Is KO% a reliable indicator of a fighters power?

A high KO% would suggest the boxer has good power, but there will of course be exceptions.
Calzaghe's power was a lot better earlier in his career. I would say Calzaghe hits harder for a SMW than Byrd did for a heavyweight.

 

It is the difference between proof and a piece of interpretable evidence, I think.

 

3 cherry picked examples as your sample isn't really sufficient to make your case.

 

No.
But there are different definitions of "power". It doesn't matter how hard a fighter hits, if he's not winning fights with his hard punches you could say he's got no power.

 

It isn't because a large portion of fights are early career builders in 4, 6 and 8 rounders. Gauging anything from distance fights this short is meaningless.

 

These days up-and-coming prospects are gifted so many stoppages it's impossible to compare with the days when they used to let the fighters fight.

 

No.

Jimmy McLarnin is a prime example. He didn't have many KOs at all. But when you look at the names on his record the reason becomes very clear.

Having great power doesn't mean you have the ability to use it to maximum effect. You can have good power and not be a good finisher.

Everyone who saw or fought middleweight contender Oscar Rankins gave testimony to his crushing power. The fight reports reveal that he floored and hurt practically everybody he hit. He just wasn't that good at finishing them off once he had them hurt, so he has a low KO percentage. Same goes with former middleweight champion George Chip, a brutal puncher.

Oscar Bonavena had excellent power and his record shows many KOs. But if you look closely, it is revealed that once he begins fighting the upper echelon fighters in the division his KO percentage plummets. Off the top of my head I cannot think of a single top heavy that he stopped, even though he hurt and floored several of them. The Karl Mildenberger fight is a perfect example as to why I don't consider Bonavena to be a great puncher despite his great power. He floored and hurt the German so many times, but couldn't close the deal and stop him. He was a great finisher against fringe contenders and journeymen. But once into the upper ranks he showed an inability to get the job done.

 

KO % per se might be meaningless,

but KO % against RATED opposition gives, I thiink, a good guage of power.

 

It is one ingredient in a stew that requires many. And not every stew is the same, as well!

It could be an indication of class. Fighting a lower level of opposition would certainly raise the K.O% of any fighter. In this case, the K.O% against top opposition could be scrutinized to determine if this is where the facts become apparant.

But Floyd Mayweather and Pernell Whitaker have outclassed opponents whom they did not K.O. They compete to win the fight convincingly, but don't look for the K.O when they have the advantage. This is a mental and tactical difference. Some fighters would be better off taking less chances, like Sergio Martinez vs Chavez recently came dangerously close to losing a match he had swept the first 11(!) rounds in. This would never happen to Whitaker and Mayweather. They fight with the philosophy that accomplishing the K.O win is not worth the risk it involves.

Some fighters, like Calzaghe, do not fight with this safety-first approach. Confident in their chin and recuperative abilities, they keep up aggression even when they could coast out the match. His lack of K.O wins against top opposition was not for lack of trying.

...I ran out of time! Old windbag that I am.

My point would have been that power is only one part of K.O%, and in varying degrees, next to delivery system, chin, aggression, finishing ability, etc. Some fighters possess a combination of these traits (for any one of them to be exceptionally high it becomes a weapon) that makes the K.O more attainable.

 

It's not good enough to say 'Boxer A has a high KO% therefore he has exceptional power and Boxer B has a low % therefore he has poor power'

But that doesn't mean it should be disregarded entirely, it is still a good indicator of what someone's power should be.

Just picking three boxers like you did isn't enough to say it is nonsense. If you randomly select 100 boxers with high KO% and 100 with low, the high group will generally be the bigger punchers

 

Well of course, as a boxer is fighting better opponents their KO% will usually decrease.
So if you look at Abdusalamov who has 100%, and wlad 81%. The KO% is not a real indicator of their power because the level of their opponents is so different.
But it is useful to indicate which of two boxers at similar stages in their careers is the more powerful.

For example to compare Bryant Jennings to Abdusalamov, is a much more appropriate use, they have fought a similar level of opponents and one has a much higher %, so it would not be unfair to assume he has more power.

 

Not if they have been fed a diet of stiffs, or have a promoter who has paid their opponents to fall over it is not.

You need to judge level of competition alongside any fighters record to make an accurate assessment of their level, alongside of course watching them in action a number of times.

A high KO%, alongside a good level of competition, and you have a good indicator that the fighter carries some serious heat.