Quote Originally Posted by X
I take your point (and I thought that Floyd put on a masterclass), but I am a bit reluctant to give punchstats much credibility because:

- it is a human who presses a button each time they think a fighter punches the other. It's not a machine doing the counting so I belive the numbers are fallible. This is essentially the same system as amateur scoring in the Olympics, and look at the ridiculous decisions we still get there.
- I don't think we have arrived at a consistent definition of 'punch' - so I don't think we can properly compare fights where a different person was plugging numbers into punchstats.
- Jack Dempsey annihilated Georges Carpentier (for example), yet Carpentier threw much much more punches and landed hundreds of pitty-pat blows. Every time Dempsey hit him, he nearly broke him in half but an objective reading of punchstat - if it had existed then - would lead us to believe that Carpentier was winning. The system does not discern between the QUALITY of the punch and its effects.

So ...... I agree with you that PBF was brilliant. But maybe you could find a better way of proving it to the doubters than quoting punchstats? (because people who dislike punchstats will try to prove your point wrong, when they just don't rate punchstat, and not because they necessarilty disagree with your point about this fight?)

Only my opinion !
But JT wasn't using punchstats to prove that PBF dominated Baldomir. Pretty much everyone admits that. Most agree that he won all 12 rounds (a few people give Baldi 1 or 2 rounds). JT was citing the punchstats to show that this was not an action-free fight. Granted, there's more action in a fight where someone's hitting really hard and knocking the other guy down a lot; but the fact that there were as many punches thrown here as in plenty of other fights at least gives the lie to the idea that this fight just consisted of PBF running laps around the ring with Baldi chasing him.