Does any one know the percentage of underdog boxing winners in a given year?

[JULESLUPOWITZ]

The simplest and most accurate way

[JULESLUPOWITZ]

Repeat: the most accurate way, for a ratio of underdogs who win is the simplest way. Just take total number of bouts were there was a favorite, i.e. an underdog. Now divide the number of underdogs by the number of those total bouts. That’s it. Of course other statistics can be considered but that’s an overall bottom line which can be done over a period of many years. You can assume that’s most exact.

[buge]

There's a huge difference between a +120 underdog and a +1200 underdog.

If you're using this to bet, you should have specific ranges of underdogs (+120 thru +190, etc.) and review percentages within each.

[Teetotaler69]

I have a thread that people keep ducking where I list all of the high profile underdog upsets. It doesn't happen often: average two times a year.

Can we give it up for the UNDERDOGS a minute?

That list is terrible af. No context or any common sense

[Roadblock]

I'm not aware of anyone who's tracking THAT many fights to come up with any meaningful data, but if there is let me know where its at cuz I'd be curious to check it out myself.

I suspect you'd have to research it & compile the info yourself. Which would obviously be quite the task.

There would probably be a data base regarding betting somewhere, at a guess Id say its about 10-20% of non favorites that get up in competition, boxing is probably about the same, 10% in the big fights and 20% is the middle class fights.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

On a Top Rank card, it's probably zero.

I know they happen, though, and I always love them. Usually these fights are fixed with match-making but when it doesn't work out, it's hilarious. However, in the event of 50/50 fights, I'm very excited to see them. I just wish they happened more often. Boxing seems to avoid them in droves lately.

[ramplamp]

On a Top Rank card, it's probably zero.

I know they happen, though, and I always love them. Usually these fights are fixed with match-making but when it doesn't work out, it's hilarious. However, in the event of 50/50 fights, I'm very excited to see them. I just wish they happened more often. Boxing seems to avoid them in droves lately.

Good post. Top Rank always seems verrrry selective about who they match their guys with. They like to find guys with padded records who’ve never fought in the U.S. before, like a Miguel Marriaga type from some years back. They do some good in-house fights, but it’s mostly trash otherwise. You’d have to pay me to watch Shakur

[Combat Talk Radio]

That list is terrible af. No context or any common sense

The list is 100% accurate as to who won what fights and who was underdog when they did. So

[Toffee]

Repeat: the most accurate way, for a ratio of underdogs who win is the simplest way. Just take total number of bouts were there was a favorite, i.e. an underdog. Now divide the number of underdogs by the number of those total bouts. That’s it. Of course other statistics can be considered but that’s an overall bottom line which can be done over a period of many years. You can assume that’s most exact.

What? Have you fallen over recently?

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Good post. Top Rank always seems verrrry selective about who they match their guys with. They like to find guys with padded records who’ve never fought in the U.S. before, like a Miguel Marriaga type from some years back. They do some good in-house fights, but it’s mostly trash otherwise. You’d have to pay me to watch Shakur

Me, too, after last weekend's charade. Tim Bradley said flat-out that the guy was tailor-made for Shakur. And they still promoted the fight! Trash.