Is KO percentage overrated when it comes to evaluating a boxer's punching power?

I don't feel like you read my post. Are you sure this was meant for me? Didn't click the wrong fella with a similar message? I'll give you an example: So you see....not much for me to say really. I could ask you what you think you're arguing about but outside of that....this is semantics and what you take issue with can be attributed to word choice because my paragraph and your paragraph have the exact same point. I'd say the last bit on the paragraph: Is very silly. It's irrelevant to how they deliver their power not the existence of or potential of the power....silly boy. I'm surprised you're unaware. It's a very famous study done by the US Army. Basic physics and kinesiology? Bubba that's about equal to a .44 or low end .50 at the muzzle. Ask your doctor how much energy it takes to break bones and he'll waffle with some piss poor explanation about different people having different densities. That's true, but the variances are from like 10 joules to 30 joules. If you ask him ok, but is 1254 joules of energy enough to consider deadly for all men? He will tell you yes. There is variance and so answers to questions like "how much energy to kill a man" are not easy to give, but, there are limits and 925ft-lbs or 1254 Joules far exceeds them. When finding out Marciano had a 925ft-lbs punch the question is not can men take that energy it is how does Marciano deliver that energy without injuring himself? Kinematic chains is the answer but that's another tale. Seems in support of the first paragraph. Even with more details I do not see how or why you think this is in anyway counter intuitive to my point. Raw maximum punching power is irrelevant ALONE when judging a boxer's knockout ability. Power, combined with offensive skills are what is relevant. Offensive skills such as speed, accuracy, timing, angles, positioning and etc. So yes, raw power is ONLY relevant if combined with the complete offensive skill set. Yes, I'm aware of those studies. But where is the actual proof that Marciano can punch with that much force? What measuring instrument was used? How many times did he punch with that much force? Were there any faulty readings? These are the questions that have to be asked to determine the reliability of that study. You're speculating heavily here! It's entirely possible that the most durable boxers like Mariusz Wach and Oliver McCall possess the durability to take Marciano's best punches (he can possibly deliver safely and practically). My point was, the boxer who outperforms another boxer in MORE stats in a particular area, that boxer is better in that area. For example, if boxer A has a higher KO percentage than boxer B, but boxer b has knocked out more top 10 ranked opponents, more previously undefeated opponents, more previously UN-KO'ed opponents and etc. Then I'd infer boxer B to be the better knockout puncher / knockout artist. Since he outperforms boxer A in more stats whilst boxer A only outperforms boxer B in only one stat (knockout percentage). If you agree with this argument of mine, then that's good! It mean we're both in the same page! I just mentioned that argument again to further elaborate my point for clarity purposes.

Those guys defeated Shavers though. Holmes said Shavers hit harder then Tyson but he defeated Shavers and Tyson barely hit Holmes in 4 rounds. So what? Ali beat both Foreman and Shavers and he took enough shots to make a fair judgement

Yeah he's more of an accumulative puncher. He definitely hits reasonably hard and can KO guys with poor chins like Williams, Hide, Johnson etc but at the top level his power wasn't outstanding. He just hit you a lot and hit you with good accuracy and that will break down anyone over the course of a fight. I think he resorted to punching at arm's length after he had his rotator cuff injury, at least that's what i read. When he punched at shorter distance and went through with it, he usually hurt the opponent. Sanders in Rd5, Briggs in #7 etc. Apparently he was trying to protect his shoulder from further damage. Agree with your post though, he could wear anyone down with time and was a very strong guy himself. Amazing chin.

No it can be a very deceptive stat, George Foreman had a higher KO percentage than Shavers, most people who fought both said shavers was the much harder hitter. Both had power though. Duran was heavy handed but you wouldn't think so given his KO percentage. Obviously that doesnt factor in how far he went up in weight from his natural weight. Even Mayweather was heavy-handed at his natural weight

I don't know what you would assume that. My point was numbers remove feelings. Other relative numbers are other relative numbers. I spoke directly about the energy in Marciano's punch in another post on this thread because I feel like that number is more directly relative to the question than KO% but each has its place. If the question was probability of KO rather than indication of power the KO% might mean more but presently when asking how hard does a man hit I do believe the best answer is a figure. How much energy is in Marciano's punch is 925ft-lbs.....seems to follow to me. So no, I don't mean to say KO% is the most important stat. And no, I don't mean to say resume is pointless just that it expresses human bias. Take those statistic you laid out, add some more, build a profile and bango jango you have equations telling you who would win rather than your senses. Listen, I'm not even saying numbers are more correct. All I am saying is they remove human bias and so have an importance. I'll give you an example where the answer is clearly yes regardless of which direction you take it. Does Marciano possess the power to KO Khan? You can tell me all about who Khan's been dropped by and who Rock has KO'd and you wouldn't be wrong. or You can simply look at Marciano's punch stat and know no human can simply eat that energy output. Either way the clear answer is Marciano has the power to KO Khan. Neither path is wrong, but one expresses bias while the other simple speaks in stats. Either way, the only way Amir doesn't go to canvas is if Rock doesn't connect right? Because Rocky Marciano no matter how you cut it landing flush and clean KO's Amir Khan. Or if you don't like that how about one where the number is actually wrong? Povetkin prior to Joshua had never lost to an unbeaten fighter. If you do not take into account he only ever fought 3, and focus on the length of his career by the number of times an unbeaten fighter has beaten him you'd get a good chance that Josh wouldn't be whooping Pov. You'd also be a damn moron. Numbers can lead folk astray just as easily as a silver tongued youtuber, but, they can not express any bias and any time you want to express something without using your own senses it is what all human fall back to. Firstly, punching power / force ALONE is irrelevant in boxing. Punching power, combined with other offensive attributes such as speed, accuracy, timing, angles and etc. is when it becomes relevant. So how much power someone can hit a stationary object with all the time in the world, is irrelevant when judging a boxer's punching power. Secondly, where is the actual proof Rocky Marciano can punch with that much force? Thirdly, where is the actual proof that no human has the durability to absorb that much force, without getting knocked out / incapacitated? As for the reliability of numbers / stats. I never use a single stat like KO percentage to arrive at my conclusion. Which is why a single stat can very well be misleading and may very well not provide the full picture. Hence, the solution is to use as many stats as possible to arrive at my conclusion. If a boxer has a higher KO percentage, but has KO'ed fewer unbeaten opponents, fewer previously UN-KO'ed opponents, fewer top 10 ranked opponents and fewer durable opponents with proven chins against other power punchers, then that boxer, despite having a higher KO percentage, would be considered a less powerful puncher than the other boxer because the other boxer has him beat in MORE areas.

I see, that is a fine conclusion but it wasn't my intention to imply anything else is lesser just that KO % has its place as much as any other bit of evidence. Outside of actually measuring a man's power we have evidence to suggest conclusions and little else. I don't think any bit of evidence is over or underrated. They all serve their purpose perfectly. Ok, that's fair, I let the other posts influence they way I read yours, but everything you've said makes sense to me.

Of course it is. Youse use power colloquially rather than scientifically. I don't know if you actually mean power, force, or energy. There is no more empirical evidence for punching power regardless of what you mean by power than measuring it. You can tell all the tales you like and justify whatever you want in very nice packages that make a ton of sense but to know how hard any man hits you'd need to measure their punch no differently than you would any other projectile. Explain to me how Marciano's resume better details his energy output than his actual energy output? How hard does Marciano hit? 925ft-lbs, nearly as powerful as a .50 cal at the muzzle - no range. How hard does Marciano hit? Hard enough to KO Louis, Walcott, Charles, and Moore. Both are fine and true answers but only one actually tells you how hard Marciano hit. Well, I agree with this response, but not to the one I quoted you on initially. You said ko % is not overrated because, being a number, it reduces emotion. Well yeah, but it still doesn't have the right metrics to justify all the conclusions fans come to based solely on this number.

No. Most elite boxers have a very high KO% early in their careers but it goes down when they start stepping up the level of competition. Good fighters don’t get KOed easily. So when a fighter steps up has a lot to do with their KO%. Were they fighting championship level guys in their 15th fight? Then they probably don’t have a good KO%. We’re they fighting bums into their 35th fight? That fighter will have a great KO%. There is no easy way to judge power. You have to look at each fighter and make a judgement of who they are KOing, how they are KOing them, and then there’s a purely subjective aspect of it too.

KO percentage isnt end all to gauging one’s power. Kendall Holt for instance.. his KO percentage is pretty low similiar to Lamont Peterson but we all know his punching power is lethal. Kendall Holt has lights out power but his percentage says otherwise.

Certainly is you just need to gauge a guy like Joshua and Fury against a common opponent like Kevin Johnson or a guy like Chagaev and Fury both against Pianeta to know who has feather fists and who hasn’t.

It's a decent indication but you have to see who they KO'ed if you fought Amir Khan 100 times you'd have a 100% KO ratio but that doesn't mean you hit harder than a guy with a lower KO percentage but who KO'ed a bunch of iron chinned warriors. Plus a fighters style also has to be taken into consideration. Eubank Sr could hit every hard with single shots, dropped iron chinned Collins for example, ended Watson's career with one punch, but usually he didn't do enough, wasn't a good finisher or very good on the front foot so didn't stop as many guys as he should have with his kind of power. Sure but you would need the ability to land the knock out punches. Are we going to say Maidana doesn't punch hard because he didn't stop Khan? Because Broner has shown a pretty strong beard and I think he would disagree.

No. It's for showing no bias. Gross oversimplification. Competition alone crumbles your argument, plus you have to take into account other empirical evidence of punching power like hurting, dazzing, wobbling and even knocking down opponents, without scoring the knock out. Pacquiao is a classic exanple of this. People used to rave about him not scoring a KO (before Mathysse) since 2008/2009, but he's basically hurt or stunned pretty much all of his opponents at welterweight at some point, so there's obviously still power in his punches, which would lead to other reasons, aside from not having power anymore, as the root cause for him scoring less knockouts at 147.

Numbers don’t lie. There are multiple 'numbers' that come in play, when judging a boxer's knockout power / capability. Knockout percentage isn't the only 'number' that exists. How about the 'number' of unbeaten opponents a boxer KO'ed? How about the number of previously UN-KO'ed opponents a boxer KO'ed? How about the number of top 10 opponents a boxer KO'ed? How about the number of opponents a boxer KO'ed, that had proven durability based on fighting other power punchers without getting KO'ed before? You see, knockout percentage is only a very small aspect of someone's knockout potential. Now I ask you, why should knockout percentage, be seen as more important / valued more than those other numbers I mentioned that are related to a boxer's knockout capability?

Absolutely, all the factors you mentioned are usually overlooked, plus, the fact that people forget scoring knockouts is a skill. You need the ability to punch hard, land your punches (accurately), and, also usually, you need decent finishing skills. There's a specific fan base who thinks skills = only the ability to get hit less, counter punch, or stick and move... all of these are very important skills, but knocking people out is a skill too! :boxing: Very true! Offensive abilities (being able to land effective punches accurately and with good timing), requires just as much skill, if not more compared to defensive abilities (ability to avoid punches). In fact, an argument can be made that offensive abilities require more skills than defensive abilities. Since, out of two boxers, it's impossible for either boxer to win a boxing bout, if both boxers are being 100% defensive without any offense whatsoever (not throwing any punches) for the entire bout. However, it's possible for one boxer to win a boxing bout, if both boxer are 100% focused on offense and throwing punches, with 0% focus / attempts on defense to avoid punches. If two boxers are trading punches and neither are avoiding any punches from their opponent, then the more accurate puncher with better timing would win, assuming both have equal punching power.

No. It's for showing no bias. So how about the NUMBER of knockouts against previously undefeated opponents? How about the NUMBER of knockouts against previously UN-KO'ed opponents? How about the NUMBER of knockouts against top 10 ranked opponents (at the time of bout)? How about the NUMBER of knockouts against common opponents that other top punchers faced, but failed to KO or KO'ed less brutally / convincingly? Don't those above numbers I've just mentioned, also show 'no bias'? Could you explain, why knockout percentage has greater importance or precedence over those other number I've mentioned (assuming that's what you believe)?

No one would say knock out percentage alone determines punching power so I don't get the point you're trying to make in this post A lot of people actually do!

I mean, knockout percentage ALONE doesn't take into consideration the following things: 1) Quality of opposition (ranking of opponent) 2) Durability of opposition - Were the opponents previously UN-KO'ed or undefeated. Or, did the opponents previously face other power punchers without getting knocked out. 3) Type of stoppages - Clean KO, or referee stoppage or premature stoppage. Someone may have a higher KO percentage than someone else, but that doesn't necessarily prove they are the more powerful puncher. For example, Luis Ortiz has a higher KO percentage than Alexander Povetkin. However, does that mean he is the more powerful puncher? Not NECESSARILY! When we look at the other stats, such as knockouts (especially clean knockouts) against previously UN-KO'ed opponents, Povetkin has Ortiz beat. Plus, Povetkin's knockout victim on average, was higher ranked at the time, than Ortiz's knockout victim. Absolutely, all the factors you mentioned are usually overlooked, plus, the fact that people forget scoring knockouts is a skill. You need the ability to punch hard, land your punches (accurately), and, also usually, you need decent finishing skills. There's a specific fan base who thinks skills = only the ability to get hit less, counter punch, or stick and move... all of these are very important skills, but knocking people out is a skill too! :boxing:

Level of opposition is definitely something to consider, Thurman was blowing people away until his opposition level went up. Since then he had to dance. But some people just have freakish power (Case in point Wilder).

I mean, knockout percentage ALONE doesn't take into consideration the following things: 1) Quality of opposition (ranking of opponent) 2) Durability of opposition - Were the opponents previously UN-KO'ed or undefeated. Or, did the opponents previously face other power punchers without getting knocked out. 3) Type of stoppages - Clean KO, or referee stoppage or premature stoppage. Someone may have a higher KO percentage than someone else, but that doesn't necessarily prove they are the more powerful puncher. For example, Luis Ortiz has a higher KO percentage than Alexander Povetkin. However, does that mean he is the more powerful puncher? Not NECESSARILY! When we look at the other stats, such as knockouts (especially clean knockouts) against previously UN-KO'ed opponents, Povetkin has Ortiz beat. Plus, Povetkin's knockout victim on average, was higher ranked at the time, than Ortiz's knockout victim. Numbers don’t lie.

Sometimes a guy punches harder but has less Ko's cause he's not a precise puncher. Take allow at those guys punching that bag that measures your power Leo Santa Cruz punched harder than Spence . Spence will knock you out do to precise punching or speed because you never seen the punch coming. While Santa Cruz just swings volume punches without hitting precise knock out points