Thoughts on computer judging

[Kev]

How can a computer tell which "power shots" were more effective, how can a computer tell if a guy is hurt, does a power punch count twice as much as a normal punch, 1/2 as much, three times as much, punch stats aren't everything and this is just a bad idea.

I completely agree with you Ouma, there would be flaws but honestly answer me this question.

How many fights on HBO have there been where compubox clearly favours one fight but the other guy wins the decision and it's NOT been a highly controversial decision?

Yes there are flaws but in purely practical terms my bet is that even compubox is far more accurate in terms of agreeing with the general perceptions of the majority than even the supposedly most competent judges.

We might get the odd decision where we think the guy who was second best according to compubox should have won the fight but you would NEVER get a wrong lopsided decision using this method, and 8 out of 10 times the result would be universally agreed as correct, with maybe 1 time debatable and the less than 1 in 10 wrong, which is a much better stat than the judges can manage.

[OumaFan]

How many times lately has their been a fight where a guy clearly won out on compubox but didn't get the decision (20 or so punches over 12 rounds I don't consider clearly)? Not a rhetorical question, my mind is going blank. In the case of Malignaggi-Diaz, such a tragedy of justice apparently, Malignaggi landed like 12 or so more total punches but Diaz landed more power shots, so what's the power shot to jab ratio of importance?

I just don't like it. I like grading better but for that it would help to have a national commission.

[Nameless]

The thing is that a computer induced judge would be all a new paradigm to us and it is a bit hard to imagine a sport we like getting such radical changing without being touched by it at least emotively; PErsonally, I am partly reluctant to it too because I would find it odd but somehow, I also know that a part of my judgment comes from the fact that it is an emotive reaction; Though I am highly rational, I tend to affection some things in daily life and to me, judges bring something more human to boxing and I don't like the idea that a machine created by men would judge men in their own sports.
Very rationally though, let's imagine that the geeks from IBM would be able to make a super computer program that would judge with a very very high accuracy a match and calculate the ringwise and such, why would we spit on it without any regard? without making this computer the main judge, we could perhaps think of a system (always admitting that this super program/computer exists) where he wouldn't be the sole judge but one of the judge or at least, a reference that the judge could consult in tight rounds where they have difficulties to make their mind, a kind of technological tool to their service, no?