Scoring solution

[Andre]

There are problems with this system though:

1) Combubox is not accurate, it seems just as prone to human error as the judges

2) What happens if one fighter lands 1000 punches in round one, then nothing for the next 11 and get's beat 11-1 on rounds, but has a better punch stat record? Combubox over a whole fight doesn't give an accurate account of what happened.


Somethign needs to be done, I'm just not sure that is it

I agree if we just go to the stats then a fighter could beat another by clean touches that have no power and physically come out of the fight more beat up, but way ahead.

[Seraphanx]

There are problems with this system though:

1) Combubox is not accurate, it seems just as prone to human error as the judges

2) What happens if one fighter lands 1000 punches in round one, then nothing for the next 11 and get's beat 11-1 on rounds, but has a better punch stat record? Combubox over a whole fight doesn't give an accurate account of what happened.


Somethign needs to be done, I'm just not sure that is it

I agree if we just go to the stats then a fighter could beat another by clean touches that have no power and physically come out of the fight more beat up, but way ahead.

I don't think it's possible for someone to land more punches in one round than the other fighter does in the rest of the fight. Has that ever happened? If it is possible I would say it's likely to be so rare as to be irrelevant. Although I understand your point, I guess the current system of scoring round by round would have to be scrapped if this system was adopted. Unless they used a percentage-per-round system. I guess that would be fairer.
And I agree that CompuBox isn't 100% accurate, but I'm not suggesting the judges are making mistakes. Maybe I'm being cynical but I'd say these results have more to do with the amount of money generated from a rematch than any errors made in the scoring. CompuBox might not be 100% accurate but at least it has no concept of wealth.

[Althugz]

There are problems with this system though:

1) Combubox is not accurate, it seems just as prone to human error as the judges

2) What happens if one fighter lands 1000 punches in round one, then nothing for the next 11 and get's beat 11-1 on rounds, but has a better punch stat record? Combubox over a whole fight doesn't give an accurate account of what happened.


Somethign needs to be done, I'm just not sure that is it

I agree if we just go to the stats then a fighter could beat another by clean touches that have no power and physically come out of the fight more beat up, but way ahead.

I don't think it's possible for someone to land more punches in one round than the other fighter does in the rest of the fight. Has that ever happened? If it is possible I would say it's likely to be so rare as to be irrelevant. Although I understand your point, I guess the current system of scoring round by round would have to be scrapped if this system was adopted. Unless they used a percentage-per-round system. I guess that would be fairer.
And I agree that CompuBox isn't 100% accurate, but I'm not suggesting the judges are making mistakes. Maybe I'm being cynical but I'd say these results have more to do with the amount of money generated from a rematch than any errors made in the scoring. CompuBox might not be 100% accurate but at least it has no concept of wealth.

Yup, we were discussing how whacky compubox is for backing up a claim that a fighter won/lost just the other day. It doesn't measure weight of shots, how clean the punch connected etc. I also used the Mayweather vs Castillo 1 example where Floyd was well ahead (if I remember right) on compubox by Round 6. No way you can judge a fight with compubox.

You'd get far more wafty results if you let Compubox decide the outcomes of fights...and then we'd point fingers at the two vegetables behind the computer pressing the buttons instead of the judges. Lets for one second imagine compubox was even accurate (it isn't), what makes you think that if judges can be corrupt, then the Compubox operators can't be?

Jim Lampley would make a fine compubox operator : "Oop another shot landed for Pacquiao..and another..oh and there's another..bang..bang bang..bababang!" *Pacquiao hasn't even come out of his corner yet*

[Seraphanx]

There are problems with this system though:

1) Combubox is not accurate, it seems just as prone to human error as the judges

2) What happens if one fighter lands 1000 punches in round one, then nothing for the next 11 and get's beat 11-1 on rounds, but has a better punch stat record? Combubox over a whole fight doesn't give an accurate account of what happened.


Somethign needs to be done, I'm just not sure that is it

I agree if we just go to the stats then a fighter could beat another by clean touches that have no power and physically come out of the fight more beat up, but way ahead.

I don't think it's possible for someone to land more punches in one round than the other fighter does in the rest of the fight. Has that ever happened? If it is possible I would say it's likely to be so rare as to be irrelevant. Although I understand your point, I guess the current system of scoring round by round would have to be scrapped if this system was adopted. Unless they used a percentage-per-round system. I guess that would be fairer.
And I agree that CompuBox isn't 100% accurate, but I'm not suggesting the judges are making mistakes. Maybe I'm being cynical but I'd say these results have more to do with the amount of money generated from a rematch than any errors made in the scoring. CompuBox might not be 100% accurate but at least it has no concept of wealth.

Yup, we were discussing how whacky compubox is for backing up a claim that a fighter won/lost just the other day. It doesn't measure weight of shots, how clean the punch connected etc. I also used the Mayweather vs Castillo 1 example where Floyd was well ahead (if I remember right) on compubox by Round 6. No way you can judge a fight with compubox.

You'd get far more wafty results if you let Compubox decide the outcomes of fights...and then we'd point fingers at the two vegetables behind the computer pressing the buttons instead of the judges. Lets for one second imagine compubox was even accurate (it isn't), what makes you think that if judges can be corrupt, then the Compubox operators can't be?

Jim Lampley would make a fine compubox operator : "Oop another shot landed for Pacquiao..and another..oh and there's another..bang..bang bang..bababang!" *Pacquiao hasn't even come out of his corner yet*

Ah, see this is why I opened this up to people more knowledgeable than myself. I didn't know Compubox had human operators. Although now that I think of it I don't really know how I thought it worked, since there are no electronic contacts in the gloves on on the fighters. Duh. This is why you should think before you open you mouth.
In that case the idea is just as flawed and open to exploitation as the current system, so I guess it's back to the drawing board.

[0james0]

Compubox is much the same as the flawed Olympic style points scoring system. A couple (maybe 3) people sit with buttons to push when they see a shot land.

They must all press their buttons within a split second of each other for the shot to count.

The only thing I can think of is maybe 5 judges instead of 3.

If you went to stats winning fights, you may as well have a public phone/ text vote at the end of a fight to decide who the public thought won!

[Seraphanx]

Compubox is much the same as the flawed Olympic style points scoring system. A couple (maybe 3) people sit with buttons to push when they see a shot land.

They must all press their buttons within a split second of each other for the shot to count.

The only thing I can think of is maybe 5 judges instead of 3.

If you went to stats winning fights, you may as well have a public phone/ text vote at the end of a fight to decide who the public thought won!

Not if they were official and indisputable stats. I accept that introducing human error into the mix makes my original idea unworkable but if there was a way of generating accurate punch statistics I still think it would less open to accusations of corruption than the current system. I also agree with what has been said about the weight of the punches and how cleanly they land and other factors, but bear in mind I'm not claiming it would be a perfect system, just that it would be better than the current one.

[Althugz]

There are problems with this system though:

1) Combubox is not accurate, it seems just as prone to human error as the judges

2) What happens if one fighter lands 1000 punches in round one, then nothing for the next 11 and get's beat 11-1 on rounds, but has a better punch stat record? Combubox over a whole fight doesn't give an accurate account of what happened.


Somethign needs to be done, I'm just not sure that is it

I agree if we just go to the stats then a fighter could beat another by clean touches that have no power and physically come out of the fight more beat up, but way ahead.

I don't think it's possible for someone to land more punches in one round than the other fighter does in the rest of the fight. Has that ever happened? If it is possible I would say it's likely to be so rare as to be irrelevant. Although I understand your point, I guess the current system of scoring round by round would have to be scrapped if this system was adopted. Unless they used a percentage-per-round system. I guess that would be fairer.
And I agree that CompuBox isn't 100% accurate, but I'm not suggesting the judges are making mistakes. Maybe I'm being cynical but I'd say these results have more to do with the amount of money generated from a rematch than any errors made in the scoring. CompuBox might not be 100% accurate but at least it has no concept of wealth.

Yup, we were discussing how whacky compubox is for backing up a claim that a fighter won/lost just the other day. It doesn't measure weight of shots, how clean the punch connected etc. I also used the Mayweather vs Castillo 1 example where Floyd was well ahead (if I remember right) on compubox by Round 6. No way you can judge a fight with compubox.

You'd get far more wafty results if you let Compubox decide the outcomes of fights...and then we'd point fingers at the two vegetables behind the computer pressing the buttons instead of the judges. Lets for one second imagine compubox was even accurate (it isn't), what makes you think that if judges can be corrupt, then the Compubox operators can't be?

Jim Lampley would make a fine compubox operator : "Oop another shot landed for Pacquiao..and another..oh and there's another..bang..bang bang..bababang!" *Pacquiao hasn't even come out of his corner yet*

Ah, see this is why I opened this up to people more knowledgeable than myself. I didn't know Compubox had human operators. Although now that I think of it I don't really know how I thought it worked, since there are no electronic contacts in the gloves on on the fighters. Duh. This is why you should think before you open you mouth.
In that case the idea is just as flawed and open to exploitation as the current system, so I guess it's back to the drawing board.

Don't worry about it - I didn't know exactly how Compubox worked either until recently it did always seem a bit funny to me though. Especially when they put it on live sometimes during a round for a few seconds. The recorded shots seem way off.

fan_johnny - Wasn't it the Pac vs Clottey fight that he did the whole "bang..bababang, bang, bang!"? Either way he made some similarly immature sound effects.

[fan johnny]

There are problems with this system though:

1) Combubox is not accurate, it seems just as prone to human error as the judges

2) What happens if one fighter lands 1000 punches in round one, then nothing for the next 11 and get's beat 11-1 on rounds, but has a better punch stat record? Combubox over a whole fight doesn't give an accurate account of what happened.


Somethign needs to be done, I'm just not sure that is it

I agree if we just go to the stats then a fighter could beat another by clean touches that have no power and physically come out of the fight more beat up, but way ahead.

I don't think it's possible for someone to land more punches in one round than the other fighter does in the rest of the fight. Has that ever happened? If it is possible I would say it's likely to be so rare as to be irrelevant. Although I understand your point, I guess the current system of scoring round by round would have to be scrapped if this system was adopted. Unless they used a percentage-per-round system. I guess that would be fairer.
And I agree that CompuBox isn't 100% accurate, but I'm not suggesting the judges are making mistakes. Maybe I'm being cynical but I'd say these results have more to do with the amount of money generated from a rematch than any errors made in the scoring. CompuBox might not be 100% accurate but at least it has no concept of wealth.

Yup, we were discussing how whacky compubox is for backing up a claim that a fighter won/lost just the other day. It doesn't measure weight of shots, how clean the punch connected etc. I also used the Mayweather vs Castillo 1 example where Floyd was well ahead (if I remember right) on compubox by Round 6. No way you can judge a fight with compubox.

You'd get far more wafty results if you let Compubox decide the outcomes of fights...and then we'd point fingers at the two vegetables behind the computer pressing the buttons instead of the judges. Lets for one second imagine compubox was even accurate (it isn't), what makes you think that if judges can be corrupt, then the Compubox operators can't be?

Jim Lampley would make a fine compubox operator : "Oop another shot landed for Pacquiao..and another..oh and there's another..bang..bang bang..bababang!" *Pacquiao hasn't even come out of his corner yet*

Ah, see this is why I opened this up to people more knowledgeable than myself. I didn't know Compubox had human operators. Although now that I think of it I don't really know how I thought it worked, since there are no electronic contacts in the gloves on on the fighters. Duh. This is why you should think before you open you mouth.
In that case the idea is just as flawed and open to exploitation as the current system, so I guess it's back to the drawing board.

Don't worry about it - I didn't know exactly how Compubox worked either until recently it did always seem a bit funny to me though. Especially when they put it on live sometimes during a round for a few seconds. The recorded shots seem way off.

fan_johnny - Wasn't it the Pac vs Clottey fight that he did the whole "bang..bababang, bang, bang!"? Either way he made some similarly immature sound effects.

The first time I heard him was actually a pacquiao fight was against Ledwaba, but I'm not sure it was his first time using it as commentary.

[fan johnny]

There are problems with this system though:

1) Combubox is not accurate, it seems just as prone to human error as the judges

2) What happens if one fighter lands 1000 punches in round one, then nothing for the next 11 and get's beat 11-1 on rounds, but has a better punch stat record? Combubox over a whole fight doesn't give an accurate account of what happened.


Somethign needs to be done, I'm just not sure that is it

I agree if we just go to the stats then a fighter could beat another by clean touches that have no power and physically come out of the fight more beat up, but way ahead.

I don't think it's possible for someone to land more punches in one round than the other fighter does in the rest of the fight. Has that ever happened? If it is possible I would say it's likely to be so rare as to be irrelevant. Although I understand your point, I guess the current system of scoring round by round would have to be scrapped if this system was adopted. Unless they used a percentage-per-round system. I guess that would be fairer.
And I agree that CompuBox isn't 100% accurate, but I'm not suggesting the judges are making mistakes. Maybe I'm being cynical but I'd say these results have more to do with the amount of money generated from a rematch than any errors made in the scoring. CompuBox might not be 100% accurate but at least it has no concept of wealth.

Yup, we were discussing how whacky compubox is for backing up a claim that a fighter won/lost just the other day. It doesn't measure weight of shots, how clean the punch connected etc. I also used the Mayweather vs Castillo 1 example where Floyd was well ahead (if I remember right) on compubox by Round 6. No way you can judge a fight with compubox.

You'd get far more wafty results if you let Compubox decide the outcomes of fights...and then we'd point fingers at the two vegetables behind the computer pressing the buttons instead of the judges. Lets for one second imagine compubox was even accurate (it isn't), what makes you think that if judges can be corrupt, then the Compubox operators can't be?

Jim Lampley would make a fine compubox operator : "Oop another shot landed for Pacquiao..and another..oh and there's another..bang..bang bang..bababang!" *Pacquiao hasn't even come out of his corner yet*

Just about anything can be measured. Arguablly you could put enough people behind buttons and you could create an analog meter of effective punches. There is another problem and that is some fighters absorb punches with lees effective reult than others having more devasting results. So not only is the fight being watched subjective, the effect on the fighter is also subjective.

Out of courisity when was the first time you recall jim lampley use "bang" in his commentary?