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

[Mr Objecitivity]

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!

[Mr Objecitivity]

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)?

[Mr Objecitivity]

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!

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.

[Mr Objecitivity]

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?

[Zaryu]

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.

[Zaryu]

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.

[Marchegiano]

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)?

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.

[Marchegiano]

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.

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.

[Jewish-Reptile]

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.

[FinitoxDinamita]

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.