Shouldn't KO% come from dividing KO's over wins?
 

Like on Boxrec they figure KO% by dividing your number of KO's over your entire fight record BUT you're obviously not gonna have a KO in a fight you lost! You can ONLY HAVE A KO IN A FIGHT THAT YOU WON!

KO% should be the % of wins you have via (T)KO not the % of (T)KO's you have over the course of wins and losses! Makes no sense!

For example Joe Louis KO% is listed as 75% but the true number of wins he has via KO is 78%

It has to be adjusted for everyone.

Re: Shouldn't KO% come from dividing KO's over wins?
 

Sam Langford really KO'd 71% of wins rather than 40% of fights.

You see what I mean?

Re: Shouldn't KO% come from dividing KO's over wins?
 

:think

You have a point. But I think they're trying to avoid the illusion that every time a fighter steps into a ring, there's a 70% chance (in your case) of a KO. I guess it's supposed to indicate their overall chances of scoring a stoppage, not the odds of scoring a knockout hidden within the odds of the fighter winning in the first place.

Re: Shouldn't KO% come from dividing KO's over wins?
 

Hmm...I dont know though. I prefer to know what % chance a man has to winy by stoppage. After you figure out if a guy is a puncher or not then you can figure out what his overall win % is and how good his chin is etc

Re: Shouldn't KO% come from dividing KO's over wins?
 

Don't you think it is stupid to not count the loss in the computation while if they knock the guy out it does? That's double standard. If you face the guy in the ring, you either knock them out or not. That's how you count it in terms of KO percentage.

Re: Shouldn't KO% come from dividing KO's over wins?
 

No because you can not have a KO but still win!

you cant get a KO if you lose but you can win without a KO.

Re: Shouldn't KO% come from dividing KO's over wins?
 

Your confusing % of win via KO and the chance of getting KO by a fighter.

If a fighter has a record of say 35-3-2 with 27 KO, that means he has a 67.5% chance of KOing you. 40 guys stepped in the ring and 27 got Koed. To get this number you have to factor in wins, draw, and loses.

Now lets look at wins % that were KO. His percentage of wins by KO would be 77%. Meaning if this boxer wins, the odds are 77% chance of it being a KO.

Re: Shouldn't KO% come from dividing KO's over wins?
 

Boxrec has it right.

Somebody who was 35-7 with 34 KO's doesn't deserve to have a 98% KO ratio or whatever, as that is more misleading. He didn't KO those 7 guys he lost to, so of course it should go against his KO ratio.

Re: Shouldn't KO% come from dividing KO's over wins?
 

Maybe they should include in the KO % the times that the boxer actually got knocked out themselves.

I.E. If a fighter was 10-2-0 and won all his fights by KO and lost his two fights by KO, then his KO % should be 100. That way i know whether the fight is lasting the distance.

Re: Shouldn't KO% come from dividing KO's over wins?
 

What I want to know about a fighter is what percentage of their wins were via stoppage as that is the real KO%

Re: Shouldn't KO% come from dividing KO's over wins?
 

No, because he had a chance to KO in a loss but he didn't.

So it should be both. Win or Loss.


So what

If my record is 10 fight, 9 Losses and 1 win VIA KO... U want a referee to introduce me as


Standing out in the record with an amazing 100% KO percantage with 1 win and 9 Losses, the devastating Hayemaker Hank!


? like no GTFO

Re: Shouldn't KO% come from dividing KO's over wins?
 

Never seen a guy who KO'ed another guy lose, oh wait, Manny versus.....

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSI-TnZD2LY[/ame]

Re: Shouldn't KO% come from dividing KO's over wins?
 

KO% has always been measured by total number of KOs against total number of fights. Like the others have said, if measured against only the total number of wins, it would be a misleading stat for boxers who have horrible records but all of their wins via KO.

Re: Shouldn't KO% come from dividing KO's over wins?
 

by not counting all the fights as a whole in the percentage its like saying you never fought that fight in the first place. Its a misleading double standard. I see what you mean, BUT not counting in losses and draws is like saying those fights dont count because you didnt ko a guy, when in reality, you had every chance they had to ko you as you did them as soon as you stepped in the ring; therefore, not counting in losses and draws is comparable to trying to calculate a GPA whilst neglecting to add in classes you got a C or below in--- it wont reflect what the reality is

Re: Shouldn't KO% come from dividing KO's over wins?
 

This.