Bit of a morbid subject matter, I suppose, but something I've read previously is how fighters often lose their killer instinct after killing someone in the ring and I'd certainly heard this about Ezzard Charles after the Sam Baroudi fight and Emile Griffith after the third fight with Benny Paret. Sugar Ray Robinson, by contrast, despite being privately affected by killing Jimmy Doyle seemed to be unaffected by it in terms of his in-ring performances - at least as far as I'd read about it. So I decided to do a bit of quick fact checking of Charles, Griffith and Robinson's record, using KOs as the measure of their killer instinct to see how their records stacked up before killing an opponent and how their records compared after killing an opponent. I expected their to be a clear tail off for Charles and Griffith, whereas Robinson's I expected to be unaffected. Here's the breakdown: Ezzard Charles: • Before death (1940-48, including Sam Baroudi): 29 KOs in 54 wins (54%) • After death (1948-1959): 23 KOs in 41 wins (56%) Emile Griffith: • Before death (1958-1962, including Benny Paret): 9 KOs in 28 wins (32%) • After death (1962-1977): 14 KOs in 57 wins (25%) Sugar Ray Robinson: • Before death (1940-1947, including Jimmy Doyle): 54 KOs in 78 wins (69%) • After death (1947-1965): 55 KOs in 96 wins (57%) So Charles's KO percentage went up after Baroudi and Griffith's went down after Paret, although not by much. But Robinson's went down too. Robinson's can be reasonably explained. The 17 year period after Doyle died saw Robinson pass his prime and so his falling KO percentage could easily be attributed to that. The 12% dip is not that large when you are talking about 55 KOs in 96 wins - a very healthy number of KOs. I think this could reflect that Robinson's instincts were the same, just that his abilities were perhaps diminished. Griffith had a low KO percentage before the third Paret fight and a similarly low (albeit slightly lower one) after Paret. This could be explained by circumstances playing as much a part in Paret's death as concussive punching power (Paret being trapped against the ropes and ring post, the ref being clearly negligent, etc) and as fighter who tended to rely more on his skills than his power, differences in KO percentages don't necessarily tell us that much when it comes to Griffith. The real surprise for me was Charles, though. As already stated, I had read that the Baroudi death really ate him up and affected his ability to finish off opponents but if we look at his KOs and KO percentage after the Baroudi fight there is no significant difference - the KO percentage is actually slightly higher - and suggests a significant emphasis on his power and ability to finish after he fought Baroudi. It's more surprising still when you consider that Charles moved up to heavyweight over the following couple of years and he was also well past his peak for many of the final years of his career. So, what do you read into these stats? Do they reflect a loss (or otherwise) of killer instinct on the part of these fighters? And are KOs an accurate enough measure of killer instinct or are there other factors at play here that I haven't considered?
Yeah, Charles was distraught in person after Baroudi, but didn't seem to pull his punches after it. At all, actually. I once read that he described it as instinct. He hated it, but he had this beast in him which came out when he needed it. Apparently he sited the third fight with Moore, where he was about to be KOed and he felt something click and then he was hitting Moore with everything he had and Moore was being counted out. That doesn't sound like Charles, though, so I don't know how much I believe it. It's a pretty cool concept though. I do think Charles' power is serially underrated. He has multiple stoppages over ATGs, one of whom is if the highest order. After a move up to heavy, he showed good punching power against naturally bigger guys. He's got two of the sweetest KOs of all time on his leger, and when comparing with Moore, there's a lot of instances where Charles power seems more prevalent. And yeah - there's the Baroudi thing. If, like me, you think that kinda thing can work as showing of power.
Well, maybe... I chose the examples I did because they were famous ring deaths, the victors were all all-time greats and they all had different degrees of power and how they used that power. Robinson was a monster puncher by any standard, Charles could definitely bang and take someone out with one punch but also was a fine boxer and Griffith wasn't a great puncher (strong, of course, but not a power puncher) and it was an uncharacteristic power display from him against Paret, but as I say, circumstances had maybe as much to do with that one as Griffith's power.
I think there's a big issue with looking just at these stats, because often a lot charges as well. Their opposition can improve, the fighter can physically mature, or go into decline, the average length of the fight can change, they can be fighting at different weight classes. etc. etc. How you count losses or draws also messes up KO% either way you cut it IMO. They could be getting the same percent of wins are by KO, but they are losing and drawing more because they aren't getting the KOs, or they could be scoring less KOs as a % of their wins, because they are winning more decisions.
