Scoring solution

[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.

[GOAT]

Don't need no solution for a fixed exhibition show, seraphanx. But I'm certain you knew that, didn't you?

[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.

[Andre]

Here is my Idea:

Go with 5 judges instead of 3.

3 of them are Ringside and 2 of them in a sound proof booth watching on a HDTV.

After the fight you take all 5 score cards and remove the 2 cards that have the widest margin from one another..

Leaving you with the final 3 score cards to use.

Example:
Judge 1 Ringside - 118-110 Fighter A - Remove
Judge 2 Ringside - 116-112 Fighter A
Judge 3 Ringside - 116-112 Fighter B - Remove
Judge 4 Booth - 115-113 Fighter B
Judge 5 Booth - 115-113 Fighter A

Good idea and have small screens in front of the judges ringside too so that when the ref or the back of a fighter blocks their view they can use it.

Fights are sometimes too close between champs for them to be allowed to miss even one clean shot.


Also they should be accountable for their scores in front of a panel that will ban them if their scores are too wide of the mark,make them do their job properly or get a ban from large events until they prove themselves worthy.

[IamInuit]

Compubox is the village idiot

Put them in sound proof booths away from all the distractions and give them the same angles we are given as viewers.

[Seraphanx]

Don't need no solution for a fixed exhibition show, seraphanx. But I'm certain you knew that, didn't you?

Yeah. Disappointingly I did.