Thread: Punch Stat numbers: a load of rubbish?

Originally Posted by pacfan

. If you really want to know the truth, I mean the truth, just count the punches on a slo-mo. It's not as hard as you think. If a glove clearly touches a boxer, it's a point and if a punch rocks the fighter, it's a power punch. Whatever you do, just be consistent. IMO, the few fights I've counted, the Punch Stats were reasonably accurate, whether I liked it or not...

Okay wise guy! Unless we're talking those olden-golden fights where they used that super slomo for instant replay...try to count some of the punches in this punch fest. When U get a 1/2; I SERIOUSLY recommend this one. I question if I could be a good punchstat person in this one. Yes there are fights where guys throw a 100 per round like Margarito, Paul Williams and Mickey Ward vs Augustus. But the sloppiness of this fight I've linked: makes it all the more difficult. And at one point, this shit is really just a back alley fight. Oh, and if you've never seen this fight Pacfan. I will say in advance: you're welcome for what you are about to watch!

Round 7 is a doozy- about 24 minutes in.

minutes 23-25 or so--off the chain!

Announcer: "Whats holding these two guys up!?"

Originally Posted by SlimTrae

Originally Posted by pacfan

. If you really want to know the truth, I mean the truth, just count the punches on a slo-mo. It's not as hard as you think. If a glove clearly touches a boxer, it's a point and if a punch rocks the fighter, it's a power punch. Whatever you do, just be consistent. IMO, the few fights I've counted, the Punch Stats were reasonably accurate, whether I liked it or not...

Okay wise guy! Unless we're talking those olden-golden fights where they used that super slomo for instant replay...try to count some of the punches in this punch fest. When U get a 1/2; I SERIOUSLY recommend this one. I question if I could be a good punchstat person in this one. Yes there are fights where guys throw a 100 per round like Margarito, Paul Williams and Mickey Ward vs Augustus. But the sloppiness of this fight I've linked: makes it all the more difficult. And at one point, this shit is really just a back alley fight. Oh, and if you've never seen this fight Pacfan. I will say in advance: you're welcome for what you are about to watch!

All right, buddy, just tell me how bad the stats was, I'll take your word for it.

Originally Posted by pacfan

Originally Posted by SlimTrae

Originally Posted by pacfan

. If you really want to know the truth, I mean the truth, just count the punches on a slo-mo. It's not as hard as you think. If a glove clearly touches a boxer, it's a point and if a punch rocks the fighter, it's a power punch. Whatever you do, just be consistent. IMO, the few fights I've counted, the Punch Stats were reasonably accurate, whether I liked it or not...

Okay wise guy! Unless we're talking those olden-golden fights where they used that super slomo for instant replay...try to count some of the punches in this punch fest. When U get a 1/2; I SERIOUSLY recommend this one. I question if I could be a good punchstat person in this one. Yes there are fights where guys throw a 100 per round like Margarito, Paul Williams and Mickey Ward vs Augustus. But the sloppiness of this fight I've linked: makes it all the more difficult. And at one point, this shit is really just a back alley fight. Oh, and if you've never seen this fight Pacfan. I will say in advance: you're welcome for what you are about to watch!

All right, buddy, just tell me how bad the stats was, I'll take your word for it.

For this fight? My punch stats were horrible!

Originally Posted by Master

The stats should only be used as a secondary factor supporting the fight result not dictating the result of the fight.

Why should it be used to support a fight result if landing the most punches in a fight doesn't win you the fight? I don't think it should be used for anything other than a curiosity, like the little graphic that shows how many punches were landed to the right body, left head, ect that HBO does.

It's so weird, people bring it up to support or attack a decision, and it's like who cares who landed the most punches? I wanna know who won the most rounds.

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Originally Posted by Master

The stats should only be used as a secondary factor supporting the fight result not dictating the result of the fight.

Why should it be used to support a fight result if landing the most punches in a fight doesn't win you the fight? I don't think it should be used for anything other than a curiosity, like the little graphic that shows how many punches were landed to the right body, left head, ect that HBO does.

It's so weird, people bring it up to support or attack a decision, and it's like who cares who landed the most punches? I wanna know who won the most rounds.

Interesting perspective. Just curious; any examples where you felt a guy who didnt land the most won?

i cant believe that fight la motta and hayes

Originally Posted by SlimTrae

Interesting perspective. Just curious; any examples where you felt a guy who didnt land the most won?

I'd have to really think about it, I know Toney/Peter 1 is one for sure. I know Sweet Pea out landed De La Hoya but I felt DLH deserved the decision, albeit a very narrow decision.

I get that there is a strong, strong correlation between landing the most punches overall and winning the fight, but as they say correlation does not imply causation. We know for certain that it does not in this case, because a fight isn't scored as a whole, it's scored by rounds. Even looking at who lands the most punches per round skews it because it doesn't take into account the effectiveness of each punch.

This is from CompuBox's website.

"The CompuBox stats in no way, shape or form, determine a winner of a fight. The stats are used to enhance a telecast, show the estimated barometer of activity by both fighters and paint a picture of the activity on a round-by-round basis. Even though our database of over 5,000 fights (and counting) shows that a fighter that throws and lands more punches will win 90% of the time, the 10 point judging system clearly is the only way to determine winners in a fight."

This is from Jose Sulaiman's website:

"Los Compu-Box numeros determinan seguramente quien va a ganar la pelea, en todo los casos."

Sulaiman had been accused of corruption numerous times. For example, many in the boxing community had accused the WBC of bending its rules to suit promoter Don King. The late journalist Jack Newfield wrote that Sulaiman "became more King's junior partner than his independent regulator." [8] Another journalist, Peter Heller, echoed that comment, writing, "Sulaiman...became little more than an errand boy for Don King." Heller quoted British promoter Mickey Duff as saying, "My complaint is that José Sulaimán is not happy his friend Don King is the biggest promoter in boxing. Sulaiman will only be happy when Don King is the only promoter in boxing." [9]

After Pernell Whitaker lost a controversial decision to Jose Luis Ramirez in 1988, Whitaker's trainer, Lou Duva, called Sulaiman "a thief" and Whitaker's manager, Shelly Finkel, said, "King and Sulaiman fixed the fight, no question about it." [10][11]

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

i cant believe that fight la motta and hayes

Great day in the morning! When the action picked up--I said DAMN! It picked up!!