Hey guys,
Does total punch stat numbers mean a thing to today's fight game? Total jabs, power punches AND punch percentage?
For example, what if the guy that "won" the fight, be behind on all stats? How could he win?
Printable View
Hey guys,
Does total punch stat numbers mean a thing to today's fight game? Total jabs, power punches AND punch percentage?
For example, what if the guy that "won" the fight, be behind on all stats? How could he win?
Amateur boxing is punch counting; in professional boxing you also consider the damage done by punches.
The problem I have with punch-stat numbers is that I don 't know the criteria by which they determine if a punch lands. An example is the first Chavez/taylor fight. They were counting punches that seemed to be being caught on gloves or deflected off shoulders and elbows.
... and with that, some of the "power shots" weren't really "power shots". The shots weren't telling blows.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
I think that they count every 'non-jab as a "power" shot. And how do you weigh a guy rolling with punches?Quote:
Originally Posted by ykdadamaja... and with that, some of the "power shots" weren't really "power shots". The shots weren't telling blows.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
I'm not a big fan of making boxing a statistical endeavor.
Hell naw punch output dont mean shit to me unless the other guy isnt throwing anything..
Effective aggression and clean punching over high workrate..
Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
Exactly. Its supposed to be a guideline of sorts but when you listen to Lapdog you would think the numbers were some kind of established fact. I remember its debut in the Mancini/Bramble fight. They kept it simple and it seemed much more accurate then today and even it was way off most times. I've often wondered how judges are effected that are sitting within ear shot of Jim because just like the clicker crew he routinely calls punches that were not even thrown.
Here is a little bit of what compubox co-founder Bob Canobbio had to say in an interview on another forum back in 2011.
Pure comedy.Quote:
“Over the years, we’ve enhanced the program, and our database has, of course, increased as we’ve done more fights,” explained Canobbio, who says the standard margin of error with CompuBox stats is in the neighborhood of two percent. “We’ve been able to build a database and determine what a weight class average is, what our record is for a weight class for punches thrown in a round and in a fight, one fighter, both fighters. So the stats have evolved as we’ve collected more data over the years. We’ve also added stuff to our live program, like being able to break down the punches landed minute by minute. And we do the Punch Zone now, which shows where the punches landed. That’s an addition.
“From my standpoint, I could probably add more categories, but I don’t want to sacrifice accuracy. We could do left hand and right hand if we wanted. But too many keys leads to too much thinking, and we don’t want to be thinking while we’re working. I don’t want to sacrifice accuracy.”
I think it breeds boxers in the ameaturs who just try and land anything rather than anything significant to get ahead on points. One of the things that impressed me the most about lomachenko's debut was he didn't seem to waste energy like most ameaturs coming up to the pro's.Quote:
Originally Posted by FinitoElDinamita
Word.
Everything in life is about how effective it is.
Judging will always be biased to your personal opinion.
Quality>Quantity
Not at all, guys can easily win rounds and fights throwing and landing less than their opponent. You have to remember it's just people sitting ringside tapping buttons, it's by no means more accurate than what you could roughly estimate with your own eyes, and detracts from any other basis on which a fight is judged. Having said that it's not a bad thing to include in big fights just for shits, but I hate it when the commentators will cite the punch stars for every round prior as if they decide how it should've been scored.
Quality over quantity, exactly. Punch stats drive me nuts and are a fall back for network guys who would be bean counters in another life. You can see a guy claim a number, go back and rewatch the fight frame by frame and its a given a good portion miss, and in Lampleys case are not even the right fighter "landing".
Often times the two of those are confused.Quote:
Originally Posted by boyla
Soon they will eliminate the person with the clicker or what now is a key board and have a series of lazers formulating the punch stats. Boxing is one of the last things in this world that does not require digital involvement in the process. Nothing will ever be able to judge a fight better then the naked eye but that is because of what should be the simplicity of the 10 point must system. For thee Fk'd up human scorecards well that's another thread and its not even on the same tard chart as compubox. Technology does not have to be involved in every aspect of our lives. A pail with water and a stick is still the best mouse trap. I can just see it in the year 2050. A 100 point must system. The system I'm sure works well for baseball etc but it has no business in the ring let alone any validity attributed to it.
% of power punches landed seems to be a good indicator when you are landing close to 50%.
No.
This is why I scored Burns v Beltran a draw, Beltran throwing constantly, flurries of sloppy combos on burns arms and burns would land a little counter and move.
Effective punching.
pitter patter assholes like _______ and ___________ maY LAND a hundred more punches, like butterflies alighting on a stem, but they have no effect on the opponent.
And then other fighters may land only 2 punches, and........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZiltA50l7I