FYI - Accurately Calculating One's KO Percentage

i guess that makes sence. hence what I said about edder. he had a good ko ratio but a wretched record

Barrack Obama wrote:

goldenboy88 wrote:that might work for real boxing. but then again they dont have thousands and thousands of fights.

The total number of fights doesn't make a difference. The concept is still the same.

In fact, it makes even more sense to use this calculation here because we do have some people that have thousands of fights. This means that typically someone with that many fights will be someone that is very experienced/skilled. Having a high percentage of KOs in comparison to total wins can be deceiving because although that person may win more of their fights by KO, they may also have a high KO loss percentage or it could reflect how poor of a boxer that person is.

For example, would you really want to give this person props?

John Smith OB Record

5000 wins
4900 KOs
8000 losses
10 draws

This person yields a 98% KO rate per the current calculation system.

Per my proposed system this person's actual KO percentage is 38%

Now isn't it evident which calculation reflects the person's overall caliber as a fighter?

This person's record merely reflects that if and when he wins, it's usually by KO. However, this in no way captures the individual's overall skill, and that is my overall point. In summary, the current calculation system is quite flawed.

Very good point. But how does that capture a persons overall skill. KO % means skill level? Maybe the player has the mindset, win lose or draw somebodies getting KO'ed.

Now don't you flip flop on your previous statement.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 14/08/2008 22:06:44

Barrack Obama wrote:I've noticed that many of you have been incorrectly calculating your KO percentage by dividing your total number of KOs into your total number of victories. However, this is incorrect.

The correct way to calculate one's actual KO percentage is to divide your total number of KOs into your total number of fights (wins, losses, and draws).

He's correct. Wasn't sure myself so I checked, and he's right.

goldenboy why do u keep bringing me up and trying to humilate im getting real angry of u saying this kinda stuff"he had a good ko ratio but a wretched record "

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 15/08/2008 02:26:02

edder-retired Won|2406|Lost|3001|Ko's|2387|
California Kid California 423W 402L 423Ko's
edder1234 258W 402L 252Ko's
Sdk-eddie 75W 141L 75ko's
Sdk-eddie54 87w 124L 86ko's
sdk_eddie 68W 114L 65Ko's
Chaoscrew-eddie 292W 343L 288ko's
BXA-eddie 226W 245L 224ko's
Moo-eddie-Moo 59W 75L 59ko's
eddiester 46W 131L 46Ko's

just stating the facts. your guys have bad records.. so? you would think after over 9000 fights you would have the hang of it by now? all those alts combined are 8946 fights. those are only the edder ones.

WTF is ur problem man i didnt say nothing about my reco only in the other one and why u bring me up on this?? and hows the other one a bad record? i guess i have to be like u and have a perfect record huh..

i was just stating the fact that you have over 9000 fights and you probably dont want me to add up your ko ratio for you.

Obama's method makes KO ratio something that shows who is a better fighter overall, but whats the point when we can have a win-lose ratio, which would be more accurate. Obama's way, even if you win W15, you still lose because you didn't get a KO.

Our way, it shows how quick you are to win a match (by [T]KO). Obama is correct in saying that it doesn't show who the better fighter is but that is the style of the game, you never know. A win-lose ratio would be a much better method of finding out who is a better fighter, however it can still be inaccurate.

So I vote to keep the KO system we have

Obama, I consider myself a fairly good student of the game.

But also in logic as well. I just don't see the point of factoring in draws and losses.

When you knock your opponent out, you win the fight. Therefor it makes sense to tally KO percentage based on actual wins.

If you go 5-5-1 (5KOs). You have a KO percentage of 100%. Because you "WON" 5 fights and WON BY KNOCKOUT in 5 out of those 5 fights. What does counting those 5 losses and 1 draw get you other than a 45% KO average?

It would be a different story if you could knock your opponent cold and still lose the fight. Which realistically only happens via DQ if say you hit him while he was down.

It's subjective, but I feel KO percentage should only be based on wins since it goes on your record as a "W" when you KO someone.

I agree with Tyrant here and I think it should be left how it is (OB way).

Everyone has been happy with it the way it is so why fix what isn't broken ?

This is OB, we do things our way, we don't have to conform to standards set by people which don't even play the game, what the hell has it got to do with them anyway.

Donny_king wrote:I agree with Tyrant here and I think it should be left how it is (OB way).

Everyone has been happy with it the way it is so why fix what isn't broken ?

This is OB, we do things our way, we don't have to conform to standards set by people which don't even play the game, what the hell has it got to do with them anyway.

Amen

kuyajosh wrote:

Donny_king wrote:I agree with Tyrant here and I think it should be left how it is (OB way).

Everyone has been happy with it the way it is so why fix what isn't broken ?

This is OB, we do things our way, we don't have to conform to standards set by people which don't even play the game, what the hell has it got to do with them anyway.

Amen

A lady..!!

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 15/08/2008 18:58:30

Tyrant wrote:Obama, I consider myself a fairly good student of the game.

But also in logic as well. I just don't see the point of factoring in draws and losses.

When you knock your opponent out, you win the fight. Therefor it makes sense to tally KO percentage based on actual wins.

If you go 5-5-1 (5KOs). You have a KO percentage of 100%. Because you "WON" 5 fights and WON BY KNOCKOUT in 5 out of those 5 fights. What does counting those 5 losses and 1 draw get you other than a 45% KO average?

It would be a different story if you could knock your opponent cold and still lose the fight. Which realistically only happens via DQ if say you hit him while he was down.

It's subjective, but I feel KO percentage should only be based on wins since it goes on your record as a "W" when you KO someone.

Well you aren't a student of the game if you still don't get it. Nor are you a student of the game if you deny the Sweet Science's method.

Perhaps the current method works for teenagers, 20 year olds still living in their parent's basements, or people that just don't understand the sport. I will continue to vehemently contend that the current method is one-dimensional, an inaccurate reflection of reality. However, to each their own, even when their own is a flawed and limited perspective.

Barrack Obama wrote:

Perhaps the current method works for teenagers, 20 year olds still living in their parent's basements, or people that just don't understand the sport.

Barrack Obama wrote:

Tyrant wrote:Obama, I consider myself a fairly good student of the game.

But also in logic as well. I just don't see the point of factoring in draws and losses.

When you knock your opponent out, you win the fight. Therefor it makes sense to tally KO percentage based on actual wins.

If you go 5-5-1 (5KOs). You have a KO percentage of 100%. Because you "WON" 5 fights and WON BY KNOCKOUT in 5 out of those 5 fights. What does counting those 5 losses and 1 draw get you other than a 45% KO average?

It would be a different story if you could knock your opponent cold and still lose the fight. Which realistically only happens via DQ if say you hit him while he was down.

It's subjective, but I feel KO percentage should only be based on wins since it goes on your record as a "W" when you KO someone.

Well you aren't a student of the game if you still don't get it. Nor are you a student of the game if you deny the Sweet Science's method.

Perhaps the current method works for teenagers, 20 year olds still living in their parent's basements, or people that just don't understand the sport. I will continue to vehemently contend that the current method is one-dimensional, an inaccurate reflection of reality. However, to each their own, even when their own is a flawed and limited perspective.

I see, someone doesn't agree with you so they are automatically some kind of loser, too young to have an opinion which matters or they don't understand. That just shows how ignorant you are dude !

Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe the other people could be wrong ?