I would like to see Ovill McKenzie get a world title shot

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

No, it doesn't matter in relation to the point I made. The opposition that he tended to beat by decision earlier in his career is no better and arguably worse than the opposition that he's tending to stop now, so his overall KO ratio that you keep mentioning is in large part a product of an earlier version of McKenzie and not the current one. If we're talking about how the current version would do against a title holder I think it's far better to base our assessments on his more recent showings, so I think his KO ratio is misleading when it's not unpacked.

Again - you keep ignoring it and I don't know why - he was also losing to domestic opposition also - if he was a true 'power puncher' then he would have knocked those out too. And for me, only three of those fighters who he has stopped recently were of domestic title class, the Maccranelli stoppage was a horrible stoppage - one of the worst ones I have ever seen, which shouldn't be counted - I wouldn't say stopping Boyle or Jeff Evans should be part of any resume regarding 'frightening power'. If he was a frightening puncher - he would have KO'd an extremely shot Enzo the second time they met - but he didn't - he got stopped himself.

So, if you are going to base this improvement of power on six wins over domestic class journeymen/contenders/novice pros, then you aren't much of a statistician.

Also, I think I did say in my OP on this thread he has power in domestic class - that does not mean he is a power puncher in regards a step up in class (and I would argue he isn't a 'power puncher' on a domestic level though he does possess decent power at that level), so I don't know what your argument is?

It's true that against his best opponents his power hasn't gotten the job done like it has at a lower level. I think a significant part of that is due to him not having the skill to connect as well (e.g. he clearly showed that he could hurt Bellew when he landed but apart from the second round of their first bout he couldn't land much) but it may well be that his best opponents took his power relatively well. As mentioned, I suspect that champions like Huck and Lebedev are far more durable than his typical opposition so I don't think people should think that he has a solid puncher's chance against them just because he's blown away good domestic level fighters.

Well, we agree don't we?

Punching power is about skill and timing more than actual strength, you don't actually have to be physically strong to KO people - ask Ricardo Lopez - so yes, his 'not having the skill' to connect is going to negate his 'punching power' - anybody with elementary boxing knowledge knows this.

He has power at a certain level, that I agree with, however - the posts stating he would KO anyone he connected with is hyperbole at best - which is what my original point is and one you seem to agree with.

[crusader]

Again - you keep ignoring it and I don't know why - he was also losing to domestic opposition also - if he was a true 'power puncher' then he would have knocked those out too. And for me, only three of those fighters who he has stopped recently were of domestic title class, the Maccranelli stoppage was a horrible stoppage - one of the worst ones I have ever seen, which shouldn't be counted - I wouldn't say stopping Boyle or Jeff Evans should be part of any resume regarding 'frightening power'. If he was a frightening puncher - he would have KO'd an extremely shot Enzo the second time they met - but he didn't - he got stopped himself.

Am I giving you too much credit in thinking that you'd realize how my comments about the differences between his recent fights and relatively early fights would also explain the losses to domestic opposition? It's fairly simple: he was regularly losing to domestic level opponents and beating them mainly by decision, while against a level of opposition that is at least as good he now loses less and wins a significantly greater proportion of his fights by stoppage. Since the opponents haven't gotten worse, it seems clear to me that the difference in outcomes is best explain by changes in McKenzie.

Again, your critique of his opposition misses the point, because I'm not disagreeing with you about the quality of people like Evans.

So, if you are going to base this improvement of power on six wins over domestic class journeymen/contenders/novice pros, then you aren't much of a statistician.

I'm basing it on seven of his last eight and ten of his last twelve wins being stoppages (the decisions were in three rounders and he floored his opponent in one of them) and none of those fights going past five rounds when only five of his first fourteen wins were stoppage and against what I believe was a lower quality of opposition. I'm not sure why you keep mentioning that these were only domestic level opponents as if his recent wins mean nothing, because as long as the level of opposition is the same persistent differences in results are enough to suggest changes in ability.

Also, I think I did say in my OP on this thread he has power in domestic class - that does not mean he is a power puncher in regards a step up in class (and I would argue he isn't a 'power puncher' on a domestic level though he does possess decent power at that level), so I don't know what your argument is?

Well, we agree don't we?

Punching power is about skill and timing more than actual strength, you don't actually have to be physically strong to KO people - ask Ricardo Lopez - so yes, his 'not having the skill' to connect is going to negate his 'punching power' - anybody with elementary boxing knowledge knows this.

He has power at a certain level, that I agree with, however - the posts stating he would KO anyone he connected with is hyperbole at best - which is what my original point is and one you seem to agree with.

My argument is that his overall KO ratio isn't good evidence of how dangerous of a puncher he is since it is heavily influenced by early bouts in which he clearly wasn't the same fighter he is now, and that the champions of the division represent a significant step up in class and possess abilities that would likely make McKenzie far less effective against them than he has been against domestic level fighters.

So we agree in some things and disagree on others, which I thought was very clear in my second post herein.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Am I giving you too much credit in thinking that you'd realize how my comments about the differences between his recent fights and relatively early fights would also explain the losses to domestic opposition? It's fairly simple: he was regularly losing to domestic level opponents and beating them mainly by decision, while against a level of opposition that is at least as good he now loses less and wins a significantly greater proportion of his fights by stoppage. Since the opponents haven't gotten worse, it seems clear to me that the difference in outcomes is best explain by changes in McKenzie.

Now I know how my father must have felt talking to my 10 year old self about Bruno back in the eighties.

Every boxing expert will tell you can't develop power - from Angelo Dundee to Dan Dares - they will all tell you the same.

But he has been stopping domestic opposition as of late - this is true.

This is not down to McKenzie developing power, rather than a combination of the opposition being inexperienced in comparison to McKenzie, smaller than McKenzie (in the case of Dodson who was a career super-middle) and semi retired, nearly 40 years old (Darren Corbett)

McKenzie has had more or less near DOUBLE the fights of both Dickinson and Conquest - lads who have been stopped and knocked out in previous losses against domestic opposition - McKenzie stopping these two inside the distance doesn't mean he has developed power nor has his win over relative novice Evans - who McKenzie had nearly FOUR TIMES more experience than. With McKenzies style and his experience means he beats these guys inside the distance but that doesn't mean he has developed power - more than he is fighting less experienced boxers whose durability has been found wanting at domestic level against other fighters (also, they mostly lack power, McKenzie can be more bold in going on the inside and beating them up). They aren't bad fighters - it just means McKenzie KO'ing or stopping doesn't mean he is a sudden power merchant.

Again, your critique of his opposition misses the point, because I'm not disagreeing with you about the quality of people like Evans.

It doesn't miss the point, it is the point! You don't develop power, you will be arguing with every trainer on the planet - I would explain his wins over the fighters he has faced have gone in his favour regarding, weight, experience, styles which lead to stoppage wins for McKenzie.

I'm basing it on seven of his last eight and ten of his last twelve wins being stoppages (the decisions were in three rounders and he floored his opponent in one of them) and none of those fights going past five rounds when only five of his first fourteen wins were stoppage and against what I believe was a lower quality of opposition. I'm not sure why you keep mentioning that these were only domestic level opponents as if his recent wins mean nothing, because as long as the level of opposition is the same persistent differences in results are enough to suggest changes in ability.

Because we are talking about Ovill taking on world class operators and KO'ing them with his 'dangerous power' which he doesn't really have above domestic level, and his dangerous power could be explained away over various factors.

Also, I think I did say in my OP on this thread he has power in domestic class - that does not mean he is a power puncher in regards a step up in class (and I would argue he isn't a 'power puncher' on a domestic level though he does possess decent power at that level), so I don't know what your argument is?

Well, we agree don't we?

Punching power is about skill and timing more than actual strength, you don't actually have to be physically strong to KO people - ask Ricardo Lopez - so yes, his 'not having the skill' to connect is going to negate his 'punching power' - anybody with elementary boxing knowledge knows this.

My argument is that his overall KO ratio isn't good evidence of how dangerous of a puncher he is since it is heavily influenced by early bouts in which he clearly wasn't the same fighter he is now, and that the champions of the division represent a significant step up in class and possess abilities that would likely make McKenzie far less effective against them than he has been against domestic level fighters.

So we agree in some things and disagree on others, which I thought was very clear in my second post herein.

Course it does! That is why KO percentage is recorded over all fights and not just the wins.

KO power can turn a fight in the favour of the less skilled and less experienced fighter if he/she has it. It happens all the time.

If Ovill would have had true KO power, he would have shown it in his earlier fights, not his most recent fights, where he has all the advantages against the opposition he has been faced.

My money would be on him stopping Askin next month.

Again, McKenzie holds all the cards to stop Askin whose style is suited to McKenzie beating him.

I like Ovill McKenzie - he is a good fighter, tough, game and as hard as nails and would need a world class puncher to put him away (another thing a lot of these lads who face him lack) but developing a bandwagon on 'One Punch Ovill' is wrong. That is all.

[hurlock]

http://youtu.be/zBkuNpgACH0

[expe]

You can develop power, better technique= better power, as does better timing.

[crusader]

I think we're going in circles so I'll try to make this my last post.

Now I know how my father must have felt talking to my 10 year old self about Bruno back in the eighties.

Every boxing expert will tell you can't develop power - from Angelo Dundee to Dan Dares - they will all tell you the same.

But he has been stopping domestic opposition as of late - this is true.

This is not down to McKenzie developing power, rather than a combination of the opposition being inexperienced in comparison to McKenzie, smaller than McKenzie (in the case of Dodson who was a career super-middle) and semi retired, nearly 40 years old (Darren Corbett)

McKenzie has had more or less near DOUBLE the fights of both Dickinson and Conquest - lads who have been stopped and knocked out in previous losses against domestic opposition - McKenzie stopping these two inside the distance doesn't mean he has developed power nor has his win over relative novice Evans - who McKenzie had nearly FOUR TIMES more experience than. With McKenzies style and his experience means he beats these guys inside the distance but that doesn't mean he has developed power - more than he is fighting less experienced boxers whose durability has been found wanting at domestic level against other fighters (also, they mostly lack power, McKenzie can be more bold in going on the inside and beating them up). They aren't bad fighters - it just means McKenzie KO'ing or stopping doesn't mean he is a sudden power merchant.

It doesn't miss the point, it is the point! You don't develop power, you will be arguing with every trainer on the planet - I would explain his wins over the fighters he has faced have gone in his favour regarding, weight, experience, styles which lead to stoppage wins for McKenzie.

I think that fighters can develop their power, but even if such an increase is slight there are pronounced ways of improving one's ability to deliver their power, and the difference between a few stoppages and several stoppages can be largely a product of that ability. Keep in mind that I never even said that he was punching harder, just that his overall KO ratio is skewed by a relative lack of stoppages early in his career; maybe he's a more damaging fighter now mainly because he's more skillful and not because he's a harder puncher, but that still means that his overall KO ratio, which includes bouts from a decade ago, is flawed evidence of his current ability to hurt opponents.

You mention that McKenzie's recent run of stoppages is largely down to him being more experienced than his foes (I've addressed the quality of his opposition several times and don't feel the need to go into much detail about that anymore), but that means that one's ability to hurt their opponent--what KO percentage may be used as a barometer of--is fluid and can change as a boxer gains experience. In that case, since McKenzie has gained experience that would mean that his early bouts are not reflective of his current form, and hence his overall KO percentage is misleading when used as evidence of what he now brings to the ring.

Course it does! That is why KO percentage is recorded over all fights and not just the wins.

KO power can turn a fight in the favour of the less skilled and less experienced fighter if he/she has it. It happens all the time.

If Ovill would have had true KO power, he would have shown it in his earlier fights, not his most recent fights, where he has all the advantages against the opposition he has been faced.

My money would be on him stopping Askin next month.

Again, McKenzie holds all the cards to stop Askin whose style is suited to McKenzie beating him.

I like Ovill McKenzie - he is a good fighter, tough, game and as hard as nails and would need a world class puncher to put him away (another thing a lot of these lads who face him lack) but developing a bandwagon on 'One Punch Ovill' is wrong. That is all.

Ability is fluid and many fighters have improved as they gained experience. Since one's overall KO ratio includes all of their bouts, it can give a distorted idea of a fighter's current abilities because it accounts for fights that occurred before such changes were made, in other words when the person was a different fighter. Ovill may only have knockouts in under half his fights and only slightly over half his wins, but 88 percent of his last eight wins have been stoppages and he clearly showed that he could drop and hurt the second to last man who beat him in Tony Bellew, even though the results of their encounters lowered his KO ratio.

It does seem to me like some overrate his ability to hurt opponents at a higher level and I mentioned this in my first post, which I made upon seeing the suggestion that he'd KO anyone he landed well on:

"Lebedev and Huck, especially Huck, have fairly good chins and I doubt Ovill would simply knock them over if he lands something notable. Drozd's durability is more in question (although his stoppage loss seemed to be a stamina issue) but he's a good mover and arguably more difficult to hit than the others."

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

I think we're going in circles so I'll try to make this my last post.

We're not going in circles, you are going in circles, because you don't seem to think Ovill's opposition has anything to do with his sudden KO win streak - its obvious to anyone with half a brain and some boxing knowledge what it is down to.

I think that fighters can develop their power, but even if such an increase is slight there are pronounced ways of improving one's ability to deliver their power, and the difference between a few stoppages and several stoppages can be largely a product of that ability.

Show me an example of then? You are not debating me, you are arguing what is considered an accepted and established truism of boxing which is 'power cannot be developed' now you may find in the tens of thousands of boxrec records of a boxer who started off as a non-puncher who went on a spree of stopping/KO'ing people but I will bet with any kind of investigation that the said fighter was KO'ing inferior fighters

Keep in mind that I never even said that he was punching harder, just that his overall KO ratio is skewed by a relative lack of stoppages early in his career; maybe he's a more damaging fighter now mainly because he's more skillful and not because he's a harder puncher, but that still means that his overall KO ratio, which includes bouts from a decade ago, is flawed evidence of his current ability to hurt opponents.

But for some reason, you don't want to accept the fighters he has been facing haven't been up to the challenge, haven't got the power - even at domestic level - to keep him away, or are too small or too old - what is to stop Ovill from beating up Dickinson when he has had something like three stoppages in 15 wins and was KO'd twice previously - against domestic opposition, are these not factors in how the fight went?

You mention that McKenzie's recent run of stoppages is largely down to him being more experienced than his foes (I've addressed the quality of his opposition several times and don't feel the need to go into much detail about that anymore), but that means that one's ability to hurt their opponent--what KO percentage may be used as a barometer of--is fluid and can change as a boxer gains experience. In that case, since McKenzie has gained experience that would mean that his early bouts are not reflective of his current form, and hence his overall KO percentage is misleading when used as evidence of what he now brings to the ring.

The level of power isn't fluid.

The level of opposition is fluid!

This isn't Harvard law you know, it isn't complicated.

Vinny Pazenzia once said of his opponent - an Ecuadorian named Nestor Bolanos who had a record of something like 65-0 with 60 of his wins coming by KO, and the reporters at the press conference asked him about Bolanos padded record over there in Ecuador and Pazenzia said (famously) 'I don't care if he has beaten his mother 65 times, she would have got lucky at least once'.

So, according to your logic. If a fighter in Ecuador knocks all the locals out because the level is mediocre - moves to America and fights better opposition, doesn't knock them out and gets beaten - does he become a non-puncher? It is ridiculous, that is why statistcians study the form of a fighter - who he KO's is as important as the actual KO percentage.

Ability is fluid and many fighters have improved as they gained experience. Since one's overall KO ratio includes all of their bouts, it can give a distorted idea of a fighter's current abilities because it accounts for fights that occurred before such changes were made, in other words when the person was a different fighter.

Ability is fluid, boxers can improve, that is true, but power is not - power makes up for ability deficiencies, again, you are not debating me, you are debating established truisms regarding the science behind punching power. His improved ability plus fighting inferior opposition has gotten Ovill stoppage wins over domestic fighters, it does not mean his power has increased. It is ridiculous.

If we take this to the most extreme example, if I box an old age pensioner and I knock him out in one punch, and then I face him once a week and the same thing happens - and then the week after the sixth time I KO grandad, I meet an experienced boxer and he knocks me out or - I struggle to beat him, what does that tell you? Whatever power I had has been negated by the fighter and his experience and skill. But that is not a power puncher - a power puncher (think Earnie Shavers) can KO people despite lack of skill and everything else - that is his or her 'get out of jail free' card.

Ovill is KO'ing less experienced fighters who have shown vulnerability at domestic level - all of them, show me one of his wins where that hasn't been the case, or he they have been smaller, older, or even smaller and older - it isn't a massive surprise that he has beaten them inside the distance, and it won't be if he does the same to Askin.

Ovill may only have knockouts in under half his fights and only slightly over half his wins, but 88 percent of his last eight wins have been stoppages and he clearly showed that he could drop and hurt the second to last man who beat him in Tony Bellew, even though the results of their encounters lowered his KO ratio.

And 100% of those KO wins have come against boxers with:

Less Experience

And who were

Smaller
Lack durability at domestic level
Non-punchers

As for Tony Bellew - he lost to him, and that is why KO percentage doesn't include people a boxers drops - because, if they lose, their power wasn't enough. Course his losses lowered his KO ratio - he lost the fight - his power wasn't enough.

It does seem to me like some overrate his ability to hurt opponents at a higher level and I mentioned this in my first post, which I made upon seeing the suggestion that he'd KO anyone he landed well on:

He didn't win - that how simple it gets, his power didn't get the win - and I would argue that Tony Bellew is fringe world class anyway.

If Ovill has real power, he would have KO'd massively shot Enzo Maccranelli - he couldn't and didn't. No shame in it by the way, he has a level and he is very good within it.

"Lebedev and Huck, especially Huck, have fairly good chins and I doubt Ovill would simply knock them over if he lands something notable. Drozd's durability is more in question (although his stoppage loss seemed to be a stamina issue) but he's a good mover and arguably more difficult to hit than the others."

The thing is, what you need to do, is look at the whole picture, which you are not doing or shielding your eyes from them in being obtuse.

Again, we will go back to the most basic, extreme argument behind my point.

If I knock out my granny six times*, it doesn't make me a power puncher. Especially if I can't KO or get beaten by higher class opposition.

*Both grans have been dead for over 20 years, before anyone accuses me of granny abuse.

[crusader]

We're not going in circles, you are going in circles, because you don't seem to think Ovill's opposition has anything to do with his sudden KO win streak - its obvious to anyone with half a brain and some boxing knowledge what it is down to.

Okay, if we're not going in circles let's keep going. I never said that Ovill's opposition has nothing to do with his recent KO streak, which true to your debating nature is another misrepresentation of my comments, but I think it's similar enough to previous opposition that other factors, namely changes in his ability that you concede to, are important in explaining the divergence between his recent results and those that occurred in the early stages of his career. Since his ability has changed in such a way that makes it easier for him to stop opponents, his overall KO percentage is a flawed index of his current ability to score stoppages.

Show me an example of then? You are not debating me, you are arguing what is considered an accepted and established truism of boxing which is 'power cannot be developed' now you may find in the tens of thousands of boxrec records of a boxer who started off as a non-puncher who went on a spree of stopping/KO'ing people but I will bet with any kind of investigation that the said fighter was KO'ing inferior fighters

There are many examples of fighters scoring more stoppages even as their opposition improves, and within about two seconds I thought of Leo Santa Cruz, who started his career with 2 stoppages in 11 fights against journeymen but has since gone 19-0 (15) against clearly tougher opposition. A higher profile example would be Manny Pacquiao, who started his career 13-0 (4) against mediocre opponents in the Philippines yet went on to heavily KO many world class fighters, and more local examples would Nathan Cleverly, who started 13-0 (3) but has since gone 15-2 (11), and Kell Brook, who started 10-0 (4) but has since gone 23-0 (18).

I think it's fairly easy to understand how different technique, such as putting more of one's body into a punch rather than throwing arm-punches, could help someone deliver more powerful blows. Keep in mind, again, that I never claimed that Ovill's KO run was mainly a result of him punching harder, but to me it's clear that he's made improvements in some respects that make him a more damaging fighter today than he was several years ago; my initial argument was simply that his overall KO ratio isn't good evidence of how dangerous he currently is, which you predictably misinterpreted.

But for some reason, you don't want to accept the fighters he has been facing haven't been up to the challenge, haven't got the power - even at domestic level - to keep him away, or are too small or too old - what is to stop Ovill from beating up Dickinson when he has had something like three stoppages in 15 wins and was KO'd twice previously - against domestic opposition, are these not factors in how the fight went?

Domestic level opponents obviously have shortcomings that make stopping them a different task than stopping world class opponents, but McKenzie was facing domestic level opposition when he scored one stoppage in twelve bouts from 2003-2005 and I don't think the differences in his opposition are strong enough to explain the huge difference in the KOs during that period to the period over the last four to five years.

The level of power isn't fluid.

The level of opposition is fluid!

This isn't Harvard law you know, it isn't complicated.

Vinny Pazenzia once said of his opponent - an Ecuadorian named Nestor Bolanos who had a record of something like 65-0 with 60 of his wins coming by KO, and the reporters at the press conference asked him about Bolanos padded record over there in Ecuador and Pazenzia said (famously) 'I don't care if he has beaten his mother 65 times, she would have got lucky at least once'.

So, according to your logic. If a fighter in Ecuador knocks all the locals out because the level is mediocre - moves to America and fights better opposition, doesn't knock them out and gets beaten - does he become a non-puncher? It is ridiculous, that is why statistcians study the form of a fighter - who he KO's is as important as the actual KO percentage.

You're not doing a good job with this one Git. You argued that his greater frequency of KOs is in part due to him having more experience than his opponents, but that means that one's ability to stop their opposition is fluid and can increase with experience. That is perfectly consistent with my arguments and is one reason why KO ratios that are heavily influenced by early bouts may not be representative of one's current ability to hurt their opponents.

Your analogies and understanding of my use of logic shows that you're not grasping the point. If a fighter stops many poor opponents but fails to stop anyone at a higher level it's fairly clear that the difference in his opposition level largely explains that phenomenon, as that's the variable that changes. But, as I've said over and over and over and over, I don't think there's been a sufficient difference in Ovill's opposition to largely explain why he started his career scoring one stoppage in twelve bouts yet within the last 4-5 years has regularly been stopping opponents, in some cases quite heavily, while also clearly showing that he could hurt opponents who either beat him or lasted the distance (in three rounders).

Ability is fluid, boxers can improve, that is true, but power is not - power makes up for ability deficiencies, again, you are not debating me, you are debating established truisms regarding the science behind punching power. His improved ability plus fighting inferior opposition has gotten Ovill stoppage wins over domestic fighters, it does not mean his power has increased. It is ridiculous.

If we take this to the most extreme example, if I box an old age pensioner and I knock him out in one punch, and then I face him once a week and the same thing happens - and then the week after the sixth time I KO grandad, I meet an experienced boxer and he knocks me out or - I struggle to beat him, what does that tell you? Whatever power I had has been negated by the fighter and his experience and skill. But that is not a power puncher - a power puncher (think Earnie Shavers) can KO people despite lack of skill and everything else - that is his or her 'get out of jail free' card.

Ovill is KO'ing less experienced fighters who have shown vulnerability at domestic level - all of them, show me one of his wins where that hasn't been the case, or he they have been smaller, older, or even smaller and older - it isn't a massive surprise that he has beaten them inside the distance, and it won't be if he does the same to Askin.

Power can certainly be improved through technical changes, such as putting more of one's weight into their punches, and perhaps you can provide me with the evidence your authorities have which leads them to disagree with this. You say that "His improved ability plus fighting inferior opposition has gotten Ovill stoppage wins over domestic fighters, it does not mean his power has increased. It is ridiculous", but I'll remind you that what you're saying about his improved ability is a position that we share and it shows why overall KO ratios can be misleading.

In Ovill's case, it would be more appropriate to use an analogy of him struggling for several years to KO pensioners then finding it much less of a problem at a later point, as his opposition hasn't greatly changed but he's scoring KOs much more frequently. I've already made several comments which should've made it obvious to you that I'm aware of how stopping opponents can be more difficult as one's opposition increases, and I believe that Ovill has stopped many boxers who are more skilled than him, such as Dickinson and Conquest.

And 100% of those KO wins have come against boxers with:

Less Experience

And who were

Smaller
Lack durability at domestic level
Non-punchers

As for Tony Bellew - he lost to him, and that is why KO percentage doesn't include people a boxers drops - because, if they lose, their power wasn't enough. Course his losses lowered his KO ratio - he lost the fight - his power wasn't enough.

Wow! Someone had advantages over people they knocked out?!

Of course Ovill had some advantage, though I wouldn't say he's smaller than JLD, Conquest, or Enzo and many of his early bouts that didn't end in KOs were against non-punchers. I'm not sure why you keep mentioning experience as if it weakens my points, because it strengthens my position that a boxer's abilities can improve as they gain experience and hence that their overall KO percentage may not be a good indicator of their current form. Good effort though.

Ovill's power wasn't enough to beat Bellew but he showed in the first fight that he had enough power to hurt Bellew and drop him multiple times, which shows how KO ratios are limited in terms of reflecting how much power a fighter has in addition to their general capacity to stop opponents; someone can punch so hard that they'd immediately KO any boxer in the world just with a glancing jab, but if they never land they're going to have a zero percent KO ratio.

Ovill's failure to stop Enzo in their rematch doesn't reflect well on his power, but I never claimed that it does and I don't think failing to stop Enzo automatically means that someone isn't a more dangerous puncher than their KO ratio suggests.

The thing is, what you need to do, is look at the whole picture, which you are not doing or shielding your eyes from them in being obtuse.

Again, we will go back to the most basic, extreme argument behind my point.

If I knock out my granny six times*, it doesn't make me a power puncher. Especially if I can't KO or get beaten by higher class opposition.

*Both grans have been dead for over 20 years, before anyone accuses me of granny abuse.

I'm looking at the entire picture, which is why I've made several comments about his early bouts and addressed points you've raised about his losses.

Your analogy was a good way to end the post, because it illustrates your lack of understanding of my points and the logic behind them.

[stevieb_8006]

Orville Mckenzie really doesn't warrant such an in depth debate

For a title shot that's never gonna happen.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Okay, if we're not going in circles let's keep going.

There is no competition - you are talking crap and the facts are that your theories are against every truism in boxing, that power can be developed. Now, if you are going to argue, then you arguing against people who know more than me, and know more than you.

I never said that Ovill's opposition has nothing to do with his recent KO streak

So what is your fornicating point then? Really? It has everything to do with his opposition.

which true to your debating nature is another misrepresentation of my comments, but I think it's similar enough to previous opposition that other factors, namely changes in his ability that you concede to, are important in explaining the divergence between his recent results and those that occurred in the early stages of his career. Since his ability has changed in such a way that makes it easier for him to stop opponents, his overall KO percentage is a flawed index of his current ability to score stoppages.

It isn't down to a development of power because that does not exist, you can fight people who have more experience and more skill and you can fight people who you have more skill than and more experience - but what doesn't happen is early on you are a non puncher and then you become a puncher. What happens obviously is that you gain experience and if facing fighters who don't have that experience, can't punch hard and aren't durable then the chances of you winning by KO improve drastically.

It can't be just me who sees this?

There are many examples of fighters scoring more stoppages even as their opposition improves, and within about two seconds I thought of Leo Santa Cruz, who started his career with 2 stoppages in 11 fights against journeymen but has since gone 19-0 (15) against clearly tougher opposition. A higher profile example would be Manny Pacquiao, who started his career 13-0 (4) against mediocre opponents in the Philippines yet went on to heavily KO many world class fighters, and more local examples would Nathan Cleverly, who started 13-0 (3) but has since gone 15-2 (11), and Kell Brook, who started 10-0 (4) but has since gone 23-0 (18).

Manny Pacquiao start as strawweight I think - he got more power as he got stronger, how many pounds heavier was he when started out to now - it must be around 50 pounds, I don't think - that a malnourished Filipino 16 year old kid true weight is 105 pounds. In Pacquiaos case, it wasn't developing power, he was just getting good meals and putting on natural weight.

Again, Leo Santa Cruz started out as a 17 year old flyweight - he is not a flyweight now is he? He is fighting at three divisions higher than he started out, of course he isn't going to knocking out grown men as a teenager - we are talking about fully grown adults who start and end their career at more or less the same weight, Santa Cruz developed power as he grew into a mature adult and added poundage, it is no surprise that he started developing punch power as he grew from boy to man.

Nathan Cleverly - again, turned pro at 17, this is what we are talking about - boys growing into men develop strength, body size, weight - he started out at light middle and now boxes at cruiserweight - that is 50 pounds give or take an ounce - this is not the same as Ovill McKenzie who was a man when he turned pro - he was 24 when he made his pro debut and the difference in weight between when he made his debut and now is a mere 15 pounds - Ovill McKenzie has more or less developed as much as he could as an adult male - he hasn't put on 50 pounds of man strength, muscle etc like Pacquiao, Santa Cruz or Cleverly and then started knocking people out - that would be a ridiculous comparison - honestly Crusader - step up!

Now there are freaks of nature, 16-17 year old fighters who are punchers and can KO grown men as teenagers - like Tyson, Wilfred Benitez but they are rare as hens teeth. Most men develop strength, power the older they get. I thought this was elementary biology but obviously not for you lad.

If we take one of the most feared punchers in history, Georges Carpentier - started off as a 14 year old flyweight and didn't knock anyone out really but as he went through the weight divisions the older he got, he started getting more power and KO'ing people:

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... r&pageID=2

To compare Ovill McKenzie to a teeange boxer fighting a few weight divisions below his adult weight is so... yeah, that's it, ridiculous.

Domestic level opponents obviously have shortcomings that make stopping them a different task than stopping world class opponents, but McKenzie was facing domestic level opposition when he scored one stoppage in twelve bouts from 2003-2005 and I don't think the differences in his opposition are strong enough to explain the huge difference in the KOs during that period to the period over the last four to five years.

Why do you think that was in the main? Is it because he was fighting more experienced fighters? Better fighters? And now it has gone round full circle which is he is now fighting lads who aren't experienced, aren't as good, aren't 12 round fighters and he can go through them - but that's not him 'developing power' that's just him having experience, stamina etc over these particular fighters

You can't develop power - again - Crusader - smart young lad that you - doesn't know more about punch power than Angelo Dundee or Terry Lawless. They all say punch power is a natural thing that cannot be taught or gained. I don't know why you think they can when they don't.

You're not doing a good job with this one Git. You argued that his greater frequency of KOs is in part due to him having more experience than his opponents, but that means that one's ability to stop their opposition is fluid and can increase with experience. That is perfectly consistent with my arguments and is one reason why KO ratios that are heavily influenced by early bouts may not be representative of one's current ability to hurt their opponents.

I am doing a better job than you Ironside.

It isn't, because you are ignoring the fact that the fighters he is facing might have deficiencies that might lead to them getting knocked out - this is where you argument falls apart.

Dickinson was stopped twice by domestic opposition before he met Ovill
Conquest was KO'd in a round by domestic opposition
Dodson was a career super middleweight
Corbett was nearly 40 years old.
Maccranelli was the worst stoppage I have ever seen.

Now the thing is, McKenzie stopping any of those fighters wasn't a big surprise, he had all the cards regarding everything to win those fights.
Dickinson and Conquest certainly were not the most durable and none of the people he KO'd were the most durable, you argument might have some merit if Ovill had KO'd guys who hadn't been beaten inside the distance by domestic operators - but they all have, or they have been fighting outside the natural weight division or they were too old and shot. That tell's it's own tale and for your just to come on here and come up with some fairytale BS argument to back your claims up is just silly.

Your analogies and understanding of my use of logic shows that you're not grasping the point. If a fighter stops many poor opponents but fails to stop anyone at a higher level it's fairly clear that the difference in his opposition level largely explains that phenomenon, as that's the variable that changes. But, as I've said over and over and over and over, I don't think there's been a sufficient difference in Ovill's opposition to largely explain why he started his career scoring one stoppage in twelve bouts yet within the last 4-5 years has regularly been stopping opponents, in some cases quite heavily, while also clearly showing that he could hurt opponents who either beat him or lasted the distance (in three rounders).

Because - I think this is correct, Ovill started out with no amateur career or it was negligble - somebody who knows him might chime in - but guess who else had no amateur career when he started out.

Earnie Shavers.

He never boxed amateur but guess what - he was KO'ing more experienced fighters because he had - punch power

Ovill has power over less experienced guys, guys who can't keep him away due to their lack of power and are vulnerable to getting stopped or knocked him themselves, it isn't the biggest shock in the world when a seasoned 12 round warrior stops them.

So Ovill loses a lot of the earlier fights because they are more skilled than him, he later beats up people with twice the number of fights they have had and stops them using his experience - but anyone with elementary boxing knowledge that there are a few factors at play here which have nothing to do with an increase in punch power.

Power can certainly be improved through technical changes, such as putting more of one's weight into their punches, and perhaps you can provide me with the evidence your authorities have which leads them to disagree with this. You say that "His improved ability plus fighting inferior opposition has gotten Ovill stoppage wins over domestic fighters, it does not mean his power has increased. It is ridiculous", but I'll remind you that what you're saying about his improved ability is a position that we share and it shows why overall KO ratios can be misleading.

His ability to stop domestic opposition is down to increased ability but also his stamina to do 12 rounds, and the lack of tools his opposition had to deal with Ovill - this is where your argument falls down - it is not Ovill being a power merchant all of a sudden, it is his opponents inability to cope with a seasoned, tough fighter such as Ovill - they have less fights, don't have the power to keep him away and aren't the most durable in the first place - all of those facts cause them problems when Ovill is in their face.

In Ovill's case, it would be more appropriate to use an analogy of him struggling for several years to KO pensioners then finding it much less of a problem at a later point, as his opposition hasn't greatly changed but he's scoring KOs much more frequently. I've already made several comments which should've made it obvious to you that I'm aware of how stopping opponents can be more difficult as one's opposition increases, and I believe that Ovill has stopped many boxers who are more skilled than him, such as Dickinson and Conquest.

I wouldn't say Conquest nor Dickinson have more skill than Ovill - I would certainly disagree with that but the most important thing that they didn't have was

Power

Durability.

It isn't what they have to face Ovill McKenzie, it is what they don't have that determines fights - if Dickinson and Conquest were a bit more durbale and could punch harder then they would have stood more of a chance but then we go down the 'If my auntie had bollocks' sceanrio.

Wow! Someone had advantages over people they knocked out?!

Are they not factors?

We go back to me KOing old age pensioners - my advantages will lead me to win the fight against an old codger when combined with their disadvantages.

The inadequacies of the opposition McKenzie was facing led to them getting beaten - that's it. McKenzie hadn't developed power - that's not true, when he did step up and fight people with similar experience and with decent durability - he has lost and his power wasn't a factor in pulling a potential loss out of the fire.

Of course Ovill had some advantage, though I wouldn't say he's smaller than JLD, Conquest, or Enzo and many of his early bouts that didn't end in KOs were against non-punchers. I'm not sure why you keep mentioning experience as if it weakens my points, because it strengthens my position that a boxer's abilities can improve as they gain experience and hence that their overall KO percentage may not be a good indicator of their current form. Good effort though.

Well, I was talking about Tony Dodson and Darren Corbett but Conquest and Dickinson were certainly wanting regards durablility and punch power at domestic level and Maccranelli should have retired years ago.

McKenzie's overall KO percentage is something like 35%

Now if he keeps fighting domestic fighters who can't punch all that hard and get stopped by other domestic operators then he might knock it up another 5% to 40% but anything over 50% denotes a fighter with a big punch - he has a long way to go, better start developing more power - somehow.

Ovill's power wasn't enough to beat Bellew but he showed in the first fight that he had enough power to hurt Bellew and drop him multiple times, which shows how KO ratios are limited in terms of reflecting how much power a fighter has in addition to their general capacity to stop opponents; someone can punch so hard that they'd immediately KO any boxer in the world just with a glancing jab, but if they never land they're going to have a zero percent KO ratio.

I don't what you know about boxing but fighters hurt other fighters all the time, a power puncher finishes them off - that's what makes a power puncher, it doesn't matter if he floored Bellew - who cares?

Ovill's failure to stop Enzo in their rematch doesn't reflect well on his power, but I never claimed that it does and I don't think failing to stop Enzo automatically means that someone isn't a more dangerous puncher than their KO ratio suggests.

You bloody right it doesn't - Enzo is shot!

Not being able to stop a man who has been KO'd in all his defeats, well past his prime, should not be fighting, he was there for the taking, it really is as simple as that.

I'm looking at the entire picture, which is why I've made several comments about his early bouts and addressed points you've raised about his losses.

Your analogy was a good way to end the post, because it illustrates your lack of understanding of my points and the logic behind them.

I'll summarise your logic and understanding and tell me if I am wrong.

A fighter can develop KO power through experience and ability.

It doesn't matter who he faces and the opposition and their weaknesses - power is power.

You probably think Ali Raymi is the next coming Edwin Valero.

All these debates are fun and all, you need to research your points properly and not take on viewpoints for debate that you know are bullshit. Especially when they counter truisms that are already established.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Orville Mckenzie really doesn't warrant such an in depth debate

For a title shot that's never gonna happen.

I agree, but Crusader thinks he knows his boxing. It is the lawyer in him to think he can take on BS viewpoints and duke it out on here, may get way with that shite on the current scene but he is here now, it aint that fornicating easy mate.

[Benelio]

If Ovill won a world title and became a mainstream household name, then he could end up becoming the face of 'Bovril', and feature on their adverts and packaging. Much in the same way that HP Sauce will be forever linked with Bruno.

[crusader]

There is no competition - you are talking crap and the facts are that your theories are against every truism in boxing, that power can be developed. Now, if you are going to argue, then you arguing against people who know more than me, and know more than you.

What are my theories that are inconsistent with every truism in boxing? If by theories you mean my theory that boxers can make changes that lead to their punches being harder, please provide some good evidence that putting more weight into one's punches doesn't lead to harder blows relative to arm punches.

If you mean one can't improve their power when everything else remains the same, please give a quote of mine indicating that I believe otherwise.

So what is your effing point then? Really? It has everything to do with his opposition.

My point is that the difference between his current opposition and the opposition he previously faced isn't large enough to explain how he went from 1 stoppage in his first 12 bouts to his showings over the last 4-5 overs, and you can't explain the greater frequency of stoppages with the argument that he's been fighting domestic level opponents, as he was fighting them when he was hardly stopping anyone.

It isn't down to a development of power because that does not exist, you can fight people who have more experience and more skill and you can fight people who you have more skill than and more experience - but what doesn't happen is early on you are a non puncher and then you become a puncher. What happens obviously is that you gain experience and if facing fighters who don't have that experience, can't punch hard and aren't durable then the chances of you winning by KO improve drastically.

Right, a fighter gains experience and develops generally, which allows them to stop more opponents and become a more dangerous puncher because they can deliver whatever power they have more effectively. I've said this repeatedly and never claimed that any increase in stoppages was due to McKenzie becoming a bigger puncher independent of technical changes or gains in skill.

And yet again, your arguments support my initial point that overall KO ratios can be misleading.

Manny Pacquiao start as strawweight I think - he got more power as he got stronger, how many pounds heavier was he when started out to now - it must be around 50 pounds, I don't think - that a malnourished Filipino 16 year old kid true weight is 105 pounds. In Pacquiaos case, it wasn't developing power, he was just getting good meals and putting on natural weight.

Again, Leo Santa Cruz started out as a 17 year old flyweight - he is not a flyweight now is he? He is fighting at three divisions higher than he started out, of course he isn't going to knocking out grown men as a teenager - we are talking about fully grown adults who start and end their career at more or less the same weight, Santa Cruz developed power as he grew into a mature adult and added poundage, it is no surprise that he started developing punch power as he grew from boy to man.

Nathan Cleverly - again, turned pro at 17, this is what we are talking about - boys growing into men develop strength, body size, weight - he started out at light middle and now boxes at cruiserweight - that is 50 pounds give or take an ounce - this is not the same as Ovill McKenzie who was a man when he turned pro - he was 24 when he made his pro debut and the difference in weight between when he made his debut and now is a mere 15 pounds - Ovill McKenzie has more or less developed as much as he could as an adult male - he hasn't put on 50 pounds of man strength, muscle etc like Pacquiao, Santa Cruz or Cleverly and then started knocking people out - that would be a ridiculous comparison - honestly Crusader - step up!

Now there are freaks of nature, 16-17 year old fighters who are punchers and can KO grown men as teenagers - like Tyson, Wilfred Benitez but they are rare as hens teeth. Most men develop strength, power the older they get. I thought this was elementary biology but obviously not for you lad.

If we take one of the most feared punchers in history, Georges Carpentier - started off as a 14 year old flyweight and didn't knock anyone out really but as he went through the weight divisions the older he got, he started getting more power and KO'ing people:

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... r&pageID=2

To compare Ovill McKenzie to a teeange boxer fighting a few weight divisions below his adult weight is so... yeah, that's it, ridiculous

Right, so despite saying "you may find in the tens of thousands of boxrec records of a boxer who started off as a non-puncher who went on a spree of stopping/KO'ing people but I will bet with any kind of investigation that the said fighter was KO'ing inferior fighters", you try to explain away each of the examples I gave by factors other than opposition. It's a good thing for you that you didn't make that bet

Those were examples that I quickly thought of to contradict your statement, but to see yet another example that's inconsistent with your assertion and significantly different to the ones I gave, look at Mariusz Wach. He turned pro at 26 and went 20-0 (8), but with subtle technical improvements he's gone 9-1 (8) in his last ten, scoring his best wins during that period and not gaining large amounts of weight.

Why do you think that was in the main? Is it because he was fighting more experienced fighters? Better fighters? And now it has gone round full circle which is he is now fighting lads who aren't experienced, aren't as good, aren't 12 round fighters and he can go through them - but that's not him 'developing power' that's just him having experience, stamina etc over these particular fighters

You can't develop power - again - Crusader - smart young lad that you - doesn't know more about punch power than Angelo Dundee or Terry Lawless. They all say punch power is a natural thing that cannot be taught or gained. I don't know why you can when they don't.

I think he likely improved with experience, developing qualities such as better timing and punch selection (given that he's never stopped someone past the fifth I doubt stamina is a major factor) which allow him to deliver his power more effectively. As I mentioned through analogy earlier, someone could be a murderous puncher but if they never hit the target their KO percentage will be zero; likewise, I think Ovill probably always had the potential to be a dangerous puncher at domestic and probably EBU level, but he didn't have the tools make that a reality in his early days.

I'm not fond of appeals to authority that don't address specifics and rely purely on the source of the argument. I think it's fairly obvious that certain people can punch harder if they make technical changes, the main one being turning their body more into their sots rather than throwing arm punches that resemble slaps, and I don't believe Dundee has offered reasons for me to think otherwise.

Perhaps your authorities mean you can't develop your power ceiling, or the maximum force you could deliver if the conditions were right.

I am doing a better job than you Ironside.

It isn't, because you are ignoring the fact that the fighters he is facing might have deficiencies that might lead to them getting knocked out - this is where you argument falls apart.

Dickinson was stopped twice by domestic opposition before he met Ovill
Conquest was KO'd in a round by domestic opposition
Dodson was a career super middleweight
Corbett was nearly 40 years old.
Maccranelli was the worst stoppage I have ever seen.

Now the thing is, McKenzie stopping any of those fighters wasn't a big surprise, he had all the cards regarding everything to win those fights.
Dickinson and Conquest certainly were not the most durable and none of the people he KO'd were the most durable, you argument might have some merit if Ovill had KO'd guys who hadn't been beaten inside the distance by domestic operators - but they all have, or they have been fighting outside the natural weight division or they were too old and shot. That tell's it's own tale and for your just to come on here and come up with some fairytale BS argument to back your claims up is just silly.

It is perfectly consistent with my position. You've argued that Ovil is stopping opponents more regularly in part because he's gained experience, bur since he's not the fighter he was from 2003-2005 those bouts are unrepresentative of his current form, meaning the inclusion of those bouts in calculating his KO ratio isn't reflective of his current ability to stop opponent.

You make reasonable points about the particular attributes of his opponents, and those attributes are why I haven't said his opposition has nothing to do with his more regular knockouts over the last few years. However, based on how quickly and heavily he's hurt and stopped opponents lately, not typically needing many shots to take them out of the fight, I suspect that he's more equipped to stop opponents than he was earlier in his career, such as the period when he scored 1 stoppage in his first 12 bouts against opponents who were no better than domestic class and also notably flawed.

Because - I think this is correct, Ovill started out with no amateur career or it was negligble - somebody who knows him might chime in - but guess who else had no amateur career when he started out.

Earnie Shavers.

He never boxed amateur but guess what - he was KO'ing more experienced fighters because he had - punch power

Ovill has power over less experienced guys, guys who can't keep him away due to their lack of power and are vulnerable to getting stopped or knocked him themselves, it isn't the biggest shock in the world when a seasoned 12 round warrior stops them.

So Ovill loses a lot of the earlier fights because they are more skilled than him, he later beats up people with twice the number of fights they have had and stops them using his experience - but anyone with elementary boxing knowledge that there are a few factors at play here which have nothing to do with an increase in punch power.

Due to the nature of his stoppages and certain defeats over the last few years I believe that Ovill has good power, but I agree that there factors other than power are at play, which I've stated repeatedly. I also believe that those factors have led to him being generally better than he was in the early stages of his career, which allow him to hurt opponents in a way that he wasn't previously doing much.

Several of his early losses were also to fellow pro novices, so it's not as if he was only dropping fights to highly experienced professionals.

His ability to stop domestic opposition is down to increased ability but also his stamina to do 12 rounds, and the lack of tools his opposition had to deal with Ovill - this is where your argument falls down - it is not Ovill being a power merchant all of a sudden, it is his opponents inability to cope with a seasoned, tough fighter such as Ovill - they have less fights, don't have the power to keep him away and aren't the most durable in the first place - all of those facts cause them problems when Ovill is in their face.

I think stamina is fairly irrelevant given that he's never stopped someone past the fifth and only one of his stoppages went past three. Looking at who he fought earlier in his career, I don't think that Ovill's recent opponents are relatively light hitters or less suited to deal with him to the extent that opposition largely explains how he's on a run of heavy stoppages when he scored one knockout in his first twelve bouts. To me it seems Ovill's ability has clearly improved, which you seem to agree with and which supports my point about KO ratios possibly being misleading.

Well, I was talking about Tony Dodson and Darren Corbett but Conquest and Dickinson were certainly wanting regards durablility and punch power at domestic level and Maccranelli should have retired years ago.

I wouldn't say Conquest nor Dickinson have more skill than Ovill - I would certainly disagree with that but the most important thing that they didn't have was

Power

Durability.

It isn't what they have to face Ovill McKenzie, it is what they don't have that determines fights - if Dickinson and Conquest were a bit more durbale and could punch harder then they would have stood more of a chance but then we go down the 'If my auntie had bollocks' sceanrio.

Early in his career Ovill faced plenty of opponents who weren't punchers and he failed to stop most of them. His opposition was more durable, but he also failed to stop numerous foes who didn't seem to be particularly sturdy or heavy hitting and a figure like 1 stoppages in 12 bouts stands out to me as a sign that he would develop significantly with time.

Are they not factors?

We go back to me KOing old age pensioners - my advantages will lead me to win the fight against an old codger.

The inadequacies of the opposition McKenzie was facing led to them getting beaten - that's it. McKenzie hadn't developed power - that's not true, when he did step up and fight people with similar experience and with decent durability - he has lost and his power wasn't a factor in pulling a potential loss out of the fire.

They're factors, but so were the advantages he had over the opponents he decisioned early in his career. The only losses he's suffered over the last five years were to Enzo and Bellew, and while his power wasn't very apparent in the return with the former he clearly showed that he could hurt and drop the latter if he landed well. Obviously his power wasn't enough to win, but I think that was mainly because he couldn't find the target well, not because he couldn't do damage when he did (see my analogy about the devastating puncher with the zero percent KO rate). That's an issue that will continue to hold him back when he strays above domestic class.

McKenzie's overall KO percentage is something like 35%

Now if he keeps fighting domestic fighters who can't punch all that hard and get stopped by other domestic operators then he might knock it up another 5% to 40% but anything over 50% denotes a fighter with a big punch - he has a long way to go, better start developing more power - somehow.

Big surprise, but I know what his overall KO percentage is and I don't think it's an accurate reflection of how dangerous a puncher he is.

I don't what you know about boxing but fighters hurt other fighters all the time, a power puncher finishes them off - that's what makes a power puncher, it doesn't matter if he floored Bellew - who cares?

A power puncher is someone who punches hard. They need not be a good finisher or have other skills that enable them to make the most of their power, and hence you can get people who have little trouble hurting opponents when they land well but difficulty actually finding the target. Ovill showed limited skill against Bellew, but given how hard he dropped him I don't think he showed good power when he landed.

See the analogy that I just reminded you of.

You bloody right it doesn't - Enzo is shot!

Not being able to stop a man who has been KO'd in all his defeats, well past his prime, should not be fighting, it really is as simple as that.

I agree that the Enzo rematch doesn't reflect well on his power, but it's rarely as simple as one case out of many.

I'll summarise your logic and understanding and tell me if I am wrong.

A fighter can develop KO power through experience and ability.

It doesn't matter who he faces and the opposition and their weaknesses - power is power.

You probably think Ali Raymi is the next coming Edwin Valero.

All these debates are fun and all, you need to research your points properly and not take on viewpoints for debate that you know are bullshit. Especially when they counter truisms that are already established.

Let's see if you get it now: a fighter's power is influenced by various factors, one of which is their technique. If they throw arm punches they will probably not punch as hard as they do if they put more of their body into it, meaning for certain boxers technical changes will lead to them maximizing their power. Experience helps fighters develop abilities such as better timing and punch selection, which in turn make them more effective offensively; this means that with experience someone can improve their ability to hurt their opponents, whether they were a big puncher who struggled to land well before or a mediocre puncher.

Competition makes a difference, as generally fighters become tougher to hurt and stop with inch as one goes up the levels, so consistent discrepancies between one's results at one level versus another seem like they can be explained by focusing on their opponents (so predictably you're off the mark with your Raymi comment). However, if one is operating on a similar level and marked differences are noted in their results over certain periods, there is a good chance that such a finding is explained by changes to the fighter rather than to the opposition. In McKenzie's case I can see how his earlier opponents possessed certain qualities which made them more difficult to stop on the whole, but I don't think those differences are pronounced to the extent that they largely explain why he's been on a run of heavy, early KOs when he could only stop 1 of his first 12 opponents.

Things I disagree with:

-opposition quality isn't a factor in someone's chances of scoring knockouts
-Ovill is a very heavy puncher with a solid puncher's chance against most world class opponents
-Ovill has far more power than he did early in his career
-technique doesn't influence the power of punches
-a full grown adult's peak power (i.e. the maximum amount of power they can generate with optimal technique) can be significantly improved

[crusader]

I agree, but Crusader thinks he knows his boxing. It is the lawyer in him to think he can take on BS viewpoints and duke it out on here, may get way with that shite on the current scene but he is here now, it aint that effing easy mate

I actually find your arguments fairly easy to counter. The most difficult part is dealing with the volume since it gets tedious after a while, though I'm sure if I stopped responding for that reason you'd probably take it as a sign of your great debating skills.

You remind me a lot of fergusg

[Benelio]

It's all well and good countering everyone's points Crusader, and while you put across several very convincing arguments, it's clear to see you have no retort for the most important point raised of Ovill becoming the new face of 'Bovril' IF he gets to world level.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

What are my theories that are inconsistent with every truism in boxing? If by theories you mean my theory that boxers can make changes that lead to their punches being harder, please provide some good evidence that putting more weight into one's punches doesn't lead to harder blows relative to arm punches.

If you mean one can't improve their power when everything else remains the same, please give a quote of mine indicating that I believe otherwise.

That power, or KO power can be improved, not so according to anyone who knows anything about boxing (not you) this is nothing to do with the difference of arm punches/properly executed punches, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Lots of boxers know how to throw a properly executed punch but they are not KO punchers. This is ridiculous, it is like talking to a teenage son who is just getting into boxing.

Unless you have Ovills early fights and you have access to them then how do you know what led to his improvement?

My point is that the difference between his current opposition and the opposition he previously faced isn't large enough to explain how he went from 1 stoppage in his first 12 bouts to his showings over the last 4-5 overs, and you can't explain the greater frequency of stoppages with the argument that he's been fighting domestic level opponents, as he was fighting them when he was hardly stopping anyone.

It is like debating a child.

He - Ovill McKenzie was the difference, he went from inexperienced to experience, you are right, the opposition hasn't really changed except when he has stepped up, he has always lost.

So he improves, he starts beating people, he stops being less experienced, less able and becomes more experienced and more able than the people he is facing.

Again - none of it is rocket science.

To clarify, Ovill has improved, but he is not fighting people of equal experience when he is KOing these fighters and there are other factors in why he can beat them.

Right, a fighter gains experience and develops generally, which allows them to stop more opponents and become a more dangerous puncher because they can deliver whatever power they have more effectively. I've said this repeatedly and never claimed that any increase in stoppages was due to McKenzie becoming a bigger puncher independent of technical changes or gains in skill.

Who has he stopped

Of all the fighters he has stopped, he has an edge on size, experience, stamina and they are hamstrung by certain factors such as lack of punch or lack of punch resistance.

This is what you are not getting - it isn't all about him, it is about the opponent and what they lack to beat him.

If his punching power has increased through developing a skillset - he should have beaten Bellew and Maccranelli and if he keeps training, fighting and winning - he'll turn into Sonny Liston.

And then we all wake up

And yet again, your arguments support my initial point that overall KO ratios can be misleading.

They don't, because my argument all along is that the fighters who he has been facing and KO'ing were not of his equal, or at his level, again - if I KO an OAP six times and think I am a puncher - that is misleading, Ali Raymi's record is misleading, so though KO ratios can be misleading, not in the case of Ovill McKenzie - his 35% KO ration is about right - he has yet to KO a world class opponent and the fighters he has stopped and KO'd have been inexperienced, smaller or have durability issues.

Right, so despite saying "you may find in the tens of thousands of boxrec records of a boxer who started off as a non-puncher who went on a spree of stopping/KO'ing people but I will bet with any kind of investigation that the said fighter was KO'ing inferior fighters", you try to explain away each of the examples I gave by factors other than opposition. It's a good thing for you that you didn't make that bet

I would have thought that I needn't explain the difference between a teenager and a fully grown man - obviously I had to.

Are you serious? Please tell me you are not?

OF COURSE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN POWER AND STRENGTH BETWEEN A TEENAGE BOY AND A MAN. I wouldn't have to explain that to anyone else on this forum genius except you by the sounds of it.

So, all you could get were the records of teenage boys who developed through the weight divisions and developed strength and power as they became heavier - well, strike me down with a feather Captain Obvious but you'll have a harder time finding a grown man who turned pro who turned into a puncher.

Those were examples that I quickly thought of to contradict your statement, but to see yet another example that's inconsistent with your assertion and significantly different to the ones I gave, look at Mariusz Wach. He turned pro at 26 and went 20-0 (8), but with subtle technical improvements he's gone 9-1 (8) in his last ten, scoring his best wins during that period and not gaining large amounts of weight.

You had to look for teenage boys who were still in the stage of physical development so you contradicted nothing. Now if you are still scratching your head about strength development in growing males then we will have to leave that in the next post.

As for Wach, all those fighters, every single one of them, is nowhere near his level, past it, Travis Walker has been knocked every time he stepped up, Leapai stopped him, Kevin McBride? You shitting me? Julius Long? Didn't he get KO'd in a round by powerpuncher Audley Harrison? Tye Fields? He was knocked out by ancient semi-retired Michael Grant and Monte Barrett? I thought those two had retired 10 years ago.

That isn't anything to do with 'improved punching power' it is more to do with Wach facing old, semi-retired heavyweights and brilliant matchmaking. But he went the distance with some Bosnian that no-one has ever heard of who has lost a third of his fights - so much for his improved punching power.

I think he likely improved with experience, developing qualities such as better timing and punch selection (given that he's never stopped someone past the fifth I doubt stamina is a major factor) which allow him to deliver his power more effectively. As I mentioned through analogy earlier, someone could be a murderous puncher but if they never hit the target their KO percentage will be zero; likewise, I think Ovill probably always had the potential to be a dangerous puncher at domestic and probably EBU level, but he didn't have the tools make that a reality in his early days.

No-one is denying he has improved no-one is arguing that, however, his 'improved punching power' has more to do with the opposition he has faced rather than an improvement in punch strength, however, it doesn't take much to look through the opposition he has KO'd to see that there was only one way that fight was going.

So I will ask you a question - did you think there was any chance of Dickinson, Conquest, Corbett, Dodson or Evans beating McKenzie? Did you think any of them were going to last the distance with him seeing as they have been KO'd by some pretty ordinary fighters? Especially when Ovill holds all the cards.

I'm not fond of appeals to authority that don't address specifics and rely purely on the source of the argument. I think it's fairly obvious that certain people can punch harder if they make technical changes, the main one being turning their body more into their sots rather than throwing arm punches that resemble slaps, and I don't believe Dundee has offered reasons for me to think otherwise.

Well, you should be because some of these people know more than you about it. Again, no one is saying that punches thrown correctly aren't
harder but because a correct punch is thrown doesn't mean it is a KO punch and it certainly doesn't mean that a correct puncher turns that fighter into a KO puncher - which is what we are talking about.

Henry Maske was a correct puncher but he wasn't a KO puncher, he knew how to throw correct punches as did Sven Ottke.

A KO puncher is someone like Earnie Shavers - whoever he hit went down - that is who we are talking about, correctly delivered punches hurt - no one is denying it but that doesn't make someone a KO puncher.

Do you get the difference? I am hoping so.

It is perfectly consistent with my position. You've argued that Ovil is stopping opponents more regularly in part because he's gained experience, bur since he's not the fighter he was from 2003-2005 those bouts are unrepresentative of his current form, meaning the inclusion of those bouts in calculating his KO ratio isn't reflective of his current ability to stop opponent.

It doesn't seem to be, it is not just he has gained experience, he is fighting people with a lot less experience than him - it is (again) not all about Ovil and what brings but what the opposition does or doesn't bring, if his opposition isn't as experienced and isn't very durable or too small then the chances of Ovil winning by KO.

To clarify, It aint all about Ovil, there are two people in a fight and if he fights lesser experienced opposition or old super middleweights or guys who have been stopped by mid level domestic oppositon - then they all are factor into the final result.

You make reasonable points about the particular attributes of his opponents, and those attributes are why I haven't said his opposition has nothing to do with his more regular knockouts over the last few years. However, based on how quickly and heavily he's hurt and stopped opponents lately, not typically needing many shots to take them out of the fight, I suspect that he's more equipped to stop opponents than he was earlier in his career, such as the period when he scored 1 stoppage in his first 12 bouts against opponents who were no better than domestic class and also notably flawed.

Disagree totally, those fighters were pretty chinny anyway, there is a massive pyschological advantage to Ovil going in with all cylinders seeing as he holds all the cards, would he have fought with the same daredevil regard if he had to take on one of the cruiserweight champions and the answer is probably not.

As for the opponents earlier in his career - he was the one at disadvantage regards experience and skill, so it is not surprising he was losing to the likes of Pinky Burton. But if he had that punch - which one has or hasn't then he could have snotted him and everyone else.

Due to the nature of his stoppages and certain defeats over the last few years I believe that Ovill has good power, but I agree that there factors other than power are at play, which I've stated repeatedly. I also believe that those factors have led to him being generally better than he was in the early stages of his career, which allow him to hurt opponents in a way that he wasn't previously doing much.

He has good domestic level power - he can KO fighters like Conquest and Dickinson and Evans - that was my original point. And he has improved, the time we can say that he can KO people with one shot (like some have been saying on here) will probably be never.

Several of his early losses were also to fellow pro novices, so it's not as if he was only dropping fights to highly experienced professionals.

Some of those early losses to novice pros were highly decorated amateurs like Courtney Fry - he was GB Olympic team captain in 2000 and the other people he faced had extensive amateur careers, so even though on the surface - they were equal - they had far more ring experience than him down to their amateur background.

I think stamina is fairly irrelevant given that he's never stopped someone past the fifth and only one of his stoppages went past three. Looking at who he fought earlier in his career, I don't think that Ovill's recent opponents are relatively light hitters or less suited to deal with him to the extent that opposition largely explains how he's on a run of heavy stoppages when he scored one knockout in his first twelve bouts. To me it seems Ovill's ability has clearly improved, which you seem to agree with and which supports my point about KO ratios possibly being misleading.

But he has stamina to go 12 hard rounds, that forms part of the psychological edge, he is a seasoned championship fighter, it doesn't matter if he does or he doesn't KO people after the early stages, he is coming at you and it would be hard to deal with if one isn't a seasoned championship fighter themselves.

Early in his career Ovill faced plenty of opponents who weren't punchers and he failed to stop most of them. His opposition was more durable, but he also failed to stop numerous foes who didn't seem to be particularly sturdy or heavy hitting and a figure like 1 stoppages in 12 bouts stands out to me as a sign that he would develop significantly with time.

If he didn't haven't have an amateur career and he was fighting men who did then he is going to struggle but again - Earnie Shavers - he didn't have an amateur career but was KOing people because he had natural KO power.

Which is what we are talking about.

They're factors, but so were the advantages he had over the opponents he decisioned early in his career. The only losses he's suffered over the last five years were to Enzo and Bellew, and while his power wasn't very apparent in the return with the former he clearly showed that he could hurt and drop the latter if he landed well. Obviously his power wasn't enough to win, but I think that was mainly because he couldn't find the target well, not because he couldn't do damage when he did (see my analogy about the devastating puncher with the zero percent KO rate). That's an issue that will continue to hold him back when he strays above domestic class.

Again, anyone can hurt anyone else in a fight, this is the point and now we are getting somewhere - if he fights at a certain level against people who aren't his level then his chances of a KO increase, which is all my point was in the first place.

He hasn't KO'd anyone over domestic class. The reason he has been KO'ing fighters is not because he is now 'One punch Ovil' but because the opposition hasn't been up to standing up to him. If he was a proper puncher, he would have KO'd all those fellas.

Big surprise, but I know what his overall KO percentage is and I don't think it's an accurate reflection of how dangerous a puncher he is.

And if he keeps fighting domestic opposition - it will improve, if he steps up, it will fail - which you have just admitted to in the paragraph above.

So, it is not about him, but, it is about who he faces in the opposite corner - we got there in the end, he couldn't land his bombs as cleanly on Bellew and Enzo he could on Evans - all signs that he struggles when he steps up. If he fights domestic opposition - he will keep stopping them, I am sure he will stop Askin next month.

A power puncher is someone who punches hard. They need not be a good finisher or have other skills that enable them to make the most of their power, and hence you can get people who have little trouble hurting opponents when they land well but difficulty actually finding the target. Ovill showed limited skill against Bellew, but given how hard he dropped him I don't think he showed good power when he landed.

No, a power puncher is someone who ends fights inside the distance. Again, Henry Maske was a correct puncher, a hard puncher but he wasn't a power puncher - there is a difference, ask anyone on here, hell - go and ask them on the current scene.

See the analogy that I just reminded you of.

I agree that the Enzo rematch doesn't reflect well on his power, but it's rarely as simple as one case out of many.

Well, it does, because if he was a proper power puncher, he would have stopped the massively shot Enzo.

Let's see if you get it now: a fighter's power is influenced by various factors, one of which is their technique.

And who he faces and lots of other little variables such as the opponents durability, their punch power to keep the opponent away and a dozen other things like fitness, stamina, cut resistance, injuries, experience - there are loads of things why one man will stop another inside the distance.

So, if a man KO's another man is as much about who he faces than what he carries in his arsenal.

If they throw arm punches they will probably not punch as hard as they do if they put more of their body into it, meaning for certain boxers technical changes will lead to them maximizing their power.

Correct punch technique will lead to harder punches but it doesn't necessarily lead to KO power - there is a difference between punching hard and punching with KO power which has more to do with timing, speed, balance as much as it has to do with strength and repitition of throwing a punch correctly, without harbouring the point - Henry Maske was a hard puncher who could throw punches correctly but wasn't a KO puncher.

Experience helps fighters develop abilities such as better timing and punch selection, which in turn make them more effective offensively; this means that with experience someone can improve their ability to hurt their opponents, whether they were a big puncher who struggled to land well before or a mediocre puncher.

To an extent, when Ovil stepped up, his experience didn't help against Bellew or Enzo, so even though experience helped him improve in beating fighters he wouldn't have beaten when he started out. So, as long as Ovil sticks to domestic fights, he should be able to stop a lot of these guys because there aren't many in the UK who have his experience, he steps up, its too much for him.

Competition makes a difference, as generally fighters become tougher to hurt and stop with inch as one goes up the levels, so consistent discrepancies between one's results at one level versus another seem like they can be explained by focusing on their opponents (so predictably you're off the mark with your Raymi comment).

Why? Raymi is only fighting Yemeni and Somalian blokes in need of a good meal like himself - he isn't 'superior' to them, but he seems to have power over them, Mckenzie on the other hand started off fighting blokes who had more experience than him and he turned it around as he got more experience. But experience and his power at domestic level will only take him so far.

However, if one is operating on a similar level and marked differences are noted in their results over certain periods, there is a good chance that such a finding is explained by changes to the fighter rather than to the opposition. In McKenzie's case I can see how his earlier opponents possessed certain qualities which made them more difficult to stop on the whole, but I don't think those differences are pronounced to the extent that they largely explain why he's been on a run of heavy, early KOs when he could only stop 1 of his first 12 opponents.

You can if you see he has more experience than the fighters he has been facing, simply put, he has had double the fights.

Is that not a factor? Course it is. If he has double the fights then he has double the experience as a pro - that is a massive factor.

McKenzie - in all his early losses, fought amateur standouts - if he boxed them with very little to no amateur experience and went the distance - he did very very well. Though I do have to say his wins over Spartacus and King were pretty top notch for a tough guy with little amateur experience.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

I actually find your arguments fairly easy to counter. The most difficult part is dealing with the volume since it gets tedious after a while, though I'm sure if I stopped responding for that reason you'd probably take it as a sign of your great debating skills.

You shouldn't think so highly of your own opinion because you seem to be confused of the complete and utter basics of boxing.

FYI: As far as I am concerned, this is a boxing debate on a boxing forum, I don't see debating you as a 'win' or 'lose' situation but then I am not some hyper-competitive anal retentive - I am not saying you are of course but I don't give a shit if you carry on replying or you don't. Makes no odds to me, lad.

If you do however see this as a win/loss situation then you are a bit of a prat - if you want to stop responding then do so, who are you? Some faceless prat I will never meet, I don't even know your real name, you are of no importance to me and I am of no importance to you. However, from what you are saying, it seems that I do hold such importance to your life though that you feel need to respond to me. I am honoured.

Yeah, but really, you need to sort out your priorities sonny.

You remind me a lot of fergusg

And you remind me of when I was 10 and I was the bwiggest Bwuno fan inda world.

[seanilius]

Apparently the real Ovill was killed in a motorcycle accident two weeks before the Conquest fight and replaced with a harder punching impostor. SOLVED.

[SamWise72]

And you don't gain power half way through your career - you have genuine power or you don't.

I see your unfounded assertion, and raise you Tommy Hearns, who punched about as hard as Bradley Skeete as an amateur. You can have the right physiognomy, and only learn to use it right at a certain point.

[black panther]

Junior Witter was also a powder puff puncher earlier in his career but at a higher level than he had previously boxed was stopping guys all over the show. He also managed to hurt and floor iron chinned Lovemore Ndou twice; something Miguel Cotto, Kermit Cintron, Kell Brook and Saul Alvarez could not do.

[Counter-puncher]

I actually find your arguments fairly easy to counter. The most difficult part is dealing with the volume since it gets tedious after a while, though I'm sure if I stopped responding for that reason you'd probably take it as a sign of your great debating skills.

You shouldn't think so highly of your own opinion because you seem to be confused of the complete and utter basics of boxing.

FYI: As far as I am concerned, this is a boxing debate on a boxing forum, I don't see debating you as a 'win' or 'lose' situation but then I am not some hyper-competitive anal retentive -

[black panther]

Apparently the real Ovill was killed in a motorcycle accident two weeks before the Conquest fight and replaced with a harder punching impostor. SOLVED.

Rumour has it, the imposter is Ovill's evil, power punching twin Bovril. The plot thickens..........

[palooka]

The plot thickens brilliant

[Dan Dares]

He's got a frightening dig and has a chance against anyone.

Really, lets examine the evidence of the hyperbole above.

His KO percentage is just over 50% in his wins, in his overall fight record, it's well below 50% - so he does not have a 'frightening dig' based on pure stats. People with frightening digs - name them - have a KO percentage well over 70-80% - even more, that is who posses 'frightening digs'.

He is a puncher at domestic level but his punch power has not been proven in true world class - true he floored Bellew who is fringe
world class and he prematurely stopped (thought he did genuinely hurt) an Enzo Maccrinelli who was a good 5 years past his prime - that
does not mean he has a chance against anyone - it isn't true what you are saying - but this is the standard this forum is going towards.

He will probably get his chance because there are 4 world title belts. He is as deserving on the fact there are four different rankings and seem that anyone can get a shot these days but he has yet to meet someone who is genuine worldclass - so what you have said (and I am being kind) is complete hyperbole.

He's got frightening dig, and he's got a chance against anyone. That's an opinion. I don't give a shite about yer poxy stats, which you obviously pour over.

I base opinions on what I've actually seen at the gym, and at ringside. He punches very hard indeed. He's got a chance against anyone. Your saying he hasn't? How do you know?

"it isn't true what your saying" - How the f**k do you know? It's know-all's like you that make this forum tedious.

[palooka]

I like Ovill, he's good entertainment and if he got a couple of good wins at European level it'd be nice if he got a big money shot. He does hit very hard and hard enough for world class men to know about it but I doubt Huck, Lebedev or Afolabi would be knocked out. A bout between Ovill and Ola would be a real bombs away affair.