Can we all agree to stop using Compubox stats to score fights?

This is one of those weird boxing things that I never got. Whenever there is a questionable decision, people go to the Compubox stats to either confirm or dispute a decision.

We all (I hope) understand the concept that boxing is scored round by round, not as a whole. That it's about who wins the most rounds, not who lands the most punches in a fight. But yet we still refer to the overall punch stats for some reason.

Can we all agree to see the error in doing this and give it a rest?

Also this is in no way a "Bradley won" thread. I still haven't seen Pac/Bradley. I just get irked when people use this fallacy.

Hear, hear Beanflicker - never a truer word spoken.

As is the crap that the champion should always get the close decisions. That is just flat out bullshit,certainly nowhere in the Queensberry rules did it state 'if thou shall have trouble separating a pair of combatants after a good three-minutes of warfare, the champion shall win the round 10-9'

Ridiculous.

I just don't understand why Bradley didn't try and win the fight??

Compubox is a retarded way to back up an argument. I said it years ago when people were using that as reason why Floyd losg to Castillo. It's stupid for 2 reasons.

1) its hardly accurate is it?
2) It doesn't measure the weight of shots..and even some "power" punches it records are only recorded as such by default. Yet when people see power punches landed it looks like a huge stat.

Bonus and maybe most important point :- It doesn't tell the story of the whole fight. Going back to Floyd vs Castillo 1. At the mid way point I seem to recall Floyd being well ahead on Compubox stats. So how is compubox an argument against Floyd in that fight? Not saying you can't make a good argument for him losing the fight but that particular one is dumb..like Compubox is full stop. It's a bit of fun and shouldn't be considered any more or less than that.

Good points all around. This isn't the amateurs - no two punches are equal. Each punch does a unique amount of damage and has it's own level of effectiveness based on a multitude of different variables. If fighter A lands 10 flicking jabs and fighter B lands 10 flush right leads, are they even?

Also doesn't take into account that a guy can win win less rounds, but outland his opponent by a great amount in the rounds he did win, and end up with a higher number of landed punches throughout the fight.

I just find it funny that we can all sit here and realize how rediculous it is... but yet it always gets brought up!

I've never had much use for punch stat numbers. They don't weigh the impact and effect of punches, and I don't know what they (the counters) consider a punch that lands. In many fights, notably the first Chavez/Taylor fight, they counted punches that landed on shoulders, elbows and that glanced before 'landing.'

To be fair, the judges aren't privy to the compobox stats. I think they should be allowed to both compubox and instant replay. Whatever form of modern technology that helps moderate the fight the better.

For example the instant replay that showed Molina getting a left hook behind the ear of Kirkland that ended up not being a K.D but a slip would have utterly changed the result of that fight. Sigh...yes I'm really sore about that one...sorry.

Maybe if the compubox stats of the two combatants are close, then those stats should be considered insignificant.

But if there is a wide margin of difference between the opposing stats, then those stats would be helpful in controversies.

In the most recent controversy, the stats supported the view of the majority. It likewise supported the overwhelming view of the posters in here based on the poll. And I am to believe that most of the posters in here are an intelligent bunch with regards to boxing, or am I wrong?

Yes we can, good call. Likewise we can do away with announcers deciding what makes up a "power punch" from the comfort of ringside. You don't have drop or wobble a guy to effect him. As a rule I've always disliked punchstats. Quality beats quantity...unless its the amatuers of course :-X

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.

ı never knew judges had ınfo on those numbers when makıng a close decısıon.
ı fınd compubox stats rather useful---I respectfully dısagree. Whıle ıt cannot measure the effectıveness of any one punch---ıt can gıve us a general ıdea of the actıon ın the fıght. And I belıeve the numbers are quıte accurate. contrary to what someone mentıoned above. Its just another barometer we can use to assess the fıght ın conjunctıon wıth all the other measurements we take. I fınd compubox an ınterestıng and sıgnıfıcant account of the fıght ın general.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

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.

---

NOW you're talking! Let's not just pick on CompuBox. It seems to be the trendy thing to do nowadays. Your point (bolded) is great.... and I agree. Those three judges have a worse vantage point than a fan with a good seat, or watching on TV with all the camera angles, instant replay, and slow-motion. Other sports have incorporated technology, as you say. Why not boxing?

But CompuBox gets WAY too much flak. It's a TOOL. It's serves to count punches landed and punches missed. Can it be improved? Damn straight it can! But rather than bitch and moan about not using it altogether... we should call for improvements. CompuBox, after all, is nothing more than a data collection system that gathers inputs from human beings watching the fight. More buttons are needed? Let's try it. Better training for the operators? Absolutely! But I'd rather have a data collection system that in the end tells me who landed the most punches, rather than have someone give the round to a fighter who waits until the last 30 seconds of the round to throw a flurry or two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

We all (I hope) understand the concept that boxing is scored round by round, not as a whole. That it's about who wins the most rounds, not who lands the most punches in a fight. But yet we still refer to the overall punch stats for some reason.

---

This would appear to be a weakness with Compubox. But after Pac-Bradley, I noticed journalists quoting not only the total Compubox stats, but the round by round breakdown. Apparently, Bradley outlanded Pac in only one round (and tied him in another). You can see the breakdown here:

CompuBox Stats: Bradley W 12 Pacquaio | CompuBox

This strikes me as very helpful. Of course, they are not measuring the effectiveness of the punch, but in the fight in question, that was not an issue.

We know PacMan hit Bradley harder than vice versa. So the most effective justification for picking Bradley would be that he landed more punches in more rounds. Short of that, one might want to argue that landing at a more efficient rate demonstrates superior ringmanship.

Compubox actually supplies this data. It may not be perfect and it certainly does not replace watching the fight, but it does appear to be a valuable tool. In this case, since no one seriously argues that Bradley's punches were harder, Compubox does a good job demasking the official judges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manju

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

We all (I hope) understand the concept that boxing is scored round by round, not as a whole. That it's about who wins the most rounds, not who lands the most punches in a fight. But yet we still refer to the overall punch stats for some reason.

---

This would appear to be a weakness with Compubox. But after Pac-Bradley, I noticed journalists quoting not only the total Compubox stats, but the round by round breakdown. Apparently, Bradley outlanded Pac in only one round (and tied him in another). You can see the breakdown here:

CompuBox Stats: Bradley W 12 Pacquaio | CompuBox

This strikes me as very helpful. Of course, they are not measuring the effectiveness of the punch, but in the fight in question, that was not an issue.

We know PacMan hit Bradley harder than vice versa. So the most effective justification for picking Bradley would be that he landed more punches in more rounds. Short of that, one might want to argue that landing at a more efficient rate demonstrates superior ringmanship.

Compubox actually supplies this data. It may not be perfect and it certainly does not replace watching the fight, but it does appear to be a valuable tool. In this case, since no one seriously argues that Bradley's punches were harder, Compubox does a good job demasking the official judges.

---

Agree completely, Manju. The point being raised in the Pac Bradley fight is not only the disparity of the number of total punches landed, but also the disparity in the number of punches landed on a round by round basis.

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.

Granted, Compubox isn't an exact science and anyone who would use it to argue who won close rounds isn't entirely wise for doing so, but when there's a huge gap in numbers shown, then I see no reason why we need to stop using it to score such rounds. Improve it, but don't take it away entirely.