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

[Johnny2x2x]

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.

[Zaryu]

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.

[Marchegiano]

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.

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.

[Zaryu]

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.

[Mr Objecitivity]

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 ****o 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.

[LetOutTheCage]

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

[Verbalk]

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.

[Marchegiano]

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 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:

Take those statistic you laid out, add some more, build a profile and ****o jango you have equations telling you who would win rather than your senses.

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.

Forgive me I see no argument here.

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:

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.

Is very silly. It's irrelevant to how they deliver their power not the existence of or potential of the power....silly boy.

Secondly, where is the actual proof Rocky Marciano can punch with that much force?

I'm surprised you're unaware. It's a very famous study done by the US Army.

Thirdly, where is the actual proof that no human has the durability to absorb that much force, without getting knocked out / incapacitated?

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.

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.

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.

[REDEEMER]

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

Those guys defeated Shavers though. Holmes said Shavers hit harder then Tyson but he defeated Shavers and Tyson barely hit Holmes in 4 rounds.

[LetOutTheCage]

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