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

[Beanflicker]

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.

[Greig]

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.

[Dropanuke]

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

[Althugz]

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.

[Beanflicker]

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!

[greynotsoold]

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.'

[DavilaJones]

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.

[InTheNeutralCorner]

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?

[Spicoli]

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

[Manju]

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.

[arcanum26]

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.

[Manju]

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.

[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.

[TitoFan]

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....

[captainanddew]

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.