What is the most misleading stat in boxing?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by the_bigunit, Jan 28, 2013.


  1. the_bigunit

    the_bigunit Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,940
    19
    Nov 12, 2012
    Completely stole this from Yahoo Answers. But I thought it would make for some decent discussion.

    So what is the most misleading stat in boxing?
     
  2. eze

    eze Everybody Know Me Full Member

    45,885
    3
    Aug 7, 2004
    Take your pick. At one event they may hype up the 0, the other they focus on the titles...
     
  3. BlueBottle

    BlueBottle Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,268
    49
    Apr 23, 2010
    For me the stats on power punches. It seems any non-jab is considered a power and that is misleading when some boxers, in particular the inside fighter, is just throwing arm punches.
     
  4. eze

    eze Everybody Know Me Full Member

    45,885
    3
    Aug 7, 2004
    Yup.

    Anything besides a jab is a power punch.

    But also the fact punch stats landed are very mis leading. I use them mostly for how many punches thrown.

    You can somewhat use them for how many a fighter missed, if he was only counted for landing less than 10% of his punches.

    Ex. Tarver vs Jones Rounds 3-6. Tarver was registered as throwing only 25 "power punches" and landing only 4 if I remember correctly.
     
  5. ripcity

    ripcity Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,449
    51
    Dec 5, 2006
    I think it's ko%. Joe Calzaghe had a ko% of 69.57. I don't think anyone would have called him a power puncher or ko artist. Timothy Bradley has a 40%. Would anyone call him feather fisted?
     
  6. BlueBottle

    BlueBottle Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,268
    49
    Apr 23, 2010
    Do you know if blocked punches are considered land punches?
     
  7. megavolt

    megavolt Constantly Shadowboxing Full Member

    13,622
    34
    Dec 25, 2009
    Lederman's scorecard
     
  8. Vantage_West

    Vantage_West ヒップホップ·プロデューサー Full Member

    20,834
    608
    Jul 11, 2006
    of course. bradley has been called a weak puncher....which is fine. it doesnt matter to a point. he has some pop on some of his punches and makes up the lack of weight behind them with another punch following the one before.

    calzaghe is pretty much a guy who just puts his opponants in trouble and doesnt aloow them to get out. will they get koed? no, will joe tire out before they get stopped? yes. but he put his act down to a tee. it makes refs stop the fight.


    but yeah, ko percentages is useless and makes no refrence to competition.



    not long ago there was a spanish light heavy/cruiser called david quinonnero. 27 wins 26ko's
    look at him on youtube. clearly not a big puncher just under matched and a good engine wears down the sluggish unready journeymen.
     
  9. Vantage_West

    Vantage_West ヒップホップ·プロデューサー Full Member

    20,834
    608
    Jul 11, 2006
    tch, ok jim
     
  10. SouthpawJab

    SouthpawJab On his way up!! 4-0!! Full Member

    8,781
    20
    May 26, 2011
  11. Boxing Fanatic

    Boxing Fanatic Loyal Member banned

    48,204
    9
    Sep 16, 2008
    0 to me. if u got an 0 its most likely because u avoid tough fights to protect it
     
  12. Nonito Smoak

    Nonito Smoak Ioka>Lomo, sorry my dudes Full Member

    53,088
    6,686
    Sep 8, 2010
    Titles, by a country mile.

    It's 2013. It has been a long time since titles ever meant anything. They are literally pointless as far as how accomplished a fighter is. Only good for marketing on fight posters and commercials.
     
  13. blackbolt396

    blackbolt396 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,146
    653
    Feb 13, 2012
  14. Vantage_West

    Vantage_West ヒップホップ·プロデューサー Full Member

    20,834
    608
    Jul 11, 2006
    the ko percentage has been a relatively new sort of statistic to use in boxing. if it's amount of koes then yeah. but percentage was only adopted by boxrec to get a new trend. now they are splayed all over the forums as facts. completly ignore tough opponants or big hitters who never got the chance to catch there man.

    personally it has to be the big 'O' on the record. because it implys being unbeatable as if you are a new tyson or something that is ready to take over the world. it inflates the rankings with untested overvalued young fighters who would benefit stiffer fights at a younger age to win the big one instead of losing at a hurdle and being thrown off the conveyor belt.

    a loss should not be a backward step only an example of character.
     
  15. dodong

    dodong >>PACQUIAO Full Member

    28,160
    32
    Apr 14, 2007
    +1