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

[Rubber Ducky]

My thoughts exactly, vk has some of the highest ko% in the history of the division, by quantity.

Never thought of him as especially heavy handed.

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.

[REDEEMER]

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

The post indicates otherwise, many people are fooled by basing power on percentages alone

[REDEEMER]

The fights themselves would determine how hard a puncher hits ,over time opposition would have to be taken into account too and the time the bout took place because it would impact relevance.

Todays top popular punchers we take Joshua and Wilder. One hasn't knocked out many proven chins and lower tier opposition ,this is wilder. Joshua has k.o's or stopped better opposition and has a handful of guys never stopped , Whyte ,Breazeale, Johnson, Povetkin this would indicate this guy hits very hard if you then add up the other stoppages like Klitchko and Takam .

style would also play a major role, like is someone trying to intentionally get a knock out through one punch or set them up for one big punch,wear them out etc etc or just take it if it comes ? Theres many variables but the eye test and caliber of the fight itself usually doesn't lie. The percentage doesn't say how hard someone hits it does say they are hard hitters though.Wilder and Joshua are perfect examples of the thread ,wilder is known for one punch k.os but against who and Joshua likes to box skillfully and land that bomb just look at povetkin fight.

Edit : Whyte was able to floor parker and Joshua wasn't ,this was due to Whyte being more aggressive and landing more punches .This would indicate punch counts also come into play as Whyte doesn't hit like Joshua.

[Marchegiano]

The fights themselves would determine how hard a puncher hits ,over time opposition would have to be taken into account too and the time the bout took place because it would impact relevance.

Todays top popular punchers we take Joshua and Wilder. One hasn't knocked out many proven chins and lower tier opposition ,this is wilder. Joshua has k.o's or stopped better opposition and has a handful of guys never stopped , Whyte ,Breazeale, Johnson, Povetkin this would indicate this guy hits very hard if you then add up the other stoppages like Klitchko and Takam .

style would also play a major role, like is someone trying to intentionally get a knock out through one punch or set them up for one big punch,wear them out etc etc or just take it if it comes ? Theres many variables but the eye test and caliber of the fight itself usually doesn't lie. The percentage doesn't say how hard someone hits it does say they are hard hitters though.Wilder and Joshua are perfect examples of the thread ,wilder is known for one punch k.os but against who and Joshua likes to box skillfully and land that bomb just look at povetkin fight.

Edit : Whyte was able to floor parker and Joshua wasn't ,this was due to Whyte being more aggressive and landing more punches .This would indicate punch counts also come into play as Whyte doesn't hit like Joshua.

Sure, if your criteria is bias driven semantics not objectivity. Resume is used to draw a logical conclusion not an objective one.

I promise you this; there is no kinesiologist on the planet who is going to ask for a resume of names when plugging in stats for a man into an equation.

How much energy is in Marciano's punch can not be answered by watching Marciano bulldoze geezers.

How much energy is in Marciano's punch can't be found in a list of names.

How much energy is in Marciano's punch is 925ft-lbs. See that utter lack of resume answering the question with absolute certainty?

In regards to power, the way you all are using that word is colloquial and not scientific. Do you want to know about power, force, or energy? Maybe destruction? **** if I know. **** if I know if y'all know the difference too. However, a KO% at least gives you a probability statistic loosely relative to power whereas names do not give you diddle but confidence in your own logic.

[Luilun]

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

[abracada]

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.

[Ray*]

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).

[REDEEMER]

Sure, if your criteria is bias driven semantics not objectivity. Resume is used to draw a logical conclusion not an objective one.

I promise you this; there is no kinesiologist on the planet who is going to ask for a resume of names when plugging in stats for a man into an equation.

How much energy is in Marciano's punch can not be answered by watching Marciano bulldoze geezers.

How much energy is in Marciano's punch can't be found in a list of names.

How much energy is in Marciano's punch is 925ft-lbs. See that utter lack of resume answering the question with absolute certainty?

In regards to power, the way you all are using that word is colloquial and not scientific. Do you want to know about power, force, or energy? Maybe destruction? **** if I know. **** if I know if y'all know the difference too. However, a KO% at least gives you a probability statistic loosely relative to power whereas names do not give you diddle but confidence in your own logic.

Marciano wore 6 oz gloves very little padding and struggled bad at times to knockout guys weighed under a 200 pound mark so no by comparing today's fighters of 240 or so he would have less knockouts . You have to look at names because it gives an evaluation of quality. You don't want to do that and that's because we all know you're a Wilder crazy on here therefore it takes away from his percentage.

[Marchegiano]

Marciano wore 6 oz gloves very little padding and struggled bad at times to knockout guys weighed under a 200 pound mark so no by comparing today's fighters of 240 or so he would have less knockouts . You have to look at names because it gives an evaluation of quality. You don't want to do that and that's because we all know you're a Wilder crazy on here therefore it takes away from his percentage.

It is cute that you would assume a fella with the pseudonym Marchegiano and Marciano in his avatar talking about Marciano would need some external fandom or ulterior motive to bring up Marciano. Maybe you didn't realize that was his birth name, Marciano is a stage name. Either way, you're a silly child.

Outside of that, I feel like what I said already addresses everything you've said. I'm not sure what you expect me to say..... Now that you've laid out the details of how your logic justifies your bias I have seen the light?

No son, you've missed entirely. I didn't say you had to be wrong, I said you had to accept bias.

[Zaryu]

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!