punchstats - murray vs sturm

Interesting, Sturm landed the more eye catching punches.

 

This means nothing. Murray routinely through 8 or 9 punches that had absolutely no power and barely moved Sturm. Sturms jab alone would back Murray up.

 

Why do people continue to post compubox stuff on fights?

They have absolutely zero relevance regarding scoring fights, nothing.

 

This.I always take the quality of landed punches over quantity,in most cases anyway.

 

Boxers should be punished for lacking power? It's not like they were arm punches, its just that Sturm was too tough but that doesn't mean Murray should be penalised for that.

 

How many of those 258 were real punches? 1 in 5?

 

It's meant to be effective aggression - if one fighter's aggression is more effective and backs the other off, I would always score for him.

 

As was Murray.

Overall, Sturm landed the harder, cleaner and more effective shots.

 

Was a close fight that could have been scored either way, a draw was probably the fairest. Compubox however...is ****ing apalling. Watch round 1 of Angulo v Kirkland and count Angulo's punches...then look at Compubox numbers.

 

Are you trying to argue this proves Murray won? I just felt that whenever Sturm opened up his shots tended to be harder and drove Murray back. I don't reward for effort.

 

Murray doesn't lack power, he just doesn't commit to his punches. He didn't step in with his jab and he wasn't turning his body into his shots. There was no explosiveness in his work either. Murrays punches were pretty much pitty patter and unless he (rarely) put 5 or 6 shots together were he dug on a few body shots then he never once stopped Sturm from advancing.

If a boxer does lack power then yes they are punished and have to make up for it by having a higher workrate, being more accurate etc