Fights with Corrupted and Inflated Compubox Numbers that You Ignore?

the funniest is how some morons bring up the compubox numbers for the first two Pac-JMM fights to say Marquez beat Pac (which isn't even a solid argument) and then cry about the Pac-JMM 3 compubox numbers. it just shows their ignorance.

 

Shutup, you're nothing more than a useless fan boy

 

That would be funny uh? Except only floyd huggers do that. The rest of the fans didnt need compubox to claim JMM won. Just our eyes.

 

I rarely take Compubox seriously.

 

I understand his argument about giving the middle finger to compubox stats, but we all already knew his motive for being in here.:yep

 

I agree compubox is garbage in lots of fights. glen johnson vs lucian bute is one of them. it looked to me as if they were landing around the same amount of punches but the stats were totally in favor of Bute. 90 % of what Bute threw landed on the gloves of Johnson

 

dude, I've always said Compubox is ****. And anyways Compubox actually has the first fight a draw and the 2nd and 3rd fights as wins for Pac.

but yea, compubox is ****.

 

the funny thing is how *****s are saying that compubox is **** in the pac-jmm3 fight and floyd-castillo1 fight but would use compubox's hit-to-miss ratio to praise floyd's accuracy and defense.

 

Channeling my Larnce_uppercut :nut

atschYou Pacquiao fanyboys are so pathetic. You fanatics come in here with your dribble and try to defend your idol Pac :roll:

 

And its funny how you use compubox to defend Pacquiaos "win" :roll:

 

This is an EXCELLENT question!

I have always been suspicious of CompuBox stats. I'm not saying that the stats are tampered with, but, I am convinced that the guys doing the stats cannot always accurately trace the punches they see.

There are numerous close fights I've watched several times -- in slow motion -- simply because I wanted to see who landed the most shots. Always, I've found that it can be damned hard to tell if a punch actually connects, or if it barely connects, or if it misses by fraction of an inch. With those kinds of punches, I have to put down a "question mark" on my notepad: even the best films can make it hard to see the truth.

What I'm saying holds true for fights I've witnessed live, too. So, CompuBox "experts" sitting at ringside, I'm certain, would be prone to making mistakes. Anyone would.

I cannot believe that CompuBox "experts" know any better than me, or other hardcore boxing fans, if those "questionable" punches really did or did not land. These "experts" would be God if the really knew what they claim to know.

 

:huh
That's because those count.

 

He has a point. You haven't been here long enough to see older posts and what was claimed by many.

 

Nice try illiterate. But he's right about that. WAAY to many posters use compubox when it serves their purpose. And there were many who used them for those fights. You weren't on the board, and probably not even into boxing then. So you really shouldn't comment on **** you are unaware of. :thumbsup

Here's an example: If Compubox is as bad as many Floyd fans say, how can they use that same system to tout Floyd's numbers? Gotta be consistent.

 

:hey yes he does have a point. The *******s ignored compubox in the 1st 2 fights and now they want to use it