punch stat fallacy

i personally believe that there is such a thing as a punch stat fallacy, let me explain. Suppose two guys are fighting a seven rounds fight. in three consecutive rounds fighter 1 lands about 40 punches per rounds while fighter 2 only lands about 10 punches per round for the first 3 rounds. it is obvious that fighter 1 which has landed about 120 punches (fighter 2 has landed about 30) in the first 3 rounds should be ahead. Now lets say for the next four rounds fighter 2 fights back hard and lands about 20 punches per rounds while fighter 1 get a little tire and only trows about 15 punches per rounds. since fighter 2 landed more punches he should win the last four rounds so the score card should read 66-67 for the winner fighter 2. remember this is using the 10 point must system so if we look at the punch stats fighter 1 has a total of about 180 punches landed while fighter 2 has about 110 punches landed. if we look just at these numbers we might cry out robbery but it really isn't

 

that is just how the 10 point must system works. is it fair? i don't know but we look at fights on a round by round basis.

 

that's the weakness of the 10 point must system. one guy can win 5 rounds by large margins and instill more damage then the other guy that wins 7 rounds just by the skin of his teeth and the guy who got annihilated in 5 rounds will get the victory just cause he had more rounds when in fact he got punished far worse

 

yes that the weakness of 10 point must system...it is going to be round by round...no matter how many you hit your opponent in a whole match...unless it is knockdown...

 

It reminds me of the USA presidential elections. Popular vote and electoral college.

 

I never pay much attention to Compubox anyway.

Understandably, it's going to be really hard to be accurate when you have world class fighters punching, blocking, slipping, etc...all in milliseconds.

You look at the Compubox numbers of fights like Trinidad-De La Hoya, Mayweather-De La Hoya...come on, Trinidad landed 160+ punches? De La Hoya hit Mayweather 120+ times?

I pay it no mind.

 

Wait are we talking about Compubox or just the 10 point must system?

I thought judges don't use compubox?

Also, aren't judges allowed to score a round 10-8 even if there's no KD in case a fighter gets really beat up but doesn't fall down?

 

You can win a tennis match by winning less than half of the points.

funny how numbers work

 

Compubox is not some magical computer scanning the ring. It's just a guy pushing buttons, and that guy is usually drunk.

 

On the plus side, the 10 point must rewards stamina and heart. Sure fighter 1 teed off early and looked like a killer, but doesn't fighter 2 deserve the nod for taking all that punishment and sticking around to dish out his own?

We'll always have controversy, but I NEVER want to see amateur scoring rules applied to the pros.

 

Ten point must is certainly better than the round system.

 

Great avatar... still need to see that one.

 

I can't stand puch stats. They reflect only one aspect of a fight and do not take into account all other variables like power and pressure,etc
While we're on I can't stand KO ratios either. Look at the KO% of all time greats like SRR, Archie Moore, Harry Greb or Willie Pep. Then look at the KO% of modern average fighters like Haye, Valuev or Maglianaggi.

 

Actually, I just wrote a pretty big article on this.

http://www.badlefthook.com/2009/6/14/908971/robberies-and-scoring-fallacies