BoxRec

When a fighters knockout percent is listed dont u think the percent should be taken from his total wins and not his total fights?

for instance a fighter has

50 fights 20 wins 30 loses 20 wins by ko (100%) based on wins

50 fights 20 wins 30 loses 20 wins by ko on total fights ko percent would be 40%

what do u guys think?

reason ive brought this up is 40% ko rate wouldnt provide the true stats of a fighter, who clearly has won all his winning fights by ko

Or am i just being boring and no1 is really bothered haha

Matt Teague wrote:When a fighters knockout percent is listed dont u think the percent should be taken from his total wins and not his total fights?

for instance a fighter has

50 fights 20 wins 30 loses 20 wins by ko (100%) based on wins

50 fights 20 wins 30 loses 20 wins by ko on total fights ko percent would be 40%

what do u guys think?

reason ive brought this up is 40% ko rate wouldnt provide the true stats of a fighter, who clearly has won all his winning fights by ko

Or am i just being boring and no1 is really bothered haha

I agree actually. Although when you look at a fighter like Oville Mckenzie for instance, the number of knockouts he has in relation to wins isnt a true representation of his punching power anyway imo.

Having BOTH %'s would be interesting though for different reasons...

I can see what you mean
Ovil is listed at approx 27% ko rate... as apposed to 45% if it was listed on wins

which is more accurate really

this guy for instance, im sure would agree with my thoughts


http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

Matt Teague wrote:this guy for instance, im sure would agree with my thoughts


http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

Ha ha that guy has got to be one of the most feather fisted boxers ever known to mankind!

leftysreturn wrote:

Matt Teague wrote:this guy for instance, im sure would agree with my thoughts


http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

Ha ha that guy has got to be one of the most feather fisted boxers ever known to mankind!

He was rumoured as a JMM opponent not long ago...personally Khan should be begging for a fight, he can sell it as "I'm fighting a guy who hasn't been beat in 45 fights!"

Garcia was very heavy handed and sure of his power Saturday night; going in his record was 23 wins with 14 KOs; he was a more assured an accomplished puncher than the stats.

i agree with what ur saying, but do u see my point? Knockout percent should be based on win total.... Not fight total

Apropos nothing really, Mosley has an incredible KO % if you take it just on his wins.

orbtastic wrote:Apropos nothing really, Mosley has an incredible KO % if you take it just on his wins.

Apropos? Mosley is a puncher though. Nobody has done to Margarito the demolition job he did on him.

I agree Matt, the KO percentage can be used in debates the wrong way. I remember debating with a yank about some of the power punchers Ali faced and he kept saying how Cooper had a poor KO percentage.... if you take his 14 losses to the record also, it is pretty poor... but take away those and its over 60%.

leftysreturn wrote:

orbtastic wrote:Apropos nothing really, Mosley has an incredible KO % if you take it just on his wins.

Apropos? Mosley is a puncher though. Nobody has done to Margarito the demolition job he did on him.

Just means - regarding or about.

The overall point is just a bit of an odd one really.

It's like saying if you discount all the races someone finished outside the top 3, they have a high % of finishing races in the top 3.

It's just skewing statistics.

The overall stat should show the KO ability - Let's face it, Mosley couldn't drop the hammer on the 8 guys he lost to, so that has to count against his KO percentage.

orbtastic wrote:

leftysreturn wrote:

orbtastic wrote:Apropos nothing really, Mosley has an incredible KO % if you take it just on his wins.

Apropos? Mosley is a puncher though. Nobody has done to Margarito the demolition job he did on him.

Just means - regarding or about.

The overall point is just a bit of an odd one really.

It's like saying if you discount all the races someone finished outside the top 3, they have a high % of finishing races in the top 3.

It's just skewing statistics.

The overall stat should show the KO ability - Let's face it, Mosley couldn't drop the hammer on the 8 guys he lost to, so that has to count against his KO percentage.

Yeah i can understand that argument to be fair. Boxing KO percentages are strange anyway I think because you have guys that are legitimate punchers but their records dont really reflect that ie Ovil Mckenzie. To the contrary you have guys with a high KO percentage who you can tell arent really punchers as such but they wear guys down, etc or they have just faced poor opposition.

To me, Boxrec should use the system that Hugman used from way back in the day - RSC, CO etc.

I've never liked the US way of measuring all stoppage wins as KOs, which a lot of them are usually cuts or referee stoppages. It's a nonsense.

Guys like Jackson, Olivares, McClellan, Hearns, Foreman et al are bone fide one punch hitters. They put people to sleep. Lots of COs or KOs on their records.

Ernie Shavers had real scary one hit power, a lot of his wins are genuine KOs but his chin and lack of stamina usually let him down, particularly late on in fights so his overall "KO" % is comparatively low in direct reference to his power...It's daft though, the WBC released some press guff last year about how they were recognising Vitali's huge KO power by him officially being the highest KO % on record in history etc. He can hit, obviously, but he's more of a wear them down late type hitter.

(I realise that boxrec differentiate between TKO and KO - They just don't when it comes to calculating the KO% - You could be anal and say that the KO% should reflect KOs, not TKOs etc).

orbtastic wrote:To me, Boxrec should use the system that Hugman used from way back in the day - RSC, CO etc.

I've never liked the US way of measuring all stoppage wins as KOs, which a lot of them are usually cuts or referee stoppages. It's a nonsense.

Guys like Jackson, Olivares, McClellan, Hearns, Foreman et al are bone fide one punch hitters. They put people to sleep. Lots of COs or KOs on their records.

Ernie Shavers had real scary one hit power, a lot of his wins are genuine KOs but his chin and lack of stamina usually let him down, particularly late on in fights so his overall "KO" % is comparatively low in direct reference to his power...It's daft though, the WBC released some press guff last year about how they were recognising Vitali's huge KO power by him officially being the highest KO % on record in history etc. He can hit, obviously, but he's more of a wear them down late type hitter.

You might like this highlight vid mate, Jackson at his destructive best! Jackson alongside Shavers was the best puncher in boxing history because quite a lot of Jacksons KO's were to the extent to where the guy was out cold before he hit the deck! Now thats punching power! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kyi57mKkVs

I abhor all talk of KO percentage, compubox & all other abominations that try to turn boxing into a modern mainstream US media spectacle (Jim Lampley, made-up title belts, stupid fuckin' computer game graphics telling me where the hypothetical punches counted by two twats with an Xbox controller apparently "landed").

Or rather, I hate it when such things are talked about as if they have any weight behind them, as if they matter one iota outside the mediasphere. They do not. They are tedious ephemera designed to hypnotise the unwary, shoddy tinsel that, when legitimised by knowledgeable fans (for instance, when debating the correct way a certain bit of tinsel should be interpreted) reduce everyone's IQ by about a hundred & twenty-five points, & serves to hasten the coming apocalypse.

Not that I can be arsed to give an example, but look at the Klitschkos. Which one of them has the greater KO percentage, again? & which one of them pecks & pokes like a giant arm-punching girl, & which one of them has a straight right that could put a hole in a wall?

Ammunition for commentators to spout off about in the twenty seconds they're not telling us anecdotes about someone's mum or how giving up masturbation has doubled one guy's focus & commitment to the sport, & have about as much use as that bloody annoying electronic ticker-tape & all the picture-in-picture drivel that spreads like a cancer across the face of "news" coverage.

None of it bears any resemblance to boxing as it happens in consensus reality. None of it matters one iota,& it is actually damaging because when people attempt to soundbite & simplify something difficult to understand at the best of times, then we get fake controversies based on punch-counts, the media using any fvcking angle it can to show the sport in a sensationalist light, & morons all across the world going "Well, this bloke has a higher KO percentage, I certainly think he's a harder hitter than Julian Jackson", as if a made-up statistic with no real world relevance can possibly substitute for actual observed knowledge.

I'm sorry. Not aimed at anyone but those bastards who make all this shit up & paste it across the TV screen. Pet peeve of mine.

I think I have about 67.21% of his bouts on tape (little statistical humour for you there)

Outside Hearns and McCallum, he is probably my favourite overseas fighter.

He could hit with either hand, I really don't know how he did it. A lot of his punches weren't winged, but quite compact and hooked. He scored a lot of KOs with the left hook.

Datsue wrote:I abhor all talk of KO percentage, compubox & all other abominations that try to turn boxing into a modern mainstream US media spectacle (Jim Lampley, made-up title belts, stupid fuckin' computer game graphics telling me where the hypothetical punches counted by two twats with an Xbox controller apparently "landed").

Or rather, I hate it when such things are talked about as if they have any weight behind them, as if they matter one iota outside the mediasphere. They do not. They are tedious ephemera designed to hypnotise the unwary, shoddy tinsel that, when legitimised by knowledgeable fans (for instance, when debating the correct way a certain bit of tinsel should be interpreted) reduce everyone's IQ by about a hundred & twenty-five points, & serves to hasten the coming apocalypse.

Not that I can be arsed to give an example, but look at the Klitschkos. Which one of them has the greater KO percentage, again? & which one of them pecks & pokes like a giant arm-punching girl, & which one of them has a straight right that could put a hole in a wall?

Ammunition for commentators to spout off about in the twenty seconds they're not telling us anecdotes about someone's mum or how giving up masturbation has doubled one guy's focus & commitment to the sport, & have about as much use as that bloody annoying electronic ticker-tape & all the picture-in-picture drivel that spreads like a cancer across the face of "news" coverage.

None of it bears any resemblance to boxing as it happens in consensus reality. None of it matters one iota,& it is actually damaging because when people attempt to soundbite & simplify something difficult to understand at the best of times, then we get fake controversies based on punch-counts, the media using any fvcking angle it can to show the sport in a sensationalist light, & morons all across the world going "Well, this bloke has a higher KO percentage, I certainly think he's a harder hitter than Julian Jackson", as if a made-up statistic with no real world relevance can possibly substitute for actual observed knowledge.

I'm sorry. Not aimed at anyone but those bastards who make all this shit up & paste it across the TV screen. Pet peeve of mine.

you make a fair and concise point!

Although now I've got that off my chest, actually orb that's a really good idea about specifying count-outs & stuff. Farhood said years ago there's nothing less real & useful than a boxing statistic in all of sports, but there's nothing more definitive & real than a boxing knock-out in all of sports...

I too preferred the more specific Hugman-tastic method of record-keeping. At least once you've got down what actually bloody happened with some degree of accuracy, I agree you can then extrapolate from that.

It's all the attempts to extrapolate from bullshit or smoke & mirrors that annoy me.

orbtastic wrote:I think I have about 67.21% of his bouts on tape (little statistical humour for you there)
.

He could hit with either hand, I really don't know how he did it..

orbtastic wrote:I think I have about 67.21% of his bouts on tape (little statistical humour for you there)

Outside Hearns and McCallum, he is probably my favourite overseas fighter.

He could hit with either hand, I really don't know how he did it. A lot of his punches weren't winged, but quite compact and hooked. He scored a lot of KOs with the left hook.

Going off topic for a sec, who do you think was a bigger puncher out of Hearns and Mclellan Orb?

Tough one. I have to edge slightly with Hearns, as he knocked out or stopped bigger guys and he came up from 147. Hearns also consistently fought tougher comp. He struggled a bit as he got older, but then so did Jackson.

Hagler said that that right hand Hearns hit him with is the single biggest punch he's ever been hit with.

watching Hearns smash Virgil Hill's face up with his feckin jab is the clincher for me, there.