Quote Originally Posted by Manju View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Beanflicker View Post
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.