View Full Version : KO %s


GJC
11-06-2011, 12:19 PM
Interesting statistic:


From 1925-1955 There were 173 world champions in the traditional 8 weight classes of those only 20 were able to achieve a 50% KO ratio.
As at March 2007 of the 60 (!) world champions at that time over the many weight divisions and alphabet sanctioning bodies, 46 achieved 50% KO ratios and 20 were even in the 70% range.

So there you have it guys, they hit harder now! :)
Or of course there are some seriously poor fighters out there who are being over matched to inflate fighters records.

I know what I think, thoughts?

Barn
11-06-2011, 12:30 PM
Interesting statistic:


From 1925-1955 There were 173 world champions in the traditional 8 weight classes of those only 20 were able to achieve a 50% KO ratio.
As at March 2007 of the 60 (!) world champions at that time over the many weight divisions and alphabet sanctioning bodies, 46 achieved 50% KO ratios and 20 were even in the 70% range.

So there you have it guys, they hit harder now! :)
Or of course there are some seriously poor fighters out there who are being over matched to inflate fighters records.

I know what I think, thoughts?
Smaller talent poor means less quality opposition and fights were stopped a lot later back then. Coupled with people doing a lot of 10 and 8 rounders inbetween title fights.

Ziggy Stardust
11-06-2011, 12:54 PM
Interesting statistic:


From 1925-1955 There were 173 world champions in the traditional 8 weight classes of those only 20 were able to achieve a 50% KO ratio.
As at March 2007 of the 60 (!) world champions at that time over the many weight divisions and alphabet sanctioning bodies, 46 achieved 50% KO ratios and 20 were even in the 70% range.

So there you have it guys, they hit harder now! :)
Or of course there are some seriously poor fighters out there who are being over matched to inflate fighters records.

I know what I think, thoughts?

Smaller talent poor means less quality opposition and fights were stopped a lot later back then. Coupled with people doing a lot of 10 and 8 rounders inbetween title fights.

Corner's also are more inclined to throw in the towel when their fighter is losing a lopsided fight now then they used to be. There's also much less stigma attached to a fighter quitting on his stool these days. Cut stoppages are much more frequent too. All of this inflates KO percentages. Top fighters today spending most of their careers being fed a steady stream of tomato cans contributes a hell of a lot to it as well.

Poet

New England
11-07-2011, 08:13 AM
some nice points brought up. we had a thread like this a while back i believe.

i believe the talent pool of the contenders (especially in the higher weight classes where knockouts are more common) is probably most responsible for it. high level journeyman and contenders are not always active and in shape


but i'll also add smelling salts
and the practice of being able to scrape a man off the canvas and carry him to his corner between rounds.

today a fighter has to get back to his corner unassisted
and of course there are no smelling salts.


also, fights are stopped on a dime now
they really are. i really dont have a problem with it if a guy has no hope. get him out of there and let him fight again in a few months.
especially in the UK. they stop fights fast.

Greatest1942
11-07-2011, 08:21 AM
Interesting statistic:


From 1925-1955 There were 173 world champions in the traditional 8 weight classes of those only 20 were able to achieve a 50% KO ratio.
As at March 2007 of the 60 (!) world champions at that time over the many weight divisions and alphabet sanctioning bodies, 46 achieved 50% KO ratios and 20 were even in the 70% range.

So there you have it guys, they hit harder now! :)
Or of course there are some seriously poor fighters out there who are being over matched to inflate fighters records.

I know what I think, thoughts?

Three things

1)It took an absolute mayhem to stop a match then...It takes much lesser to stop now.

2) The average journeymen were more experienced than now, and hence more able to defend themselves. Leave aside the contenders who actually had to fight their way through a division, and was sorely tested before they achieved there (mostly).

3) The top fighters rarely fight each other. The talent pool is also massively weak.

J.Dempsey
11-07-2011, 08:30 AM
all of the above, plus, i think technological/scientific advances in training methods, plyometrics, core training and diet has something to do with boxers nowadays punching harder..:boxing:

Marchegiano
11-07-2011, 12:02 PM
um, just compare TKO's of today to just being "a bit dazed" or "flat-footed" of yesteryear. They let less **** go. Plus compare how many guys are awake, but didn't make the 10 count to the number of guys not moving at all in yesteryear. Also, 80 psi on the knuckle cracks a skull. How many times has that happened in the last 50 years? Last major point. Check pre LPRR.....we haven't even come close to the KO% of James Figg. Our ancients are our greats. Never again will a man be 269-1. Never again will a samurai be 60-0. Our protection of human life has limited the potential for brutal killers to enter the sport. We won't ever touch those records because the type of man it takes to get them has been stifled by society......BTW James is 269-1. All pugilism ended in what we'd call a KO in his day.

KO%s are silly today. I don't understand calling punch drunk technically knocked out.

Cassius Liston
11-07-2011, 01:41 PM
Corner's also are more inclined to throw in the towel when their fighter is losing a lopsided fight now then they used to be. There's also much less stigma attached to a fighter quitting on his stool these days. Cut stoppages are much more frequent too. All of this inflates KO percentages. Top fighters today spending most of their careers being fed a steady stream of tomato cans contributes a hell of a lot to it as well.

Poet

end thread:drive:

GJC
11-07-2011, 04:03 PM
Some good points made personally I think that the tv insistance on the all powerful zero is leading to some pretty awful match making. I'm probably getting old and crotchety but I've seen fighters with 40-0 records with phenomenal KO records who frankly can't throw a punch IMO. La Motta has a terrible KO% and wasnt renowned as a puncher but I think had he fought over the last 20 years he look like a killer with careful handling. Can't remember the last time I saw a fighter put his shoulder and some weight behind a punch. As for technical advances drawing leads, countering, judging distance using footwork (not to be confused with speed) to me the sport is going backwards.

Scott9945
11-07-2011, 05:57 PM
Some good points made personally I think that the tv insistance on the all powerful zero is leading to some pretty awful match making. I'm probably getting old and crotchety but I've seen fighters with 40-0 records with phenomenal KO records who frankly can't throw a punch IMO. La Motta has a terrible KO% and wasnt renowned as a puncher but I think had he fought over the last 20 years he look like a killer with careful handling. Can't remember the last time I saw a fighter put his shoulder and some weight behind a punch. As for technical advances drawing leads, countering, judging distance using footwork (not to be confused with speed) to me the sport is going backwards.


Good comments. I think that Brandon Rios throws punches like you describe.

Greatest1942
11-07-2011, 06:07 PM
Some good points made personally I think that the tv insistance on the all powerful zero is leading to some pretty awful match making. I'm probably getting old and crotchety but I've seen fighters with 40-0 records with phenomenal KO records who frankly can't throw a punch IMO. La Motta has a terrible KO% and wasnt renowned as a puncher but I think had he fought over the last 20 years he look like a killer with careful handling. Can't remember the last time I saw a fighter put his shoulder and some weight behind a punch. As for technical advances drawing leads, countering, judging distance using footwork (not to be confused with speed) to me the sport is going backwards.

I agree feinting, parryying , counter punching seems a lost art now.

GJC
11-07-2011, 06:26 PM
Feinting?? I can't remember the last time I saw a fighter duck! How hard is it to duck?

GoogleMe
11-08-2011, 04:46 AM
We'll never know who hit harder. But the fighters back then fought with different gloves, and I promise you, the gloves we use today are like pillows compared to those back then.

Not saying that these 10oz won't hurt you - they will. Broken hands were more common back in the days, as there's alot more protection in todays gloves.

JAB5239
11-08-2011, 06:22 AM
We'll never know who hit harder. But the fighters back then fought with different gloves, and I promise you, the gloves we use today are like pillows compared to those back then.

Not saying that these 10oz won't hurt you - they will. Broken hands were more common back in the days, as there's alot more protection in todays gloves.

This was the reason for boxing gloves, to protect the hands, not the face. :fing02:

Marchegiano
11-08-2011, 08:00 AM
Feinting?? I can't remember the last time I saw a fighter duck! How hard is it to duck?

No ****ing ****. Listen, I'm too young to take a "back in my day" kind of stance, but when I was first introduced to boxing I was pretty unimpressed by what was being shown to me. Mid 90's had a bit more talent then now, but pretty much the same **** going on. Funny you mention Jake. The first time I saw Ray and Jake go was the day I became an honest to god boxing fan. The way Jake fought seemed so brutal, so much like a trained killer, and the way Ray handled him was just astonishing.

It's obvious no one's following old books left by the masters.

TBear
11-08-2011, 03:31 PM
Referee's are much quicker to stop fights today.

Also During 1925-1955 there was one champion and contenders had to fight each other to prove themselfs to get a title shot. Now you just send some money to a sanctioning body and if you don't lose too much you will get a title shot, this is a big factor in ko percentage.

GoogleMe
11-09-2011, 10:24 AM
This was the reason for boxing gloves, to protect the hands, not the face. :fing02:
Boy, are you kidding me? I'm not talking bare-knuckle fighting, I'm talking old school boxing gloves. The protection in them are WAY less than those we use today, but ok - a guy who haven't weared boxing gloves, would have no clue.

And yes, less protection for the knuckles, more damage to the opponents head aswell.