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

[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

[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.

[brocktonblockbust]

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.

[Beanflicker]

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.