Boxer A vs Boxer B. Rounds 1 through 5: Boxer A throws 60 punches, lands 60 punches, Boxer B throws 10, lands 5. Rounds 6 through 12 Boxer A throws 20 punches, lands 20 punches per round, Boxer B throws 50 punches, lands 25 punches per round. Totals Boxer A lands 360 punches at a perfect connect percentage in entire fight Boxer B lands 175 punches at a 50% connect percentage in entire fight. Winner by 115-113 - Boxer B. Moral of the Story: It doesn't matter how many punches you land, how great you land them and what your connect percentage is - even if you outland the other guy by 2 to 1 in the entire fight, if you lay back for six to seven rounds in the contest and he scrapes by you in each of those rounds - you still lose the fight. I wish a few people here would learn this, so we can stop hearing "OMG ROBBERY, THE OTHER GUY LANDED MORE" when it comes to debating decisions. Rounds have no history. You are judged three minutes, by three minutes. You can get beaten up for 5 rounds of the fight and narrowly scrape through seven rounds, you'll still win the fight. Learn this, please.
Cotto nuthugger trying to diminish compubox and statistics in general to support your case. I don't agree with Compubox and I think it is unreliable, but Clottey still landed the more cleaner punches in every round except for a few against Cotto.
Damn bro, you beat me to it. I was about to make an identical thread pointing this out, how "punches landed" cant always be used as an indicator for who won the fight. GENERAL RULE-The statistic known as "punches landed" is only an accurate indicator of victory when Fighter A consistently "landed" more punches throughout EVERY round of the fight in comparison to Fighter B. -However, when Fighter A "connect/lands" more punches than Fighter B due to a high punch output in only 2/3rds or less of the total rounds, than this statistic may be negligible, as Fighter A leaves himself susceptible to being outlanded in those rounds in which he had a low punch output, and hence he may "give away" rounds. >> This creates a scoring dilemma, as Fighter A may lose 3-4 rounds decisively while still making the remaining rounds "close". Not maintaining a consistent punch output will generally result in the decision going AGAINST Fighter A in such cases. -High punch output does therefore not guarantee a win in a fight, as unless it is consistently maintained throughout the majority of the rounds, Fighter A can inadvertently lose a crucial number of rounds, costing him the decision, as judges often favor consistency over the length of the fight rather than inconsistent domination of the rounds. -The crucial "give away" rounds mentioned above can be even more damaging to Fighter A if they are the "championship rounds", generally regarded as rounds 9-12. These rounds more than any other determine a fight's victor, as they will leave both the judges and crowd with the mental impression of who is winning the fight as it comes to its conclusion. Apply those rules to the Cotto-Clottey fight, and you see now why he lost.
even if a fighter outlands his opponent in every round, he can lose a decision you dont score a fight on punchstats, period.
A good judge can disregard punch statistics and previous rounds, the guy who scored the fight 116-111 wasn't a good judge, at all.. but anyone giving Clottey more than six rounds is equally as poor. The fight was 6 rounds to 6 - funnily, it was a jab that stopped it being 7-5, cause I felt Clottey did the better work up until being dropped in the first round. The jab that caused the knock down, combined with Clottey being lazy in the final round cost him. Once people can understand boxing is a round by round sport, perhaps these idiots will stop appearing to state "OMG ROBBERY" or in this case "CLOTTEY WON, NO WAY COTTO WON"
Disregard Compubox completely. Take the principle of the fight example. If one fighter lands a **** tonne of punches in five rounds but goes to sleep for the other seven - he'll lose the fight. Winning five rounds clearly and losing seven rounds narrowly still means you lose.
Pfft. Everyone knows how decisions are really won. Who you are connected to and how many corrupt officials can be positioned pre-fight.
Sure - if Don King is promoting the fight. 80% of the media gave this fight to Cotto. That should tell you something.
What if Boxer A throws nothing but uppercuts? I'd say that's pretty ****ing impressive if he lands all of them.
Yeah, it'd be ****ing impressive but you could then consider him a weak puncher, if he landed a number of uppercuts without finishing a guy off and took seven rounds off in the process of losing a decision.
Clottey lost because he didn't go for broke when he had the chance! It had nothing to do with Cotto's output. I had Clottey losing rather than Cotto winning.