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

[Smashgar]

Originally Posted by Sugar Nick

You can ONLY HAVE A KO IN A FIGHT THAT YOU WON!

You would have won if you had scored a KO.

[qwert]

Obviously your KO% includes losses/draws. You didn't get the KO, so your KO% is reduced. I don't understand why there should any debate about this.

[Vidic]

No, not at all, the KO ratio is the amount of boxers you have knocked out

Not the amount that youve knocked out out of those you have beaten

[lufcrazy]

The Ts don't make sense.

I mean doing it his way Ross purrity is suddenly a huge power puncher as opposed to a journey man.

[IntentionalButt]

Originally Posted by Sugar Nick

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

If he's a puncher, he will be knocking people out instead of losing to them.

The system works as is.

[dangerousity]

I agree with op. KO % is suppose to help determine how big a puncher someone is. If someone has 100% KO wins but only 50% wins, you will list him down as 50% KO. Doesn't sound like a big puncher, truth is he's a huge puncher, just cant box for shit.

Earnie Shavers according to boxrec has 77% KO ratio, pretty good but nothing amazing for the biggest HW puncher of all time. That's because he lost 14 times, truth is the guy has a 92% KO ratio in wins. The latter determines that he's a big puncher, a KO puncher.

[critix]

Let's assume someone has 1 victory by KO and 9 losses, then he would have a 100% KO %... that would be misleading and people would think he's a huge puncher

[cuchulain]

There's nothing wrong with listing both percentages.

However, the more significant stat is KOs/total fights.

[IntentionalButt]

Originally Posted by cuchulain

There's nothing wrong with listing both percentages.

However, the more significant stat is KOs/total fights.

Kayos out of total wins is a thoroughly meaningless statistic. There isn't ever a need to extrapolate it.

Someone who pads themselves up on their local regional circuit to 10-0 (8.) only to be exposed upon stepping up and becomes a stepping stone en route to a 10-18 record...has a KO% of 28% that accurately reflects their power.

Deeming them an 80% KO wright (by the other proposed method) is foolish.

Said person could be completely feather fisted (and eight stoppages in 28 contests does generally suggest just that), but fed enough bums early on to appear otherwise on paper.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by IntentionalButt

Kayos out of total wins is a thoroughly meaningless statistic. There isn't ever a need to extrapolate it.

Someone who pads themselves up on their local regional circuit to 10-0 (8.) only to be exposed upon stepping up and becomes a stepping stone en route to a 10-18 record...has a KO% of 28% that accurately reflects their power.

Deeming them an 80% KO wright (by the other proposed method) is foolish.

Said person could be completely feather fisted (and eight stoppages in 28 contests does generally suggest just that), but fed enough bums early on to appear otherwise on paper.

Well put IB

[cuchulain]

Originally Posted by IntentionalButt

Kayos out of total wins is a thoroughly meaningless statistic. There isn't ever a need to extrapolate it.

Someone who pads themselves up on their local regional circuit to 10-0 (8.) only to be exposed upon stepping up and becomes a stepping stone en route to a 10-18 record...has a KO% of 28% that accurately reflects their power.

Deeming them an 80% KO wright (by the other proposed method) is foolish.

Said person could be completely feather fisted (and eight stoppages in 28 contests does generally suggest just that), but fed enough bums early on to appear otherwise on paper.

Agree with some of this, hence my second sentence.

However, so long as the true KO %age is presented, (KOs/Total fights), there's nothing wrong with analysing the fighters means of victory in those fights where he did prevail.

[dyna]

Only NC and DQ (Maybe technical draw) shouldn't be counted towards KO ratio.
Because NC and DQ are most of the time out the fighter his reach

[IntentionalButt]

Originally Posted by cuchulain

Agree with some of this, hence my second sentence.

However, so long as the true KO %age is presented, (KOs/Total fights), there's nothing wrong with analysing the fighters means of victory in those fights where he did prevail.

Nothing lost, but nothing gained.

[IntentionalButt]

Originally Posted by dyna

Only NC and DQ (Maybe technical draw) shouldn't be counted towards KO ratio.
Because NC and DQ are most of the time out the fighter his reach

Yeah, but if it's a DQ in the last minute of the 12th...you still had eleven and a half rounds to knock your opponent out but didn't.

Likewise, an NC after 9 due to an accidental foul...you had eight and change to secure a KO but didn't.

If you're going to go down that road, then technical decisions ought not to count towards KO percentage either...where does it end?

[Steven.Jackson]

40-2 40KOs is not the same as 40-0 40KOs