some rules aside.

If you reply please address some points rather than producing a rather boring rant.

Basically, you're a dense person. I'm simply using typical boxing terminology, which has been in use for decades, which you would like to change. Don Dunphy referred to TKO's as "knockouts", he was not some moron who went around shouting about knockouts and about his love of knockouts, as you're for some reason trying to depict me. If you want to invent a new boxing language, that's fine, go to the sanctioning bodies and commissions and boxing archivists and tell them to stop counting TKO's as knockouts. Then go to every boxer, boxing manager, boxing writer, boxing fan and tell them to stop calling TKO's "knockouts." Its not my responsibility to be the pioneer who changes boxing's way of recording fights, and who changes the way boxing people talk about fights. I'll leave that to the more unimaginative posters on boxrec.

No one has denied that there is a difference between being knocked out and being stopped by the referee/corner/doctor or because the fighter quit. But people in boxing have always put TKO's as a subset of knockouts. The notion that I, specifically, am unintelligent or unenlightened because I, specifically, have not tried to change this way of recording/talking about fights is quite absurd. I'm simply not boring enough to think that it matters; we all know the difference, hence there's no reason to change it. If someone wants to change it, go ahead.

"But it was the first time I knocked him out." -Robinson on his TKO win over LaMotta in their sixth fight. Ray clearly had a limited frame of reference, and had little knowledge of the sport. It's not as if he had ever knocked anyone out before, how would he know the difference? I'm sure I could find other quotes from Louis, Marciano, Foreman, Holmes, Hagler, Leonard, Hearns etc. who also sometimes referred to TKO's as "knockouts." These men clearly knew nothing about boxing, certainly not as much as Terry D. Terry D knows that there's a difference between being counted out and being stopped on cuts, and he's going to make damned sure everyone else knows it too.

Sugar Ray Leonard "knocked out" Roberto Duran in their second "fight."

Sugar Ray Leonard "knocked out" Kevin Howard.

Sugar Ray Leonard "knocked out" Wilfred Benitez with SIX SECONDS left in their fight.

I am so impressed with those tremendous "knockouts" Leonard scored.

LOL

granberry wrote:Buzz, the Thomas Hauser regurgitator,

is in his glory as boxrec, the Grovel for Ali "boxing" site he engineers, has a thread now plastered with posts

by buzz' fellow Ali worshippers.

An Ali worshipper sees nothing odd about the fact that their hero supposedly "knocked out" Sonny Liston with a single "punch"

and IN HIS VERY NEXT FIGHT against a sore-backed Floyd Patterson showed he had no punching power at all.

Where did the "magic punch" disappear to so suddenly?

That's not something Ali worshippers worry about, because Thomas Hauser has instructed them that Ali had a titanic win over sore-backed Patterson in that fight.

LOL

I watched that fight again on youtube...Floyd's back didn't hurt him until round ten...Maybe it was because he "threw out his back" by missing Clay (Ali) so much...

Your the "boxing historian".. Did Floyd have a disguise to wear after that fight like he did in the debacles against Sonny Liston ?

As to your suggestion that Sonny tanked the Lewiston fight...Liston was a done fighter by then...Yeah, he went on but he was never again elite...If he got up Ali would have humiliated that slow moving mule... That's why he didn't get up...He was shot...Impotent....No bolt...Whatever....It has nothing to do with Hauser...

It's a tough life being an Ali shill, but TheOne does his best.

Keep up the good work, TheOne.

We are all very impressed with your unrelenting shilling for Ali.

LOL

Terry D wrote: McNeeley actually sits on his record as one of the his non-KO wins, according to you the fight ending early makes it a KO when that is nonsense.

No, my dear. McNeeley was DQ'd because his cornerman entered the ring. DQ is not a subset of KO. TKO is, and it always has been; I was not the one who made it so.

We all know the differences between these different results. As I said, I sort of figured out the difference between TKO and KO before I hit puberty. Thanks. But boxing records it in a certain way, and until Terry D drags the boxing world in to a higher stage of clarity, I'll stick to it. We're all familiar with these terms, and it does not take gradated thought to tell the difference; and I indeed know what that term means. I am not a snob, and so I won't presume that you don't know what "banal" means.

And yes granberry, Sugar Ray Leonard has 25 knockouts, and those are all included. Travesty, isn't it?

granberry wrote:It's a tough life being an Ali shill, but TheOne does his best.

Keep up the good work, TheOne.

We are all very impressed with your unrelenting shilling for Ali.

LOL

Granny, i like you... we should have a beer... I can show you my Ali collection ....

Can any of the thick backed lugs you wax so eloquently about do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E03mTh5_We4


or this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7o30NHF4pk


Granny, did you see my post where my buddy fought Solomon McTier?

It's here:


http://forum.boxrec.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=86214

McTier was in Ali's corner for the Patterson fight as well...

granberry wrote:Sugar Ray Leonard "knocked out" Roberto Duran in their second "fight."

Duran quit...Leonard was making him look stupid...Styles make fights and Duran was made to order for Leonard....

What about the Brawl in Montreal?

Leonard fought Duran's fight to show he had stones...It was a close fight, a lot a lot closer than when Duran was forced to fight Leonard's fight...