KO ratio (percentage)

[lookingaround87]

Why has the KO% changed from being the % of KOs in all of a boxer's career whether he wins/loses/draws, to only being measured based on how many KOs he has in his wins? It now makes boxers' power seem greater than it is and is therefore inaccurate. If a boxer has 10 wins and 5 of those wins are by KO, the KO% will say 50%, but he could have 10 losses (and no draws), which would mean his actual KO% is 25%. I don't see how this change makes any sense and is an upgrade for the website. Any explanation?

[damage]

So one win, one ko would be 100% but could have 20 losses.

[wouter]

The traditional way to list KO percentage has always been as a percentage of the number of wins. The percentage gives info about the fighter's style and how depending he is upon his punch to win a fight. Likewise, it is more telling that all of a fighter's losses have been by knockout, than to list that a fighter has been knocked out in X percent of all of his bouts.

[jwfg]

So one win, one ko would be 100% but could have 20 losses.

You can't knock someone out if you lose the fight?

[lookingaround87]

So one win, one ko would be 100% but could have 20 losses.

Exactly. It's an absurd statistic when you put it like that. The stat is rendered completely useless. It gives the impression a fighter is a big puncher when in reality his KO% would be 5% if he has 21 fights and only won 1 by KO.

The traditional way to list KO percentage has always been as a percentage of the number of wins. The percentage gives info about the fighter's style and how depending he is upon his punch to win a fight. Likewise, it is more telling that all of a fighter's losses have been by knockout, than to list that a fighter has been knocked out in X percent of all of his bouts.

Then have both stats. The main KO statistic I think most people want is the overall KO% of a boxer's entire career.

[wouter]

The main KO statistic I think most people want is the overall KO% of a boxer's entire career.

If you divide the number of knockouts by the total amount of fights, you already have the info yourself. I don't think anyone should care too much for stats.

[damage]

So one win, one ko would be 100% but could have 20 losses.

You can't knock someone out if you lose the fight?

???

[jwfg]

So one win, one ko would be 100% but could have 20 losses.

You can't knock someone out if you lose the fight?

???

???

[Controversial]

Why has the KO% changed from being the % of KOs in all of a boxer's career whether he wins/loses/draws, to only being measured based on how many KOs he has in his wins? It now makes boxers' power seem greater than it is and is therefore inaccurate. If a boxer has 10 wins and 5 of those wins are by KO, the KO% will say 50%, but he could have 10 losses (and no draws), which would mean his actual KO% is 25%. I don't see how this change makes any sense and is an upgrade for the website. Any explanation?

So one win, one ko would be 100% but could have 20 losses.

Makes sense to me, why would you count losses and draws in someones KO percentage? So yes one fight, one KO is 100%, it's irrelevant how many losses they have because KO's relates to the amount of fights they WON by KO, not lost.

[margaret thatcher]

i have seen it calculated both ways, in recent years more often as total fights.

clearly in reality there are legit arguments on both sides. sometimes a guy loses because he cant dent an opponent, in which case a loss is relevant to his power and ko ability. other times he's got great power but loses cuz he just cant land. his ko rate will drop despite the loss not being a power issue.

[margaret thatcher]

you could count losses and draws because you obviously couldnt ko the the guy in those cases

'you cant knock someone out if you lose the fight' - > well you wouldnt have lost if you ko'd the guy

like i said though it goes both ways. and someone can quickly tell either way just by looking at the record anyway

[lookingaround87]

Why has the KO% changed from being the % of KOs in all of a boxer's career whether he wins/loses/draws, to only being measured based on how many KOs he has in his wins? It now makes boxers' power seem greater than it is and is therefore inaccurate. If a boxer has 10 wins and 5 of those wins are by KO, the KO% will say 50%, but he could have 10 losses (and no draws), which would mean his actual KO% is 25%. I don't see how this change makes any sense and is an upgrade for the website. Any explanation?

So one win, one ko would be 100% but could have 20 losses.

Makes sense to me, why would you count losses and draws in someones KO percentage? So yes one fight, one KO is 100%, it's irrelevant how many losses they have because KO's relates to the amount of fights they WON by KO, not lost.

Because he failed to knock the person out in the losses/draws, which is no different from going to a decision which you win. How can you not understand that? lol

[Controversial]

Why has the KO% changed from being the % of KOs in all of a boxer's career whether he wins/loses/draws, to only being measured based on how many KOs he has in his wins? It now makes boxers' power seem greater than it is and is therefore inaccurate. If a boxer has 10 wins and 5 of those wins are by KO, the KO% will say 50%, but he could have 10 losses (and no draws), which would mean his actual KO% is 25%. I don't see how this change makes any sense and is an upgrade for the website. Any explanation?

So one win, one ko would be 100% but could have 20 losses.

Makes sense to me, why would you count losses and draws in someones KO percentage? So yes one fight, one KO is 100%, it's irrelevant how many losses they have because KO's relates to the amount of fights they WON by KO, not lost.

Because he failed to knock the person out in the losses/draws, which is no different from going to a decision which you win. How can you not understand that? lol

I understand the other way of doing it and I get the theory behind it but for me it makes more sense to exclude losses/draws. The KO number when talking about a fighters record refers to his win column e.g. Mike Tyson 50 wins (44KOS) so the percentage makes sense to refer to that win/KO ratio. You wouldn't refer to Mike Tysons record as a total number of all his fights including losses i.e. 58 total fights (44KOS) so why work the KO % out that way.

[pugilis]

I just notice this recently too. If I understand this correctly a boxer that wins their first 5 bouts all by KO, then looses 20 more in a row, still has a KO rating of 100%?.

That really seems to be easily misunderstood to me.

I think the % of KO wins of total bouts fought is much more informative at a glance.

That said, I'm grateful to find the clarification here because I have been wondering about that.

[lookingaround87]

I just notice this recently too. If I understand this correctly a boxer that wins their first 5 bouts all by KO, then looses 20 more in a row, still has a KO rating of 100%?.

That really seems to be easily misunderstood to me.

I think the % of KO wins of total bouts fought is much more informative at a glance.

That said, I'm grateful to find the clarification here because I have been wondering about that.

It's a completely nonsensical way of looking at KOs and means nothing now. You could potentially find a boxer who's had 101 fights, won one of them by KO and lost the other 100 and his record will read 100% KO ratio. It's totally meaningless.

[Controversial]

I just notice this recently too. If I understand this correctly a boxer that wins their first 5 bouts all by KO, then looses 20 more in a row, still has a KO rating of 100%?.

That really seems to be easily misunderstood to me.

I think the % of KO wins of total bouts fought is much more informative at a glance.

That said, I'm grateful to find the clarification here because I have been wondering about that.

Because knockout percentages relate to how many fights someone has WON by KO. Not how many fights they lost.
In other words when you list a fighters record the KO number is linked to their win column i.e. 20 wins (10kos) so the percentage is based on that. You don't include how many times they lost in that number.

[Heldenjaeger]

They way knockouts are listed is completely incorrect. They listed KO to win percentage as "KOs".

Well, just saying "KOs" would refer to a number of knockouts, not a percentage, be it total percentage or to win percentage so it's incorrect either way.

You could say it's just a small detail or technicality but to me it is disappointing as "the official record keeper for 410 sports authorities worldwide". It's so easy to change, too, but apparently they just don't know better. Just like boxers with more than one citizenship, there is only one listed on a profile.

[Controversial]

They way knockouts are listed is completely incorrect. They listed KO to win percentage as "KOs".

Well, just saying "KOs" would refer to a number of knockouts, not a percentage, be it total percentage or to win percentage so it's incorrect either way.

You could say it's just a small detail or technicality but to me it is disappointing as "the official record keeper for 410 sports authorities worldwide". It's so easy to change, too, but apparently they just don't know better. Just like boxers with more than one citizenship, there is only one listed on a profile.

The term KO is misleading anyway as someone getting stopped on their feet is classed as a KO even though they haven't been counted out.

I can see an argument for either way but as it's done now makes more sense to me.

Using football (soccer) as an example. Say we are collating stats on how successful someone is taking penalties and free kicks. They might have taken 20 penalties and scored 20 times therefore have a 100% penalty success rate. But they may have taken 100 free kicks and never scored a single goal. If they are then stepping up to take another penalty I would say they have a 100% success rate, I wouldn't think of it as 120 set pieces (20 goals). So same analogy for me. When we talk about Mike Tyson most people say 50 wins (44KOs). Not 58 total fights (44KOS)

[Heldenjaeger]

The term KO is misleading anyway as someone getting stopped on their feet is classed as a KO even though they haven't been counted out.

I can see an argument for either way but as it's done now makes more sense to me.

Using football (soccer) as an example. Say we are collating stats on how successful someone is taking penalties and free kicks. They might have taken 20 penalties and scored 20 times therefore have a 100% penalty success rate. But they may have taken 100 free kicks and never scored a single goal. If they are then stepping up to take another penalty I would say they have a 100% success rate, I wouldn't think they've only scored 20 goals including 100 free kicks as well. So same analogy for me. When we talk about Mike Tyson most people say 50 wins (44KOs). Not 58 total fights (44KOS)

Knockout percentage: knockouts/total fights*100
Knockout to win percentage: knockouts/wins*100

Whatever makes more sense is a matter of opinion but writing "KOs" and then 50 % (just an example) is not correct. It should say "KO to win percentage" or "KO to win in %".

When you write "KOs" you should write the number of KOs like in the top of the profile, not a number and then "%". I'd expect boxrec to clearly say what they mean and not use incorrect terminology.

[Controversial]

The term KO is misleading anyway as someone getting stopped on their feet is classed as a KO even though they haven't been counted out.

I can see an argument for either way but as it's done now makes more sense to me.

Using football (soccer) as an example. Say we are collating stats on how successful someone is taking penalties and free kicks. They might have taken 20 penalties and scored 20 times therefore have a 100% penalty success rate. But they may have taken 100 free kicks and never scored a single goal. If they are then stepping up to take another penalty I would say they have a 100% success rate, I wouldn't think they've only scored 20 goals including 100 free kicks as well. So same analogy for me. When we talk about Mike Tyson most people say 50 wins (44KOs). Not 58 total fights (44KOS)

Knockout percentage: knockouts/total fights*100
Knockout to win percentage: knockouts/wins*100

Whatever makes more sense is a matter of opinion but writing "KOs" and then 50 % (just an example) is not correct. It should say "KO to win percentage" or "KO to win in %".

When you write "KOs" you should write the number of KOs like in the top of the profile, not a number and then "%". I'd expect boxrec to clearly say what they mean and not use incorrect terminology.

KO win percentage clearer I agree

[Heldenjaeger]

It’s actually getting a bit embarrassing at this point that this still hasn’t been fixed, because it’s no longer just a nerdy forum debate — it’s actively confusing people in the real world.

The issue is simple: BoxRec labels a percentage as “KOs” when it is clearly KO-to-win percentage, not total KO percentage. That’s not a matter of opinion, it’s just incorrect terminology. “KOs” is a count. Once you attach a “%”, you have to define what it’s a percentage of. Right now that’s not being done properly.

And you can see the consequences already. Recently, Daniel Dubois was asked by a reporter about other fighters’ KO percentages, and George Foreman was brought up as having “89% in 81 fights.” That is flat-out wrong. 89% is Foreman’s KO-to-win ratio (68 KOs in 76 wins), not his KO percentage across 81 total fights. But because the stat is commonly mislabeled and repeated without understanding, it gets presented as something it isn’t.

That’s exactly the kind of confusion people here have been pointing out for years.

The frustrating part is how easy this would be to fix:

Either label it correctly as “KO-to-win %”
Or display both stats (KO/wins and KO/total fights)

Instead, we have a stat that looks official, gets quoted publicly, and leads to objectively false statements.

This isn’t some complex database overhaul — it’s literally a wording issue that could be corrected in seconds. But as long as it stays like this, people will keep misunderstanding it and repeating inaccurate numbers as facts.

[gilgamesh]

It’s actually getting a bit embarrassing at this point that this still hasn’t been fixed, because it’s no longer just a nerdy forum debate — it’s actively confusing people in the real world.

The issue is simple: BoxRec labels a percentage as “KOs” when it is clearly KO-to-win percentage, not total KO percentage. That’s not a matter of opinion, it’s just incorrect terminology. “KOs” is a count. Once you attach a “%”, you have to define what it’s a percentage of. Right now that’s not being done properly.

And you can see the consequences already. Recently, Daniel Dubois was asked by a reporter about other fighters’ KO percentages, and George Foreman was brought up as having “89% in 81 fights.” That is flat-out wrong. 89% is Foreman’s KO-to-win ratio (68 KOs in 76 wins), not his KO percentage across 81 total fights. But because the stat is commonly mislabeled and repeated without understanding, it gets presented as something it isn’t.

That’s exactly the kind of confusion people here have been pointing out for years.

The frustrating part is how easy this would be to fix:

Either label it correctly as “KO-to-win %”
Or display both stats (KO/wins and KO/total fights)

Instead, we have a stat that looks official, gets quoted publicly, and leads to objectively false statements.

This isn’t some complex database overhaul — it’s literally a wording issue that could be corrected in seconds. But as long as it stays like this, people will keep misunderstanding it and repeating inaccurate numbers as facts.

KO-to-win %

I like that. Even if Boxrec doesn't start using that, I will personally because you're correct that it's more accurate terminology to use.

[SteveO]

Then have both stats. The main KO statistic I think most people want is the overall KO% of a boxer's entire career.

That's how I look at it

[fifth_root]

There is reason in showing both the total KO percentage (rate) and the KO-to-win percentage (ratio). Take a fighter with 10 fights, winning 5 of them via KO and losing the rest. So in one case, he will be 50% KO, but in the other, he will be 100%. Rather, show both on BoxRec, as they show different things, and the fighter looks different.