Underrated Power on this forum ..

The ko ratio proves nothing it's just an unimportant information. The ko victims' quality is much more important.

 

Ko ratio definitely says a lot if the guy continues to hurt or ko ranked opponents as they step up in competition. Everyone said Wilder has only fought bums and that he'd be exposed when he stepped up but did you ever see anyone just walk through wilder's punches and show him no respect??? In his case his ko% is a very good indicator of just how hard he hits!

Similarly, i have never seen a guy who had for example, a 25% ko ratio being praised as a hard hitter by his opponents or sparring partners. Thats even more obvious. If you have 50 wins but only 8 kos its pretty damn obvious you lack punching power.

Ko percentages arent the end all be all, but combined with the devastating effects their blows have on their opponents and the testimony of those theyve fought, its usually a pretty good indicator.

 

Thought so.

 

Yes Butler was a big puncher,thats why Lewis took no chances with him.

 

How about crappy heavyweights with no assets but big power?

This content is protected

 

Two real big heavyweight bangers...

This content is protected

 

You're going be pretty beat up after a fight with Hagler. He was very heavy handed.

 

Ko percentage has some probative value but I think the eyeball test, though highly imperfect, is still the best way to assess punching power.

 

"eyeball test" is too vague. How do you define it and what do you look for? I need specifics.

I could literally write a 5 page essay explaining why Tim Bradley actually hit hard if we ignore ko%/opponent testimonies/etc and just use this vague "eyeball test" method.

 

The eyeball test is pretty straightforward. You look at the impact of a boxer’s punches on his opponents and judge accordingly. Only works if you know what you’re looking at though.

Ko percentage is way too noisy and unreliable a measure to stand on its own. It reflects the quality and durability of one’s opponents, one’s speed and ability to deliver punches when his opponents don’t see them coming, stamina, etc.

 

Im only being meticulous because im sick of people going back and forth over the same things every year with no consensus.

What "things" are you looking for when watching power punches?

You mentioned judging the impact of a boxers punches on his opponent. What happens if a boxer is like tim Duncan and is very good at keeping a poker face and later admits he was more hurt than he looked? What if he even says he was hurt in fight #1 than he was in fight #2 where it might have looked as though he was more visibly hurt? Do we just ignore his statement?

Whats the difference between a "good" puncher and a "great" puncher?

Who do you rank higher: a guy with incredible power but horrible finishing ability or a guy with average power but incredible finishing ability?

What happens when a supposedly much harder puncher (boxer A) fails to KO boxer B and boxer C was able to KO boxer B? How much of it is a matter of "styles make fights" and do you ever think to go back to the drawing board and question your original estimation of boxer A's power?.

How do you judge power if a boxer for example had 30 fights, 30 kos but only kod 1 (or 0) top ten opponent but the other guy has 30 fights 13 kos but he kod 9 top ten opponents--a 100% ko ratio vs a 43% ko ratio. Who would you say hits harder?

What about comparing different eras? Like in old eras guys weighed less but were often in better shape, fought 15 rounds, often had better defense and speed to be able to avoid punches? Why do some people consider it more impressive to stop a big plodding behemoth who lacks defense/head movement just because hes heavier? (Im giving extreme examples to make a point, obviously there are modern big guys with good defense and stamina and old school guys who lacked speed and defense).

What if you determine that a boxer is "feather fisted" but then they do something crazy like knockout a guy whose known for having a granite chin and is the only one to ko him?

 

There's no way around that. We'll never have a consensus. I've started threads on this in the past too.

Are we only comparing the single hardest punch each guy can throw? What if one fighter throws harder jabs and rights, but the other guy has a much harder hook? What if one power puncher loads up and throws his whole body into his punches while another gets similar results with far less windup?


If you're looking for some scientifically valid way to precisely measure and rank every boxer's punching power, across weight classes and eras, it's a fool's errand.

By the way, most of the things you just mentioned further demonstrate why ko ratios aren't especially useful.

I look and listen for the impact of the blows. I think it's generally pretty easy to tell when someone has truly elite punching power, even if they're not the most skilled boxers. Their punches land with a snap or a thud that most boxers lack, and the impact on opponents is usually pretty obvious. Conversely, guys who regularly land big punches flush on their opponents without really stunning them tend to have less punching power.

And yeah, I tend to ignore boxers' statements, which are also notoriously unreliable--especially when they don't seen consistent with the footage or any other evidence.

I assume you're just referring to punching power here? Seems like a subjective distinction. IMO guys with great punching power can basically end, or at least change, a fight any time they land a flush power punch, even in the early rounds. They don't have to wear you down or batter you first.

This seems like a different topic but ok. I think punching power is overrated but I think finishing ability is mostly fictitious (at least the way people discuss it in this forum). So that's a tough one. I'd say I rank the guy who is more successful higher.

I would need to see them so that I could use the eye test.


QUOTE="Glass City Cobra, post: 19623286, member: 115843"] What about comparing different eras? Like in old eras guys weighed less but were often in better shape, fought 15 rounds, often had better defense and speed to be able to avoid punches? Why do some people consider it more impressive to stop a big plodding behemoth who lacks defense/head movement just because hes heavier? (Im giving extreme examples to make a point, obviously there are modern big guys with good defense and stamina and old school guys who lacked speed and defense).

What if you determine that a boxer is "feather fisted" but then they do something crazy like knockout a guy whose known for having a granite chin and is the only one to ko him? [/QUOTE]

These things vary from fighter to fighter. I'd need to use the eye test to give you a more specific answer.

Re: the featherfisted guy-- could be a fluke or a fix but my take would depend on the eye test.

 

I'd say Benitez.

El Radar had a lot more power than he gets credit for. He's almost discussed like he was in the same power tier as Whitaker and Floyd, but Benitez was a far more dangerous puncher than either of those guys.

 

I doubt it. For example Lennox Lewis' ko percentage isn't outstanding but i think he had the most powerful right hand ever and i can bring lots of case when the ko % fools the sport fans. The ko percentage never was a scientific objective and exact indicator and it isn't an official information. Or another problem the ko percentage can't show the difference between the prime and the not prime power the
best example Ruddock. I doubt the very old or the skinny version Ruddock's punching power is comparable with the Tyson or Smith version.


Otherwise i don't know Wilders' punching power but i have doubts considering he's incredible skinny. I think his kos are based on
the opponents poor quality and weak chin. Fury was his only one good opponent and he couldn't destroy his fat opponent .
Moreover Fury's chin looks suspect considering his Pajkic and Cunningham fights.

 

I cringe at how often i see people scoring fights without the sound so as to not be influenced by the commentary. The sound of the blows is rather important, well certainly imo.