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

[Manning]

No. Tbh this is probably about the 3rd worst idea proposed on ESB.

[dyna]

Originally Posted by IntentionalButt

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?

With green I agree with you that it should count towards KO ratio.

Blue: there is still time enough time to secure a KO, so shouldn't be.


Yellow: It's pretty easy to draw a line with DQ and NC not counting unless in the 12th round.

[FrochFan]

I like to multiply Total KOs by KO%. This way hacks like Deontay wilder dont pollute the all-time list. A guy with 5 fights, 5 kos doesnt get ranked over Joe Louis.




1. Foreman (68kos * 83%) = 57!
2. Joe Louis(57 KOs * 79%)= 45!
3. Wladimir Klitschko (50 kos * 80%)= 40!
4. Rocky Marciano (43kos * 87%)= 37!
5. Vitali Klitschko (41kos * 87%)= 35!

Deontay Wilder (26kos * 100%)= 26!

[IntentionalButt]

Originally Posted by FrochFan

I like to multiply Total KOs by KO%. This way hacks like Deontay wilder dont pollute the all-time list. A guy with 5 fights, 5 kos doesnt get ranked over Joe Louis.




1. Foreman (68kos * 83%) = 57!
2. Joe Louis(57 KOs * 79%)= 45!
3. Wladimir Klitschko (50 kos * 80%)= 40!
4. Rocky Marciano (43kos * 87%)= 37!
5. Vitali Klitschko (41kos * 87%)= 35!

Deontay Wilder (26kos * 100%)= 26!

WTF.

[Big Left]

so you think that if a guy is 1-100 but won his 1 fight by KO he should be listed as having a 100% KO ratio?

[richie leon]

This shit isn't rocket science. A KO percentage is supposed to represent how often you got the guys in front of you out of there inside the distance. If you lost, you didn't get the guy out of there, plain and simple, end of story.

[Manning]

Originally Posted by IntentionalButt

WTF.

[ame="***********.youtube.com/watch?v=2ypHjXPae_E"]***********.youtube.com/watch?v=2ypHjXPae_E[/ame]

His post reminded me of this. From the 1.00 min mark.

[Smashgar]

Originally Posted by FrochFan

I like to multiply Total KOs by KO%. This way hacks like Deontay wilder dont pollute the all-time list. A guy with 5 fights, 5 kos doesnt get ranked over Joe Louis.




1. Foreman (68kos * 83%) = 57!
2. Joe Louis(57 KOs * 79%)= 45!
3. Wladimir Klitschko (50 kos * 80%)= 40!
4. Rocky Marciano (43kos * 87%)= 37!
5. Vitali Klitschko (41kos * 87%)= 35!

Deontay Wilder (26kos * 100%)= 26!

Yeah but come on, Butterbean was like 50-2 with 48 KOs or some shit like that at one point. At the end of the day, statistics can't reflect quality if someone is willing to pad their record hard enough.

[markq]

Originally Posted by Sugar Nick

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.

So I could fight 100 guys and only win 1 fight by KO and I would have a 100% KO rate against my opponents? Sweet!

[cuchulain]

Originally Posted by IntentionalButt

Nothing lost, but nothing gained.

Not entirely true.

Again, the significant stat here is the true KO %.

However, the stat proposed by the OP might tell us something about the fighter.


Let's say a fighter was 40-10-0 with 40 KOs, we might conclude that he was not a very skilled pugilist, but had a helluva punch.

If I were fighting such a guy, I might want to box with him rather than brawl.


Point is, any information whatsoever, properly interpreted, can be of some use or interest.

[steviebruno]

Originally Posted by cuchulain

Let's say a fighter was 40-10-0 with 40 KOs, we might conclude that he was not a very skilled pugilist, but had a helluva punch.

Just not enough of a punch to KO the ten guys that beat him.

[Sugar Nick]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yeah I think you're one of the few who understand what I'm getting at.

[Sugar Nick]

Originally Posted by cuchulain

Not entirely true.

Again, the significant stat here is the true KO %.

However, the stat proposed by the OP might tell us something about the fighter.


Let's say a fighter was 40-10-0 with 40 KOs, we might conclude that he was not a very skilled pugilist, but had a helluva punch.

If I were fighting such a guy, I might want to box with him rather than brawl.


Point is, any information whatsoever, properly interpreted, can be of some use or interest.

[steviebruno]

Is a guy 40-10 with 40 kos really more powerful than someone who's 50-0 with 40 kos?

[Hermit]

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

Then do the math yourself if that is the figure YOU want. You are simply wrong in the overall concepts of the math and how it is applied. Your method simply inflates the numbers.