There are two operators watching the fight live with devices. Their only job is to watch one of the fighters and note every punch. What type and if it lands or not. They are better than pretty much every fan or judge watching the fight because they are focused on a fraction of the fight and keeping a running tally, which is broken down for each round. They might miss a punch here or there but it's pretty accurate and worlds better than most of the scorers on this site. There are people who will give a fighter five or six rounds he didn't win because they like him, or because he's going forward, or because his face doesn't show as much damage. And even if they aren't biased in one of those ways, they often fall victim to inattention, or they don't fully process everything because there is a lot to take in. People tend to score based on what they feel because they don't have time when a fight is live to keep a tally and remember who hit the other guy more. Most scorecards are impressions and not objective at all. Compubox gives you a quantitative measurement of what happened. It's not perfect but it's about as close as you are going to get to an objective description of a fight. That doesn't tell the whole story. It doesn't tell you about the fighter's footwork, or who's throwing the harder punches. It doesn't tell you if there was a knockdown. It doesn't tell you when someone got their bell rung. It just gives you some raw data to help with an interpretation of what happened. Everyone should love it and thank God we have it, unless they are bad at scoring and their scores reflect what they feel in their hearts more than the reality of what happened in the ring.
Oh lord Replace the 10 pt. must scoring system with punch count. How boring would boxing be. I prefer: Defense Clean punching Ring generalship Effective aggression Over jabbing contests any day
While I don't agree with a Compubox scoring, the current system SUCKS. A judge scores a round 10-9 but doesn't have to give ANY explanation of how he derived at it, even though the criteria are as you described above. If that isn't the stupidest and most easily corruptable way to "score" a fight, then I have yet to see it in other sports. The criteria doesn't have to be given equal weight in scoring ffs. It is ridiculous.
Gee, sure hope the OP isn't a Pacquiao fan. If we apply that same logic to his career it looks eerily similar and would wipe out his most significant wins.
Fair enough. But the issue with compubox is it that it´s a single man with his keyboard sitting ringside. There is no way he can be accurate. And it has been proven to be grossly inaccurate on several occasions. The second problem with compubox is that it´s not the way you score fights. This is not the amateurs.
Yeah, that's what I've been saying about Canelo vs GGG all along, but I guess landing more punches only counts if you're a ginger from Guadalajara that sells cow-flavoured ice lollies.
Its the way boxing has been scored for most of its recorded history. That is why there are THREE judges. Many Olympic sports require judges, it's not unique to boxing. I do agree it's not a perfect system, and of course it's very subjective, but there are four factors used to scoring which are the ones I listed. Amateur boxing uses or used what dangerouscity was suggesting. Maybe he would appreciate that more than Pro boxing which is more complex in its scoring.
Well of course he did. Jacobs was prevented from rehydrating freely vs Canelo whereas vs GGG, Jacobs ballooned up in weight to his heart's desire while GGG had to observe the IBF rehydration clause. People still don't seem to 'get' how much rehydration affects in-ring performance, especially when its one guy that is affected and the other guy not. Canelo himself is a prime example. At 154 he was clearly cutting huge amounts of weight (thanks to peds, most likely) and he was infamous for his awful stamina. At 160, 168, 175, you can clearly see a huge improvement in his stamina and explosiveness.
That's a perfectly sound argument to make. I've never criticized you for arguing that GGG won either match with Canelo, I merely pointed out that Canelo landed the better, harder shots and slipped a ton of punches from GGG. I mean certain punches in boxing matches you remember. Like I remember vividly Jacobs landing one really great shot on Canelo. But I don't remember him landing any other shots that even came close to that one great shot that he landed. Whereas in Canelo GGG 1 I remember vividly several big shots that Canelo landed on GGG that were way better than anything GGG landed on him. In the rematch I remember that one great shot G landed on Canelo in the 10th. (which was why everybody gave GGG that round right, for that moment) But that was it, there wasn't several of those kind of big memorable shots that Canelo landed on G in the first match. So when you don't have those big eye-catching shots in rounds it's harder to argue you deserve rounds when you get outlanded. But one big shot can swing a round. The problem with Jacobs is that he doesn't typically land the kind of shots that can swing rounds. And I'm not saying he didn't deserve to win those last 2 rounds I'm just pointing out that he needed those last 2 rounds just to make it close on two judges cards, rounds where he was outlanded significantly at least according to compubox.
Except Pac has never used a rehydration clause and has been robbed hard twice. Moreover, if he had Canelo judges, he would be undefeated since climbing to FW (would have a win over mayweather and morales based on that Draw scorecard Canelo got from a shutout) aside from his KO loss to JMM. And he would have been caught using PEDs rather than just be accused of it by some nutjob. So ye, hardly comparable.
The fact remains, we would have less robberies via impartial compubox scoring rather than corrupt judging. Neither is perfect, but one seems unbiased whereas the other is completely open to corruption. I bet you, if you took all the biggest robberies of the past 10 years, score them via compubox rounds (taking into account power punches vs jabs which would separate it from amateur boxing scoring), there would be less robberies altogether. I just made this observation given that most of the robberies we know about, looking at compubox, taking into account power punches vs jabs (power punches get more credit), it tells a better story of who won and the result wouldn't have been a robbery.
