Reporters Scorecards!

It's a mere crutch for people unwilling or unable to argue for their cards using actual criteria. The case for Marquez in the first two receives little to no support from CompuBox, just as the case for Pacquiao here. And the validity of such a tool, even for post-fight assessments, is extremely limited due to the fact that the numbers are very easily skewed and very often do not reflect what went on in the ring.

No, after clean effective punching, you look at the other three scoring criterion, effective aggression, ring generalship, and defense. Merely coming forward and/or throwing more is not the same as any of these three things.

 

Oh you've found me out! I fear math and wish to eliminate from society altogether. No the point is that CompuBox numbers are regularly inflated and skewed, and the numbers themselves do not derive from any mechanical counting of punches but instead from subjective human judgments (much like the same human judgments that are used to score a fight in the first place). Again, "Why Compubox is Useless": http://thecruelestsport.com/2010/12/13/the-10th-round-an-overview-or-why-compubox-is-useless/

 

Weather one thought Pacquiao won or Marquez won. There have been very few people here giving arguments for their opinion. Look at all the fellows who gives it 10-2, 9-3 or 8-4 to Marquez for example. The only arguments most of them have is, the commentary are biased and the CompuBox is un-useful because it doesn't fit their opinion. It also means that they have given all the close rounds to Marquez. What are the odds of giving a fighter 6 of 6 close rounds? And of course the usual, watch the fight again, or take your blindfolds off. And, they can't even watch the fight without sound, because "I don't need to" or "I can't hear the hits, or "hear the boxers reactions".

The CompuBox isn't bulletproof, most stats aren't. But it's a very good indicator weather people like it or not.


Now, I'd love to read good arguments for why Marquez won, as long as they are based on the rules and one manages to argument valid points for a case based on the rules.

It was that close, it could have gone either way.

 

If you don't know how to count don't blame compubox I assure you learning numbers isn't that too complicated to understand.

 

Because he landed more shots, and he landed by FAR the harder shots.

Be cause he was the aggressor much of the time, beating Manny to the first punch of many exchanges.

Because the compubox numbers are a complete fabrication. Manny was hitting air all night, yet they scored half those misses as hits, and they literally didn't count half of JMM's punches. This is not theoretical. Take any round and count for yourself.

Should I continue?

 

Lets be honest here, homo gayweather wants no part of pacman, so manny took it easy on JMM to make the fight close, so he could set up a rematch with another big PPV,,,,manny pretty ****en smart, but then again, he is asian

 

lol.. I doubt it would matter, but please do for my amusement. What you have said here pretty much means you watched a different fight. Aggressor? Really? REALLY? atsch

 

But the basis for the stats in this case is nothing more than contingent and fallible human judgment! This isn't like stats in other sports; a basketball player's shooting percentage is clearly determined by the rules of the game of what constitutes a shot and a score. This is not the case with CompuBox at all; it is nothing more than two guys pushing buttons with a coarse distinction between jabs and power punches. I have just as little reason to defer to those guys as I do to the ringside judges. Loads of arguments have been made by the people who have Marquez winning; look at all the scorecard threads, look at IB's and PetethePrince's round-by-rounds, which have far more actual contextual details than the mere aggregation of problematically compiled statistics.

Look here: http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11247008&postcount=64 and here: http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11242044&postcount=1234 for a start. If you want to talk about the actual criteria for judging, in strictly general terms I thought Marquez landed the cleaner and more effective blows in more rounds than not, controlled the pace and distance of the fight, and blunted the effectiveness of Pacquiao's apparent aggression.

 

I know how to count perfectly well. It's the people working for CompuBox that I worry about. I also know how judge a fight perfeclty well. It's the people hiding behind CompuBox numbers that I worry about.

 

Now, this is a fair opinion.

I disagree with you that he landed more shots, but I agree that he landed the cleaner shots, not necessarily harder. You don't have to always punch hard to get an effect. And, even though it was cleaner, Pacquiao's more landed shots and the effect of them was better. He did more damage.

Now, you say the CompuBox is a complete fabrication. When you do that, if I where to be convinced by that, you need to provide the evidence for it. I'm not the one who shall go on searching(though I could) for that when it's you that are making the claim.

 

This content is protected

WTF...no wonder you believe JMM won.

This content is protected

This content is protected

When you're the one making the accusation, burden of proof is on you. That's how it works in the real world.

 

I'm glad the media are better at scoring a fight than ESBers. Most had it 2 points difference to a draw. I guess only biased ESBers can have jmm winning 10-12 rounds nut

 

Dan Rafael scored a draw. :deal