FYI - Accurately Calculating One's KO Percentage

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).

how does that make sence? your ko % should only be your wins correct?

goldenboy88 wrote:how does that make sence? your ko % should only be your wins correct?

That's not how it works.

The correct KO ratio takes into consideration one's losses and draws. This new percentage yields an accurate representation of what one's knockout percentage is against all opponents in all of our fights.

Hence, if you lose a fight, that counts against your KO percentage because you didn't score a KO.

It makes sense too because this percentage captures the full picture. This is why this KO percentage is used in the sport of boxing.

Did you learn this valuable information the same time as you were gaining the rest of your wisdom and knowledge being a community organizer on the south side of Chicago?

one question though..... why is it always southside.... what about the north east and westside...?

monkeytail wrote:Did you learn this valuable information the same time as you were gaining the rest of your wisdom and knowledge being a community organizer on the south side of Chicago?

one question though..... why is it always southside.... what about the north east and westside...?

I actually learned this following the sport of boxing. However, I will give some credit to some of the celebrities I hang out with.

Barrack Obama wrote:

monkeytail wrote:Did you learn this valuable information the same time as you were gaining the rest of your wisdom and knowledge being a community organizer on the south side of Chicago?

one question though..... why is it always southside.... what about the north east and westside...?

However, I will give some credit to some of the celebrities I hang out with.

hey buddy!

yeah...celebri- T

im Christian Bale- i starred in American Psycho AND The Dark Knight.

hey sweety!

yeah...celebri- T

im Jenna Jameson- i starred in All American Superstars AND Where the Boys Aren't 16: Dark Angels .

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 14/08/2008 13:43:43

Ok so these are the ko percentages of the ones that dark destroyer put as the top ten ko based on 2000+.

Red Viper 71%

Chrille 72%

Catfish 64%

Reaper 67%

Nigel Benn 81%

Black Bear 73%

Fernando Vargas 67%

USA 73%

Monkey Tail 57%

The Sniper 54%

So viper isnt the ko king...its Nigel Benn!!

That is the most absurd thing I've heard...

When you KO someone, you win...therefor your only take into account your wins...not losses and draws....

yea no kidding.

Christian Bale wrote:

hey buddy!

yeah...celebri- T

im Christian Bale- i starred in American Psycho AND The Dark Knight.

Jenna Jameson wrote:hey sweety!

yeah...celebri- T

im Jenna Jameson- i starred in All American Superstars AND Where the Boys Aren't 16: Dark Angels .

WTF... What is this?!

the way we do it is better for this game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 14/08/2008 18:29:45

Tyrant wrote:That is the most absurd thing I've heard...

When you KO someone, you win...therefor your only take into account your wins...not losses and draws....

How is it ridiculous? It's an accurate representation because it takes every fight into consideration. It's the way the professional ranks do it.

The way you guys have been doing it is one's KO Percentage in Total Victories and that's not really as impressive as the overall picture, IMO.

You're a student of the game, aren't you Tyrant?

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

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 14/08/2008 20:39:45

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.