@Master tag, you're it. :)
I think punch stat numbers are underrated.
Printable View
@Master tag, you're it. :)
I think punch stat numbers are underrated.
It's a useless tool of confusion. I think they are inaccurate a lot of the time anyway, and people use them to justify decision, when the purpose in pro boxing isn't to land the most punches in a fight, it's to win the most rounds. And it doesn't take into account the significance of the blows landed. Fighter A can land 10 jabs to the head and body, and Fighter B can land 1 right hook that really rocks Fighter A. Who's going to say A won the round? It's fookin nonsense!
Agreed with the Bean, they are meaningless. Whether a punch lands by compubox standards as opposed to having impact can be a world apart. A guy can flail away at the arms and land twice as many "power shots(since they are anything but a jab)" as the guy who is seeing and catching everything and raking him with flush counters for it.
clean effective punching should count more then the number of punches unless the number of punches contains more power punches then the clean effective punching. clean effective punching could win someone the round even if his opponent landed more punches.
I thought Compu-box or punch stats is separate from how fights are scored, which is by judges and not by the punch stat folks.
With that being said- some judges idea of how to score a fight can be a load of rubbish. If a judge who prefers aggressiveness over counter-punching, than how does that work for a fighter whose style is counterpunching? Invert the scenario. Same deal.
Punch stats IMO are more likely to tell the truth than CJ Ross (Bradley-Pacquiao), Harold Lederman's daughter, Frank Lombardi (Casamayor-Cruz), Duane Ford (too many fights to name) all the judges for Holyfield-Valuev. Dave Maretti & the other 2 clowns who scored DLH over Sturm: to name a few.
Yes, I have seen a few fights where I questioned the connect ratio. But at this time I cant think of a single fight (and there may be some U guys cant point out) Not one fight where I was pissed at the punch stats the way I have been pissed & ticked at the judging and refereeing on too many occasion. I think punch stat numbers are underrated.
Funny thing is judges don't go by punchstats or compubox numbers. Judging a boxing match depends on the beholder. lol....Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
ps: I think we give way too much credit to knockdowns in a round than guys that win fights. A knockdown punch may be the only punch landed, but what if the guy won the entire 2:50 minutes of the round?
there should be objective criteria and I think that is there but not enforced strictly. You have:
1. Number of punches
2. Aggressiveness
3. Connected punches
4. Power punches
5. Effective punches
6. Clean punches
7. Knockdowns
8. Jabs
a. strong jabs that approach a Power Punch strength
b. standard jabs
c. weak/flicking jabs that just pitter-patter
now take all that and maximize the equation;
f(x)=(total punches + .2a) x (power punches + .2b)/(clean punches - .2c) + (effective punches x 2) - (1/2 missed punches) + ring generalship = WINNER OF THE ROUND. :cool:
I have never paid them much notice.
Yeh pretty much a dull hammer used by networks to try to make a distinction. Window dressing. Almost like counting a pitchers total throws to home plate but with far less accuracy in category. What kills me is when they trump power punches. Ever see a guy knocked shitless by a jab??? Yep. Just call the action. We don't need a math class. Once HBo started using the 'Resusci annie' punch dummy graphic and counting shots to ribs, chest, chin, arm, eyebrows, etc it just got goofy.
Punch stats are another tool that can be used to prove or disprove what happened in a fight or what you think happened in a fight.
I like the power punches landed percentage the most. It's accurate and dependable, but I'd never use punch stats to pick a winner.
I don't even like to judge fights that I'm watching as its takes away from the fight, for me.
Punch stats are a guide line that I'd never use to pick or determine a winner.
Well, some fight fans, like myself, like to see it. I think it's cool. But the judges don't pay attention to it or count it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
What is also striking is that some of the "power punches" are not true power punches, they are pitty-pay set up shots that some jabs are more effective and harder. But, they count as power shots to the persons tabulating the punchstats.
fighter A lands 7 jabs in a row and fighter B laughs and sneers at him and yells "was that a mosquito?"
fighter A then throws a hard right that is 90% blocked but 10% just gets in to B's ear
that's 8 punches to zero punches right there.
fighter B then throws and uppercut that buckles the knees of fighter A, who holds on for dear life.
the bell rings:
WHO WON THE ROUND? (assuming that is all the action)
come on biotches---WHO WON THAT ROUND???)
The stats should only be used as a secondary factor supporting the fight result not dictating the result of the fight.
Yowza, Great question.Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
Reminds me of Williams Martinez I. PW landed more- and since he connected often: then dangit; it should count. But on the other hand, when Martinez landed- U knew it! I understand those who felt Sergio won it- he had the power punches.
There was one fight I think it was Shane Mosley. He was out landed, but I thought he clearly won the fight.
Oh, If fighter (A) didn't have a knee touch from that buckling of a shot- then he wins the round.:rolleyes:
Punch Stats are right when your boy wins but wrong when he loses, that's the fact of life among fans.;D 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...