Official Super Six Follow Live Thread

[Kev]

I think you guys are overestimating the 'robbery'

The first 8 or 9 rounds ok Froch looked awkward but what did Dirrell do apart from dodge punches?

It WAS a close fight imo, kind of like the first Sam Peter James Toney fight.

Dirrell was techinically much better and landed the better shots, but about three quarters of the fight was Froch pressing which obviosly is worth something.

The point was bullshit though, not sure if that affected the scores, I dont think it does as Froch had two 115-113 but it shouldnt have happened.

Dirrell can leave feeling he gave a good performance but too timid, Froch needs to work on a LOT though and can count himself very lucky tonight.

Dirrell is a CLASS ACT in the post fight interview though, I really hope he can bounce back from this.

A perfect example of why computer scoring wouldn't work even by your standards. No way Froch outlanded Dirrell.

My suggestion of computer scoring was to prevent crazy robberies where one fighter clearly won according to the rest of the world but was robbed by blind or corrupt judges.

If the computer gave the fight to Dirrell on accuracy here who would complain? It was a very close that could have gone either way.

My argument wasn't that a computer would be more accurate in all cases but more consistently accurate over the majority of the cases, and where it would have problems would be in very close fights such as this where ultimately it doesnt matter which side it chooses.

A computer would have a certain bias its true but judges have waaaaaaay more.


You had 100 fights judged by a computer and 100 the traditional way my bet is you would have far less fans crying robbery in the computer scoring fights.

However I think MORE fighters might complain if the computer was judge, easier to say they were robbed by silicon than a man.....

[killersheep]

I think you guys are overestimating the 'robbery'

The first 8 or 9 rounds ok Froch looked awkward but what did Dirrell do apart from dodge punches?

It WAS a close fight imo, kind of like the first Sam Peter James Toney fight.

Dirrell was techinically much better and landed the better shots, but about three quarters of the fight was Froch pressing which obviosly is worth something.

The point was bullshit though, not sure if that affected the scores, I dont think it does as Froch had two 115-113 but it shouldnt have happened.

Dirrell can leave feeling he gave a good performance but too timid, Froch needs to work on a LOT though and can count himself very lucky tonight.

Dirrell is a CLASS ACT in the post fight interview though, I really hope he can bounce back from this.

A perfect example of why computer scoring wouldn't work even by your standards. No way Froch outlanded Dirrell.

My suggestion of computer scoring was to prevent crazy robberies where one fighter clearly won according to the rest of the world but was robbed by blind or corrupt judges.

If the computer gave the fight to Dirrell on accuracy here who would complain? It was a very close that could have gone either way.

My argument wasn't that a computer would be more accurate in all cases but more consistently accurate over the majority of the cases, and where it would have problems would be in very close fights such as this where ultimately it doesnt matter which side it chooses.

A computer would have a certain bias its true but judges have waaaaaaay more.


You had 100 fights judged by a computer and 100 the traditional way my bet is you would have far less fans crying robbery in the computer scoring fights.

However I think MORE fighters might complain if the computer was judge, easier to say they were robbed by silicon than a man.....

You would be hard pressed to find more than two rounds that Froch outlanded Dirrell you would have scorecards reading 117-110 Dirrell (because of the point deduction). I challenge you to find anyone that would say that was a fair judgement of the fight. Impact matters, aggression matters, all of the things that a computer would be unable to calculate. So it doesn't solve the robbery cries that tend to follow pretty much every decision nowadays.

[Kev]

A perfect example of why computer scoring wouldn't work even by your standards. No way Froch outlanded Dirrell.

My suggestion of computer scoring was to prevent crazy robberies where one fighter clearly won according to the rest of the world but was robbed by blind or corrupt judges.

If the computer gave the fight to Dirrell on accuracy here who would complain? It was a very close that could have gone either way.

My argument wasn't that a computer would be more accurate in all cases but more consistently accurate over the majority of the cases, and where it would have problems would be in very close fights such as this where ultimately it doesnt matter which side it chooses.

A computer would have a certain bias its true but judges have waaaaaaay more.


You had 100 fights judged by a computer and 100 the traditional way my bet is you would have far less fans crying robbery in the computer scoring fights.

However I think MORE fighters might complain if the computer was judge, easier to say they were robbed by silicon than a man.....

You would be hard pressed to find more than two rounds that Froch outlanded Dirrell you would have scorecards reading 117-110 Dirrell (because of the point deduction). I challenge you to find anyone that would say that was a fair judgement of the fight. Impact matters, aggression matters, all of the things that a computer would be unable to calculate. So it doesn't solve the robbery cries that tend to follow pretty much every decision nowadays.

Well most on here would here would think scores of 117-110 Dirrell would be highly accurate it seems

Anway I think you underestimate what computers could potentially do. Why do you assume they couldn't calculate aggression and other subtle things relating to the fight?

A computer is capable of much more than just registering whether a punch lands like, like some kind of counter.

They can do all kinds of things with computers these days and if research was put into it I bet they could in time make a computer that virtually removed the subjective aspect of scoring entirely.

They could track who pressed the most and who was backed up as easily as they can track possession times in a football video game, motion cameras and sensors could be set up, all kinds of data.

[Violent Demise]

My suggestion of computer scoring was to prevent crazy robberies where one fighter clearly won according to the rest of the world but was robbed by blind or corrupt judges.

If the computer gave the fight to Dirrell on accuracy here who would complain? It was a very close that could have gone either way.

My argument wasn't that a computer would be more accurate in all cases but more consistently accurate over the majority of the cases, and where it would have problems would be in very close fights such as this where ultimately it doesnt matter which side it chooses.

A computer would have a certain bias its true but judges have waaaaaaay more.


You had 100 fights judged by a computer and 100 the traditional way my bet is you would have far less fans crying robbery in the computer scoring fights.

However I think MORE fighters might complain if the computer was judge, easier to say they were robbed by silicon than a man.....

You would be hard pressed to find more than two rounds that Froch outlanded Dirrell you would have scorecards reading 117-110 Dirrell (because of the point deduction). I challenge you to find anyone that would say that was a fair judgement of the fight. Impact matters, aggression matters, all of the things that a computer would be unable to calculate. So it doesn't solve the robbery cries that tend to follow pretty much every decision nowadays.

Well most on here would here would think scores of 117-110 Dirrell would be highly accurate it seems

Anway I think you underestimate what computers could potentially do. Why do you assume they couldn't calculate aggression and other subtle things relating to the fight?

A computer is capable of much more than just registering whether a punch lands like, like some kind of counter.

They can do all kinds of things with computers these days and if research was put into it I bet they could in time make a computer that virtually removed the subjective aspect of scoring entirely.

They could track who pressed the most and who was backed up as easily as they can track possession times in a football video game, motion cameras and sensors could be set up, all kinds of data.

Dirrell 117-110 would of been the right score if no judges were in the pocket

[killersheep]

My suggestion of computer scoring was to prevent crazy robberies where one fighter clearly won according to the rest of the world but was robbed by blind or corrupt judges.

If the computer gave the fight to Dirrell on accuracy here who would complain? It was a very close that could have gone either way.

My argument wasn't that a computer would be more accurate in all cases but more consistently accurate over the majority of the cases, and where it would have problems would be in very close fights such as this where ultimately it doesnt matter which side it chooses.

A computer would have a certain bias its true but judges have waaaaaaay more.


You had 100 fights judged by a computer and 100 the traditional way my bet is you would have far less fans crying robbery in the computer scoring fights.

However I think MORE fighters might complain if the computer was judge, easier to say they were robbed by silicon than a man.....

You would be hard pressed to find more than two rounds that Froch outlanded Dirrell you would have scorecards reading 117-110 Dirrell (because of the point deduction). I challenge you to find anyone that would say that was a fair judgement of the fight. Impact matters, aggression matters, all of the things that a computer would be unable to calculate. So it doesn't solve the robbery cries that tend to follow pretty much every decision nowadays.

Well most on here would here would think scores of 117-110 Dirrell would be highly accurate it seems

Anway I think you underestimate what computers could potentially do. Why do you assume they couldn't calculate aggression and other subtle things relating to the fight?

A computer is capable of much more than just registering whether a punch lands like, like some kind of counter.

They can do all kinds of things with computers these days and if research was put into it I bet they could in time make a computer that virtually removed the subjective aspect of scoring entirely.

They could track who pressed the most and who was backed up as easily as they can track possession times in a football video game, motion cameras and sensors could be set up, all kinds of data.

Because I make sensors that feed data to computers for a living and am quite aware of what is possible, I attend annual conferences so hardware engineers can discuss what is on the "cutting edge" and what they hope to achieve with new said technologies. I think you overestimate what is possible what you are talking about is unrealistic by today's standards.

[Kev]

You would be hard pressed to find more than two rounds that Froch outlanded Dirrell you would have scorecards reading 117-110 Dirrell (because of the point deduction). I challenge you to find anyone that would say that was a fair judgement of the fight. Impact matters, aggression matters, all of the things that a computer would be unable to calculate. So it doesn't solve the robbery cries that tend to follow pretty much every decision nowadays.

Well most on here would here would think scores of 117-110 Dirrell would be highly accurate it seems

Anway I think you underestimate what computers could potentially do. Why do you assume they couldn't calculate aggression and other subtle things relating to the fight?

A computer is capable of much more than just registering whether a punch lands like, like some kind of counter.

They can do all kinds of things with computers these days and if research was put into it I bet they could in time make a computer that virtually removed the subjective aspect of scoring entirely.

They could track who pressed the most and who was backed up as easily as they can track possession times in a football video game, motion cameras and sensors could be set up, all kinds of data.

Because I make sensors that feed data to computers for a living and am quite aware of what is possible, I attend annual conferences so hardware engineers can discuss what is on the "cutting edge" and what they hope to achieve with new said technologies. I think you overestimate what is possible what you are talking about is unrealistic by today's standards.

You know it's ironic, when I discussed Obama policy with Jazmerkin it turned out he was a journalist, when I discussed geology with Salty it turned out he was a geologist and now I am discussing computer sensors with a man who makes them for a living.

Oh and when I went on about chess it turned out ICB was a chess prodigy at school who could beat grandmasters.

It seems I always come up against an expert in whatever field I talk about.

Talented folks here on Saddos.

[killersheep]

Well most on here would here would think scores of 117-110 Dirrell would be highly accurate it seems

Anway I think you underestimate what computers could potentially do. Why do you assume they couldn't calculate aggression and other subtle things relating to the fight?

A computer is capable of much more than just registering whether a punch lands like, like some kind of counter.

They can do all kinds of things with computers these days and if research was put into it I bet they could in time make a computer that virtually removed the subjective aspect of scoring entirely.

They could track who pressed the most and who was backed up as easily as they can track possession times in a football video game, motion cameras and sensors could be set up, all kinds of data.

Because I make sensors that feed data to computers for a living and am quite aware of what is possible, I attend annual conferences so hardware engineers can discuss what is on the "cutting edge" and what they hope to achieve with new said technologies. I think you overestimate what is possible what you are talking about is unrealistic by today's standards.

You know it's ironic, when I discussed Obama policy with Jazmerkin it turned out he was a journalist, when I discussed geology with Salty it turned out he was a geologist and now I am discussing computer sensors with a man who makes them for a living.

Oh and when I went on about chess it turned out ICB was a chess prodigy at school who could beat grandmasters.

It seems I always come up against an expert in whatever field I talk about.

Talented folks here on Saddos.

I certainly wouldn't say I'm the expert, but in fairness my knowledge in what your talking about is equal to your knowledge in chess. I like how you add the air of suspicion around the three of us by adding ICB in the mix as well. I know it's hard to understand, but some of us have to work.

[Kev]

Because I make sensors that feed data to computers for a living and am quite aware of what is possible, I attend annual conferences so hardware engineers can discuss what is on the "cutting edge" and what they hope to achieve with new said technologies. I think you overestimate what is possible what you are talking about is unrealistic by today's standards.

You know it's ironic, when I discussed Obama policy with Jazmerkin it turned out he was a journalist, when I discussed geology with Salty it turned out he was a geologist and now I am discussing computer sensors with a man who makes them for a living.

Oh and when I went on about chess it turned out ICB was a chess prodigy at school who could beat grandmasters.

It seems I always come up against an expert in whatever field I talk about.

Talented folks here on Saddos.

I certainly wouldn't say I'm the expert, but in fairness my knowledge in what your talking about is equal to your knowledge in chess.

I think it's an interesting discussion topic at least.

There is a system being worked on now for use in amateur boxing which is interesting I feel. It would involve sensors in the vest and gloves so that every punches is accurately measured whether it landed or not and would be wirelessly linked to a big screen display so that the crowd could see exactly what punches were landing and where on the body.

Sensors in gloves may deliver KO blow to corrupt judges - Sport - smh.com.au

They say they still have some teething problems with blocking but it shows the possibilities.

Of course this method would mean wearing vests which I wouldn't want to see in pro boxing at all, but I don't know if later technology can get around that........

[RozzySean]

My suggestion of computer scoring was to prevent crazy robberies where one fighter clearly won according to the rest of the world but was robbed by blind or corrupt judges.

If the computer gave the fight to Dirrell on accuracy here who would complain? It was a very close that could have gone either way.

My argument wasn't that a computer would be more accurate in all cases but more consistently accurate over the majority of the cases, and where it would have problems would be in very close fights such as this where ultimately it doesnt matter which side it chooses.


A computer would have a certain bias its true but judges have waaaaaaay more.


You had 100 fights judged by a computer and 100 the traditional way my bet is you would have far less fans crying robbery in the computer scoring fights.

However I think MORE fighters might complain if the computer was judge, easier to say they were robbed by silicon than a man.....

You would be hard pressed to find more than two rounds that Froch outlanded Dirrell you would have scorecards reading 117-110 Dirrell (because of the point deduction). I challenge you to find anyone that would say that was a fair judgement of the fight. Impact matters, aggression matters, all of the things that a computer would be unable to calculate. So it doesn't solve the robbery cries that tend to follow pretty much every decision nowadays.

Well most on here would here would think scores of 117-110 Dirrell would be highly accurate it seems

Anway I think you underestimate what computers could potentially do. Why do you assume they couldn't calculate aggression and other subtle things relating to the fight?

A computer is capable of much more than just registering whether a punch lands like, like some kind of counter.

They can do all kinds of things with computers these days and if research was put into it I bet they could in time make a computer that virtually removed the subjective aspect of scoring entirely.

They could track who pressed the most and who was backed up as easily as they can track possession times in a football video game, motion cameras and sensors could be set up, all kinds of data.

117-110 sound right. I can give Froch 4. Considering that Froch was fight the likes of Dan Westerman and Brian Magee at this stage of his career, Dirrell did pretty well to leave Froch's hometown with a split loss.

[Deanrw]

I had it 8 rounds to 4 for Dirrell without regarding the point deduction. So I ended up having it 7-4-1 for Dirrell with the point taken into the scoring.

I also thought I was being generous to Froch.