Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Ok, let's do away with CompuBox altogether. We'll just rely on three judges, the way it's always been, and cross our fingers that they're both competent and not corrupted in any way. We use technology to solve the rest of Earth's problems, but maybe it's just not meant to be in boxing. CompuBox can probably be improved, but fuck it. Let's just throw it out the window. Who really cares about who landed more than who? Let's just go by the judges "knowledge" and gut instinct, and hope they're not getting an under-the-table bonus for specific interests.

That's rediculus, you're totally misrepresenting what this thread is about.

We're not talking about doing away with technology, nor are we suggesting that the judges are infallable.

We're talking about not using a particular piece of technology to score a fight. A technology that has been proven not to be a reliable or logical way to score a fight.

If you want to get into the issue of using technology, I think it's REDICULOUS that we are scoring fights the same way we were 100 years ago (with 3 judges sitting ringside). It's stupifying to think that the people in charge of judging the fight have an inferior view to watch it than some random joe watching it on TV from his living room. Every other mainstream sport has taken advantage of new technology. Boxing needs to do the same to become legit again IMO.

But we don't judge a fight soley on who landed the most punches. This isn't amateur boxing.

compubox is calculated that way

Originally Posted by arcanum26

In round 7 for example, Compubox had Pac landing 27 punches out of 77 thrown, with Tim 11 of 67 yet the 3 judges scored the round unanimously for Tim. I find that in this particular case, Compubox is a good way to gauge the inaccuracies in how the judges saw the round, short of personally watching the round in super slow mo and counting the number thrown and landed by each fighter.

This is a good example of how to use Compubox. Along similar lines, Duane Ford defended his scorecard by saying; "Pacquiao missed a lot of punches and I thought he was throwing wildly."

But Compubox reveals that Bradley actually missed at a higher rate than PacMan in every round but one.

CompuBox Stats: Bradley W 12 Pacquaio | CompuBox

The decision cannot even be justified on the one metric that Ford singles out as Bradley's strength. If this were an honest mistake, I suspect that the judges were judging PacMan against himself. In other words, Bradley may have made Pac miss at a higher rate than say Hatton did. This impressed the judges. They just forgot all about the other side of the equation.

Interestingly, Compubox does a minute by minute breakdown of each round:

Pacquaio’s Landed Punches – Minute-by-Minute | CompuBox

They then speculate as to why this might have affected the judges' judgment. Good data to have, imo.

I don't understand the hate on compubox it's just a tool to determine how much punches were thrown and landed?

I think everyone understands it doesnt measure the effectiveness of the strike.

Originally Posted by hardcore_crash

I don't understand the hate on compubox it's just a tool to determine how much punches were thrown and landed?

I think everyone understands it doesnt measure the effectiveness of the strike.

You'd be surprised....

Originally Posted by hardcore_crash

I don't understand the hate on compubox it's just a tool to determine how much punches were thrown and landed?

I think everyone understands it doesnt measure the effectiveness of the strike.

very true. But how many effective strikes did Bradley land

you can't judge a round by saying Fighter A landed 12 punches and fighter B landed 11 punches. How effective were those punches. Did any of them stun, hurt, or just back up the other fighter.

Similarly if fighter A is landing 10 punches but they are hard clean shots and fighter B lands 22 punches but he isn't doing any damage, then you can't just think Fighter B clearly won that round.

But when Pac lands 2 to 2.5 as many punches as Bradley in a round, the punches are harder, Bradley is backing up when Pac lands punches, and Bradley's punches are not having any effect, then I don't understand what a judge giving Bradley the round was watching.

This wasn't the case of one guy landing alot of punches versus a power puncher landing less shots but harder shots. This was a case of the lighter punching guy landing fewer punches getting hit more and backed up by the much harder hitter.

I didn't see much punches landing cleanly from Bradley, besides some jabs.
I completely agree on the other points.

i'll say it again its totally out of order on bradley he trained his heart off, and every MF is saying he lost me included, but what can he do, you think pac feels bad this guy must feel worse.

i would hate to be seen as a winner in a supposed fixed fight that had nothing to do with me

Yes, compubox sucks. It has taken time for me to see, but the evolution of my thought process is done. Compubox is a poor barometer of landed blows. Much of it seems to be on the spot guesswork and ends up biased.

I think its accurate.


its a lot more accurate than letting 70 yrs old judge a round by themselves.


its easier to see landed shots compared to all the other things judges think about like


Ring Generalship
Defense
the weight on Power shots and landing more shots.


compubox take out the subjectivity.

To use compubox or not? Since it is not part of the official scoring, I can't see where it is a negative. People are just using it to try and back up a point. So more than likely, those that don't like it, are probably on the opposite side of the punch stats and therefor attack it as being bad.

Originally Posted by fan johnny

To use compubox or not? Since it is not part of the official scoring, I can't see where it is a negative. People are just using it to try and back up a point. So more than likely, those that don't like it, are probably on the opposite side of the punch stats and therefor attack it as being bad.

It can also be a good confirmation or validator. at least 90% of the time compubox confirms the official judges decision.

Originally Posted by miron_lang

Originally Posted by fan johnny

To use compubox or not? Since it is not part of the official scoring, I can't see where it is a negative. People are just using it to try and back up a point. So more than likely, those that don't like it, are probably on the opposite side of the punch stats and therefor attack it as being bad.

It can also be a good confirmation or validator. at least 90% of the time compubox confirms the official judges decision.

Is that an official statistic?

Originally Posted by ninjaspy3

Is that an official statistic?

just my estimate