KO Percentages Question

[Kev]

the most brutal ko's ironically normally are not recorded as ko's because the ref will stop it without a count

ya that seems kinda strange to me. you'd think if anythng deserves a ko it is the dude not making it thru the count because the ref. considered saving his life might take priority at that moment.

think doing it by the proper definitions of a 'ko' or 'TKO' is the only fair way to record these stoppages

for example hatton and david diaz werent gonna be getting up if there was a 30 second count in their fights against pac,

however take juan diaz against marquez, he may have been able to although all 3 fights were stopped without a count

is it fair for marquez to get the 'KO' ?

Of course it's fair! Watch the fight here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-cw4olewYc

He was done, if they carry on he gets ko'd.

Basically a TKO is no less impressive than a KO anyway, a KO just means knocked out, i.e counted out, a TKO just means the referee stopped the fight because the fighter was clearly about to be KO'd so he intervened for the fighter's safety.

It's like in chess. Very rarely will see an actual checkmate in grandmaster practice, even at amatuer level because the losing player will resign before the mate is delivered.

Does this mean it's less of a win than a genuine checkmate? Of course not, the checkmate was inevitable so they stopped the game early to avoid having to see it played out over the board.

In the Diaz Marquez fight a ko is just as inevitable but it comes also with the health risk to Diaz if its played out so the ref saves him from further punishment.

So it reads TKO, but to all intents and purposes it's a KO, becuase it if carried on Diaz would eventually get hurt so bad he couldn't make the count.

So Marquez deserves the KO, but a TKO is the same thing really, a knockout is a knockout after all.