Originally Posted by nipplefloss
I don't understand why you average the averages to establish this, that's a really goofy way to define average accuracy.
If I fight two fights and I'm 1/1 in the first and 500/1000 in the second then my "average" accuracy by this method is 75% but my actual average accuracy if you average over all punches thrown is 50.004%. No one in sports does averages this way because it is incredibly stupid and would lead to really stupid results based on outlier performances.
This ignores the fact that compubox itself is just a dude watching a fight and pushing a button to determine when he thinks a punch landed, so saying "you shouldn't trust your eyes, you should trust the numbers" is silly because the numbers are based on some guy using his eyes, as well or as badly as the rest of us. Basically your method of establishing your premise is flawed and your source for numbers is also flawed. And why stop at only 8 fights? I'm willing to bet that you can get the numbers to say a lot of different things depending on when you choose to set your cutoff for fights that qualify.
Here Pacquiao lands 19 punches in a round and compubox gives him credit for landing 35. Anybody could have done a better job than that sitting at home watching the fight on TV and counting punches landed on their fingers.