Most dominant compubox stats

compubox again?

Here is one thing!


It either tells you how featherfisted one fighter is or how good his pitterpunches are!

Mike Tyson - 20 punch- 1 KO. Lousy!

 

***** hypocrisy strong in this thread.

 

because I'm curious and other ppl are curious too about the most dominant numbers :huh

can you not understand or do I need to speak baboon to you?

 

money is king of efficiency. if anything, compubox only highlights how great money is and how high he is above the competition.

pac who? khan who? sergio who? 43 and 0 baby.

 

yeah and you also said that compubox doesn't mean ****. so why talk about a **** system in the first place if it's flawed?

 

If you ask the same question over and over, you'll get the same answer

 

You'll always see mayweather in this!

 

so is compubox **** and inaccurate according to you? YES or NO?

 

Calzaghe 351 of 952 vs Lacy 116 of 444, not bad.

 

most of the time, yes. It also sucks in evaluating who won a fight or certain rounds.

It's the same thing when people say your 40 time in football is a shitty way to measure how fast a football player really is, but people still look at them and get impressed and want to see who the fastest times are

 

so give us an instance where compubox is not **** or accurate? floyd-gatti? floyd-marquez?

 

When measuring a fighter's workrate a lot of times and I thought this fight looked pretty accurate

This content is protected

 

James Toney 401/616 65%

Iran Barkley 153/667 23%

this is through 9 rounds