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

Bottom line is that numbers will never tell the full story. People obsessing over them are usually not fans of the sport but individuals. I've said many times that a boxer is defined by WHO he fought. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

:good

 

Each fight is factored into the KO % because each fight represents a % probability that a fighter will knock his opponent out (this is what the KO% actually is). Therefore, all fights are taken into account. Even the losses, because they were still fights that contained some probability that the opponent would get KO'd, regardless of the fact that they lost.

It is entirely appropriate for them to use a ratio against all fights (wins and losses) when determining KO %.

It wouldn't make sense otherwise. If that were the case, you'd have to have an * denoting the fact that the KO% is out of the fighters wins.

Which wouldn't make sense or at least is kind of meaningless when leading up to a fight.

Lets say a garbage fighter with a record of 2 wins 50 losses and 2 knockouts... He doesn't have a KO% of 100%... lol....No, he has a KO% of 2 divided by 52 (total fights), which would be a KO% of all his fights at .04% KO%.


I hope that made sense.


:bbb

 

Very well put.

 

Get a life dude.