PLEASE READ THESE DEFINITIONS CAREFULLY (especially "bum" and "real heavyweight") since they are used throughout the site and EXPLAIN A LOT. Some articles are only understandable if you read the definitions here.
The tables are
- sortable (by clicking the headers)
- reverse-sortable (by clicking the header again)
- multi-column-sortable (by SHIFT-clicking on several columns)
- draggable (by holding down the left mouse button and dragging) so you can drag and compare them to other tables
- The white bars in the cells are resized according to the value.
- Should your screen ever be too small to display a wide table then you need to decrease your browser's font size.
The data in the tables may not always be up-to-date because the boxers may be still active. And in some tables the data is derived from the statistics of opponents, who, too, may be still be active and in some cases even on opponents' opponents (= 3rd level) who are still active.
Expect the last opponents' opponents to box up to 70 years after a fighter started his career. In the case of Archie Moore (started in the 1930ies) this would be in the 2000s. Archie Moore's last opponents' opponent was Larry Holmes who retired 2002. Muhammad Ali's opponents' opponents are still boxing.
Definitions concerning statistics
Here are some words you will need to know to understand the statistical tables.
A WinLossCareerRecord is a double number like "34-9" meaning that a boxer has won 34 fights and lost 9.
Career-Record = all wins + losses + draws + no-contests from the first fight of the career to the last fight. It's quadruple number like "34-9-1-2" meaning "34 Wins, 9 Losses, 1 Draw, 2 No Contests"
At-Bout-Record = record at the time of the bout BEFORE the fight. Everyone starts with a "0-0" record.
If 2 fighters are unbeaten (26-0 vs 31-0 Ali vs Frazier) I call it "James vs Bond fight" (Double-Oh).
The sum of the record of all opponents. If a boxer has won against 3 opponents who themselves had the record 1-0, 12-5 and 50-3 the SumRecord is 63-8. SumRecords are valuable if you want a very quick overview of the worthiness of a boxer's career. If a boxer has a SumRecord of, say, 17-230 you know that he mainly fought against losers.
On my site I always list the "SumRecord ASIDE", i.e. the record of the opponents EXCLUDING the fights against each other: Thus when Ken Norton faced Muhammad Ali 2 times in a row Norton's record was 29-1 both times.
Sugar Ray Robinson's SumRecord of his unique WinOpponents (aside, whole career of opponents) is 6222-3000, Clay/Ali's is 2007-519 and Sam Langford's is 3391-1931.
Below Usable Measure = has less than 12 fights in his whole career or has lost 25% (or more) of fights of his WinLossCareerRecord. A fighter with a WinLossCareerRecord of "34-9" is not a bum, because he has lost only 9 of 43 fights (= 20%). A fighter with a career record of 34-19 would be a bum, of course (·Jimmy Young).
This is the definition I use throughout this blog. There is not a single case in this blog where I call someone a "bum" who doesn't fit this definition. Being a "bum" in this blog is a completely standardized description as opposed to some subjective descriptions like "This bum came only to get a paycheck" or "Mike Tyson only beat bums".
"Bum" is a mean word, I know, but it communicates the concept instantly. And I mean it in a strictly mathematical sense anyway.
The WHOLE CAREER counts. When I write in this blog "Muhammad Ali fought the bummy Leon Spinks" then I don't mean that Leon was a bum because his record was only 6-0 at the time of the bout. Being at the beginning of your career DOES NOT make you a bum. Lennox Lewis, Larry Holmes, Muhammad Ali, Vitali Klitschko were also 6-0 themselves at some point in their careers and they weren't bums then either. Maybe inexperienced ("greens") but not bums. Spinks however was a bum because his CAREER record was bummy (26-17).
All fights of the WinLossCareerRecord are included, even fights in lower divisions. The only exception is when I specifically state "He is a heavyweight-bum" (= he lost 25%+ of his heavyweight fights).
As you can see Draws and NCs (No-Contest fights) are excluded from this calculation. It's just the Win/Loss Ratio that counts.
Why did I set the threshold at 25%?
I analyzed the records of Muhammad Ali, Lennox Lewis, Wladimir Klitschko, Evan Fields and other famous boxers. When you set the margin at 25% then you see how at the career's BEGINNING (= the runway) they have maybe 10 or 20 bum fights in a row and then they suddenly switch to non-bum fights (with occasional bummy exceptions).
Just 2 examples
Larry Holmes fought in his first 20 fights 18 bums and then (in the 20 fights in the middle of his career) only 4 bums.
Lennox Lewis switched after 21 fights: In the first 21 fights he fought 18 bums, and then in the next 21 fights he fought only 2 bums.
This is a TYPICAL career switch (= stepping it up) and clearly visible when you apply the 25% threshold.
Good boxers typically fight bums
1) at the beginning of their careers (see examples above) (bums = "trial horse")
2) after losses (e.g. Lennox Lewis loses to Oliver McCall –> and then fights 2 bums 32-17, 15-9)
3) after career breaks (Larry Holmes fights Tim Anderson 27-16)
Has won more than 75% of fights of his WinAndLossCareerRecord and has at least 12 fights in his whole career.
Someone who has an unusually high amount of bums on his record and too little non-bums. Example would be ·Eric Esch and ·LaMar Clark. Basically another word for "padded record with hardly mentionable wins".
Career-Record without bummy opponents = only the significant/meaningful fights.
Streak = Fights in a row, e.g. "Winning streak" = "Wins in a row".
There are 2 ways how you can interpret streaks which is demonstrated by the following example:
Someone has the following record: wwwLwLLwwlw (w=win, L=loss by KO, l=loss by non-KO).
What is his "KO'losses streak"? It's either
1) TWO, because 2 KO'losses came in a row
2) THREE, because of his 4 losses 3 came by KO in a row
This is an important differentiation when you talk about "Non-bum winning streak". Is it "How many non-bums did he defeat in a row" (= streak ends when he wins against a bum) or "How many of his non-bum fights did he win in a row". On this site unless otherwise stated I always mean the second.
uniques = unique opponents = different opponents = without doubles
Muhammad Ali has faced 61 opponents. These 61 opponents comprised 50 different (= unique) opponents because he faced Joe Frazier, Ken Norton, George Chuvalo, Joe Bugner, Leon Spinks, Floyd Patterson, Henry Cooper, Jerry Quarry and Sonny Liston several times.
Rocky Marciano faced 49 opponents (43 KOs). His KO'ratio is 87% (= 43 of 49). The 49 opponents consisted of 44 unique opponents. He KO'ed 41 of these 44. His Unique KO'ratio is 93% (= 41 of 44).
Somebody with a KO'ratio (not unique) of 100% has won every fight by KO. Somebody with a Unique KO'ratio of 100% has KO'ed every opponent he has ever faced (although not necessarily every time he faced them).
All statistics I feature on this site are NOT based on "unique opponents" except where explicitly mentioned so. In the rare cases when I list "unique" stats it's clearly stated so.
Someone who has lost 10% or more of his fights by KO.
·Leon Spinks has a "china-chin" because he had 40+ fights and lost 8 by KO. ·Cleveland Williams had also 8 KOs but had 90+ fights thus he is not china-chinned.
Despite of the term "chin" this might or might not be a pure chin issue. Fighters may lose by KO for different reasons (stamina, broken bones, dislocated joints, referee intervention, cuts…). But in lack of a better word I use this catchy term.
Excluding certain fights from calculations.
"Fair KO'ratio" = "KO'wins / totalfights excluding NC and Wins by DQ and Unintentional Headbutt Fights
This is necessary so that your KO'ratio won't suffer if for example a fight has been stopped because your opponent was DQed (disqualified) for biting your leg in round #1.
"Fair Streak" = excluding NC, WDQ and ButtFights from consecutive calculations
Aside = Excluding wins/losses against the other fighter (when you compare 2 fighters).
Mike Tyson beat Frank Bruno. Frank Bruno has a KO'ratio of 84%. Does that mean that Mike Tyson has beaten a guy with a KO'ratio of 84%? Not so fast.
Mike Tyson won against Bruno 2x thus Tyson's own wins over Bruno actually hurt Tyson because they lower Bruno's KO'ratio.
Thus to be fair you have to add Bruno with an "Aside KO'ratio" of 88% onto Tyson's resume, because Bruno KO'ed 88% of his opponents aside from Mike Tyson.
To not hurt Ali's resume you have to add Frazier as a "31-2" opponent (= aside record) instead of a "32-4", because otherwise Ali's OWN wins against Frazier would reduce the worthiness of Frazier on Ali's own record.
I know that "era" is normally used in the sense of "time" (= "Time period when Lennox Lewis boxed" or "The time when Lennox was prime"), but that's
- too broad (since it includes opponents whom he didn't face AND opponents his opponents didn't face)
- too narrow (since that may restrict a boxer to a time when it was nobody else's era)
- too short (since an era would end when a boxer retires, but the achievements of his opponents who continue to box would be excluded from view. For example we could never know what a great achievement it was for Lennox to withstand Vitali Klitschko)
- too subjective (since it may use subjective definitions like "prime")
Thus I decided to define era as
"The lot of fighters who have boxed each other"
= "Lennox Lewis' era consists of Lennox Lewis' fights + his opponents' fights"
= "Lennox (1st level) + his opponents (2nd level) + their opponents (3rd level)"
You can therefore "statistificate" it (X boxers, Y fights, Z KOs) and compare it to other eras as I do at Boxing eras (3) Wladimir Klitschko in the Golden Age of Heavyweight -OR- How abysmal was Ali's era really?.
KO, KO'ratio, overlate KOs
KO'ratio = KO'wins / TotalFights (excluding NCs). Unless mentioned otherwise KOs only include KOs in rounds 1-12. KOs in rounds 13+ are explicitly called "overlate KOs".
Featherfist (Butterfly, Powder Puncher, Pillow Puncher)
Someone who has a KO'ratio of 50% (or below).
I checked ·Chris Byrd who is generally considered a featherfist and his KO'ratio was approximately 50% so I decided to take that as a threshold value. Additionally when you analyze famous boxers then their opponents' KO'ratio (whole career, all fights) is always very close to 50%, e.g. Muhammad Ali's opponents (51%), Lennox Lewis (52%), Mike Tyson (47%), Wladimir Klitschko (48%), Vitali Klitschko (50%), hence 50% is a very sensible margin to define "featherfistedness".
In my blog…
- 50% and below is a "featherfist", e.g. ·Jerry Quarry
- 50%-60% is a "somewhat good puncher"
- 60%-70% is a "good puncher"
- 70%-80% is "hard puncher" (·Mike Tyson, ·Lamon Brewster)
- 80%+ is "extremely hard puncher" (·George Foreman, ·Wladimir Klitschko)
- 40% and below is "extremely featherfisty", e.g. ·Chuck Wepner (on which the Rocky movie is based, by the way)
Although I call it "featherfist" and "hard puncher" it's actually is a combination of the power of the punch itself PLUS attacking skills (accuracy, surprise, angle, speed, frequency etc) PLUS body attributes (reach, height etc). Thus by calling a boxer "featherfist" I do not imply that he only delivers weak punches. It merely means that something is wrong with the whole package "power+skills+attributes".
In the definition of "bum" I only check the "Win:Loss ratio" and I ignore Draws. For the calculation of KO'ratios I include Draws, of course, because a draw means that a boxer couldn't KO his opponent thus it SHOULD lower his KO'ratio.
In the definition of "bum" I don't differentiate between wins in the heavyweight division and other divisions. When it comes to featherfisted'ness then I may differentiate indeed, because it very often turns out that a fighter is a specialist in KO'ing cruisers but turns out to be a featherfist at heavyweight (cruiser power puncher, but heavyweight featherfist).
- An example for a "heavyweight featherfist" would be ·Joe Frazier (see Joe Frazier vs Klitschko -OR- is Chris Byrd a better puncher than Earnie Shavers?). Another example is ·Cleveland Williams (76% KO'ratio against cruiser opponents, 47% KO'Ratio against heavyweight opponents)
- A genuine KO'er on the other hand would be ·George Foreman who scores a 80%+ KO'ratio against both cruisers and non-cruisers.
- An example of a "good heavyweight puncher" would be ·Earnie Shavers (66% against 200+ lbs opponents) but who is a "superheavyweight featherfist" (47% KO'ratio against 215+ lbs opponents).
- An example for an "extreme heavyweight featherfist" would be ·Evander Holyfield (38% heavyweight KO'ratio)
Definitions concerning weight
Natural heavyweight boxer
A natural heavyweight is someone who ALWAYS weighed 200+ lbs in ALL of his fights. Mike Tyson is a natural heavyweight. Sonny Liston is not. Muhammad Ali boxed as a light-heavyweight (Olympics) but since I only consider professional boxing I consider him a natural cruiserweight and not a natural light-heavyweight.
Genuine heavyweight boxer = What-we-consider-nowadays heavyweight
Although heavyweight is defined as 201+ lbs the TYPICAL heavyweight is far heavier. In fact, if a heavyweight would come to fight a Klitschko being 201 lbs it would be considered far too light. Klitschko's own weight is approximately 240 lbs and Klitschko's AVERAGE opponent 233 lbs, thus 215+ is the defacto entrance weight for nowadays heavyweights and 225 lbs (based on my analysis of thousands of fights in Klitschko's era) is the de facto standard.
Someone who fights at 175 lbs to 199 lbs AT THE TIME OF THE BOUT.
When I write: "X fought cruiser Y" then I mean that the weight AT BOUT was sub-200 lbs. If an opponent has been a cruiser at some time in his career (but not at bout) then I would write "X fought FORMER cruiser Y".
Someone who fights at 174 lbs or below AT THE TIME OF THE BOUT.
Someone who fights at 200+ lbs AT THE TIME OF THE BOUT.
Question: "Why don't you add 1 grace pound so that 199 would also count as heavyweight bout?"
I _DO_ add a grace pound. Heavyweight officially starts at 201 lbs
Question: "Hey, why don't you add 2 grace pounds?"
Hey, why don't I subtract 2 grace pounds, so that we count 202 lbs as cruiserweight?
Question: "There is no limit for heavyweight fights. Heavyweight is unlimited. If a 180 lbs boxer choses to fight a heavyweight then this counts as a heavyweight fight."
That's a myth. I checked the regulations of the governing bodies. There is no such rule that would allow non-heavyweights to fight heavyweights. Heavyweight is unlimited UPWARDS but limited DOWNWARDS. There is no UPPER limit but there is a LOWER limit (= minimum weight to be able to call a fight "heavyweight"). The lower heavyweight limit was always defined and it's currently 201 lbs. The only exception exists if just before the fight (= at the weigh-in, when all the TV promo has been aired and all the tickets have been sold already) it turns out that a fighter is marginally (= a few percentage) below the heavyweight limit. Then a fight might take place despite an opponent being sub-200 lbs. But that is a rare occasion.
Actually the 200 lbs cap I use on this site is rather flattering for ancient boxers (like Ali or Joe Louis), because nowadays boxing fans consider heavyweight starting at something like 210 lbs, 215 lbs or even higher.
An opponent who weighs 200+ lbs AT THE TIME OF THE BOUT.
Real heavyweight (= legitimate heavyweight = true heavyweight = 200×2)
A fight where both boxers weigh 200+ lbs. I usually write it as 200×2.
Superheavyweight / Ultraheavyweight
Heavyweight = 200+ lbs, Superheavyweight = 215+ lbs.
There is currently no such division in boxing (as opposed to kickboxing), but I sometimes use the term to remind everyone that our current heavyweight scene has nothing in common with the heavyweight scene of 40-50 years ago (Muhammad Ali's times).
In Ali's times heavyweight started at 176+ lbs which is even lower than the limit of the current FEMALE HEAVYWEIGHT 190+ lbs.
Thus sometimes I call 215+ ultraheavyweight.
De facto 215 lbs is nowadays the minimum weight of male heavyweight fights. You will hardly find any world championship below 215 lbs. 90% of Klitschkos' opponents are 215+ lbs. The average heavyweight weight now is approximately 225 lbs.
Additionally nearly all cruiserweight fights that you see nowadays are at the weight of 210-215 lbs AT BOUT but 10-15 lbs lighter at weigh-in (= a few days before the bout).
In other words: Cruiserweight fights nowadays are real heavyweight fights with heavyweight boxers who have been ARTIFICIALLY weight-reduced for the weigh-in (e.g. by pharmaceuticals like laxatives and diuretics etc) or did you think that David Haye vs Jean Marc Mormeck was really 199.75 vs 199.25 by chance?
In other words: What we now call cruiserweight was called heavyweight in Ali's times and what was called heavyweight in Ali's times is now called cruiserweight.
If you call Muhammad Ali a heavyweight (although only approximately 50% of his fights were real heavyweight fights then Wladimir Klitschko isn't even a superheavyweight, but a division higher since 50% of Klitschkos' fights are 230+ lbs.
Approximately 80% of Muhammad Ali's fights could run as cruiserweight fights nowadays and 90% of Joe Louis fights. Even a couple of Mike Tyson's fights could run as cruiserweight nowadays. Rocky Marciano is a different caliber: Approximately 50% of Marciano's fights could run as light-heavyweight nowadays.
Cruiserweight also known as Heavyweight.
Fights that traditionally are called "heavyweight" but actually feature one or both fighters being a cruiser (= weighing less than 200 lbs). A famous CakaH-weight fight is ·Joe Louis vs ·Max Schmeling (198 vs 192) which is now considered a cruiserweight fight but was historically called a "heavyweight" fight. Approximately half of Muhammad Ali's fights are CakaH-weight fights, hence Ali is maybe the greatest CakaH of all time. Additionally he changed his name from Clay to Ali ("Clay aka Ali" = "CakaA") thus he might be considered the CakaA among CakaHs, haha. See Boxing eras (1) The best heavyweight era of all time -OR- Is Roy Jones Jr. a better cruiser than Rocky Marciano? for more information.
Median vs Arithmetic Average
Usually I use the median average (short "median") instead of the arithmetic mean average (short "arithmetic average" or "average") on this site. For example when I talk about "the median weight" or "the median round George Foreman KO'ed his opponents in".
Generelly speaking, median should be THE average of choice. But since the median is harder to calculate people prefer the arithmetic average.
The median average is calculated by listing all values from smallest to largest and then choosing the one in the middle.
The arithmetic average is usually used in casual circumstances (since you only need to add up all values and then divide them by the number of values), whereas the median average more difficult to calculate (since you have to sort the values first) but with more advantages.
The major advantages of the median average are:
1) Extremes don't cause a misrepresentation (= results are more representative than by using the arithmetic average):
A median is usually closer to the way how human see things:
A village has 100 farmers: 99 sheep farmers and 1 pig farmer. The pig farmer has 1000 pigs.
The average farmer has 10 pigs each, whereas the median farmer has 0 pigs.
As you can see this is indeed how humans would describe it: "No farmer has pigs, except 1 farmer who has 1000".
A boxing example
An opponent who weighs 300 or 400 lbs (Eric Esch vs ·Tim Daniels) would increase the average opponent weight of Daniels disproportionately whereas the median would recognize it as an exceptional extreme.
2) Results usually exist and are not a fraction:
The median human has 1 car, 3 children and 2 legs, the average human has 0.6 cars, 2.3 children and 1.9 legs.
A boxing example
Ali had 61 fights. The median date of his career would be fight #31 (vs Bonavena, 1970-12-07).The average would be the exact middle between 1969-10-29 (start of career) and 1981-12-11 (end of career) which calculates as 1969-04-25, a date where Ali was banned from fighting and no fight took place.
If there is no middle value…
When there's an even number of values ("2; 10; 17; 19") then you calculate the median by using the arithmetic average of the the 2 middle values
("10; 17") –> "13.5"
I usually delete the fraction ("0.5") to not clutter the results and to increase readability.
Definitions concerning achievements
Has one of these . The very same belts migrate from one to champ to the next (= Lennox Lewis touched the same belt as Muhammad Ali).
Unified beltholder / Multiple beltholder
holds at least 2 belts
holds all major belts = 1 belt of each of the following major boxing organizations (= "major sanctioning bodies"):
- WBO (World Boxing Organization)
- WBA (World Boxing Association)
- WBC (Word Boxing Council)
- IBF (International Boxing Federation)
These 4 organizations are called "major" because they are the most accepted (e.g. by the ).
For me "undisputed" means "4 of 4 belts". However, for others "3 of 4 belts" are enough.
David Haye was a unified cruiserweight champ (WBA, WBC, WBO) but not undisputed because he never got the IBF cruiserweight belt (held by ·Steve Cunningham and then by ·Tomasz Adamek).
There is another organization, the IBO, which also has a belt and which calculates its rankings by a formula (= thus excludes subjective rankings) and which you may describe as "major", too. Since it uses a formula it's highly unlikely that there will be an IBO champ which is not at the same time a champ of one of the other 4 organizations. Thus it's mainly a hypothetical question whether the IBO belt is a major belt or not since in practice the IBO belt holder has also another belt, too.
Sometimes multiple belt holders (2 or 3 belts) are called "Super Champions"/"Super Champs".
To be a "universally recognized" you have to be "undisputed" (= have all belts) AND be recognized by the as the champion.
In my opinion a champion is someone who has won (or defended) the world title against 3 or more non-bum opponents. 1 win could be fluke ("1-hit-wonder"), 2 also (though less likely), 3 make him champ. This is my personal definition and you don't need to accept it. If someone in his career has won only 1 time or 2 times in world title fights I call them not a "champion" but a "titlist" (= "someone who happened to win a belt").
All time great = great in fans eyes. When you analyze the records of fighters who are considered ATGs you find out that ATGness starts at approximately 20 won fights against non-bum opponents. See Heavyweight Boxing Rankings (1) pound for pound, head to head, record for record.
Hall of famer: Great in the eyes of the (International Boxing Hall of Fame) or the (World Boxing Hall of Fame) = "had an impact on boxing".
Since the Hall-of-Fames are US-based and mainly include US-boxers an induction into the hall of fame is rather meaningless. Just imagine an Ukraine-based HOF consisting mainly of Ukrainian experts inducting mainly Ukrainian boxers. Of all the attributes a boxer might have ("ATG", "3 times world champion winner", "First boxer who…", "The only man who…") being in the HOF is one of the less significant ones, in my opinion, although a mention worthy first orientation point.
Additionally their inductions are also not based on facts/stats but on fame, single fights and other subjective considerations. Just like RING magazine's "Top 100 greatest punchers" puts Sam Langford 14 places above Mike Tyson for no understandable reason.
There are 2 reasons why I write "Clay/Ali" instead of merely "Ali":
- The first is reason are search engines. If someone searches for "Cassius Clay" he should be able to find this site. This is also the reason why I write "Mack/Marciano" and "Cassius Clay (aka Cassius X aka Muhammad Ali)" and why I alter the spelling "Mohamed"/"Muhamed"/"Klitschko"/"Klitchko"/"Volodymyr Klychko"/Emanuel Steward/Emmanuel Stewart…"
- The second reason is to make clear that I mean the ENTIRE CAREER of Ali (from 1960 to 1981) and not only the fights when he boxed as "Cassius Clay" (1960-1964) or only the fights when he boxed as "Muhammad Ali" (1965-1981).
- Additionally he fought 2 opponents (Henry Cooper and Sonny Liston) once as "Clay" and once as "Ali". Thus when I talk about his performance against these 2 boxers I need to use Clay/Ali to make clear I mean both encounters.
American and British Complainers. You will find that most of Klitschko haters ("The current heavyweight division is in a bad shape") are from America and UK. No wonder, they are proud of Ali and Lennox
is a hypothetical boxer with EXACTLY the same record as Evander Holyfield.
A fight with little footwork where both boxers stand in close proximity (toe-to-toe) and deliver punches by turns: Boxer #1 punches and then Boxer #2 punches. An example would be the beginning of round #9 of Muhammad Ali vs Alvin Lewis.
Ali-fans invented a lot of terms for Klitschko-fans. "Klitard" (= Klitschko + Retard), "Klitschko Nut Hugger", "Klitschko scr*tum tickler" etc. There was no such term for Ali fans. As a counterbalance I wordsmith'ed
- CLAYton (= Clay + Simpleton): Someone who believes that everything Ali did was magnificent ("the greatest, the fastest, the prettiest…")
- AliFant: Someone who loves AliFants (= FANTasies about Ali) ("Clay would *decapitate* any modern heavyweight within 1 round") or about Ali's opponents ("Nobody hits harder than Shavers")
- ALier: Someone who fabricates falsehood to make Ali look better ("Ernie Terrell was 6'8" tall"') or make Klitschko look worse ("Klitschko never faced anyone with the reach of Foreman", "When George Foreman started his career he KO'ed people left and right. Wladimir Klitschko did nothing of the sort").
From my experience I can safely say that nearly all AliFans (as soon as they list some statistic or as soon as they mention "objective" data) turn out to be ALiers. Nearly every time an AliFan mentions "facts" they turn out to be fabricated or conceal important information. Sad but true. Doesn't happen with any boxer but Ali (and maybe to some smaller extent with Mike Tyson).
DQ = Disqualification (e.g. one boxer bites the other one's ears off)
W = Win
L = Loss
UD = Unanimous Decision = All judges saw the same boxer win
SD = Split Decision = 2 Judges saw one boxer win, 1 judge saw the other win (WWL or LWW)
MD= Majority Decision = 2 judges saw one boxer win, 1 judge saw neither win (WWD)
D = Draw. There are several types of Draw
- All judges score Draw (= Draw, Draw, Draw)
- All judges disagree (= Win, Draw, Loss)
- The majority of judges score a draw (= Draw, Draw, Win). That's also called a "Majority Draw"
- The majority of judges score a draw (= Draw, Draw, Loss). That's also called a "Majority Draw"
KO = Knock Out = Boxer is hit and doesn't stand on his feet after the referee counts to 10. KOs on this sites are KOs within 12 rounds (= 99% of KOs) unless otherwise noted.
TKO = Technical Knock Out. "Technical" means that the fight is not stopped by facts (= boxer lies on the ground) but by decision of the referee (or the doctor in some cases) = The boxer stands on his feet AND YET the fight ends.
NC = No contest = fight is to be wiped off the record (unusual circumstances like drug abuse, unintentional headbutt in early rounds, both fighters refuse to fight, police storms the place, bad weather, fire breaks out etc)