Compubox is no way to score a boxing match. To allow 2 people to count punches and whoever ends up with more landed at the end of the round wins the round would be a nightmare. No, there's an art to scoring boxing matches and it's really not about counting punches at all. It's about paying attention to aspects of the round and at the end of it making an instinctive decision based on what happened. An example is to look at the fan made youtube videos of Pacquiao Mayweather counting punches and Pac fans ending up with Pacquaio landing more punches than Mayweather and deserving to win. It would be a nightmare to score boxing matches that way. So how would you do it, would you determine who won based on total punches throughout a match or punches landed per round? What if someone outlands somebody by 1 punch in a round according to compubox. Would that be 10-9? What if the next round the opponent outlands him by 15 punches, is that 10-9 as well? You say power punches get more credit, how much more credit? You haven't thought this through, it's a logistical and practical nightmare to try to score boxing matches based on two people counting punches. Scoring bouts via Compubox is simply not a good way to score a boxing match. It's something to look at to gauge activity, particularly in the punches thrown category, and take note of how many body shots landed but it's highly inaccurate and doesn't take into account the quality of punches or other important aspects of boxing.
The raw truth about Canelo is his raw Cow milk diet with a tiny sprinkle of Clen: https://www.grubmarket.com/images/l...ow_milk_glass_bottle_2_refundable_deposit.jpg
Compubox is often better and less biased than the official judging, but still not perfect. As you stated it's just two guys counting in realtime, mistakes are bound to happen. I would suggest a different system: Multiple experts counting with all the visual available (all cameras, slow motion,..), so as the fight progresses, they will fall behind and might not be ready when the fight ends. But within 15 minutes or so, we would have a better result. This would only be necessary if the fight is close, so I wouldn't say the regular judges are obsolete. In 90% of the cases they can use their score to declare a fair winner on the spot. If the realtime punchcount is not conclusive, the teams should have a right to object. The commission should be forced to provide a recount including all the evidence (let's bring some actual science into the sweet science). This would only be necessary in a fraction of fights, so money shouldn't be an issue. We are talking of millions of dollars, this would cost 10000$ at most. All the material needed is there, and the fans can wait a couple of minutes (maybe DAZN could show some UFC fights in the meantime, or some bowling...).
And you think having a judge score it for someone else cos he wants to be invited to more judging jobs is better? As I said, compubox isn’t perfect but at least it’s not bias. I would apply a little bit of common sense, it’s more an off the cuff remark but truthfully, if 1 guy lands 100 jabs and 50 power punches and the other guy lands 90 power punches and 50 jabs, it’s pretty obvious who won. But ye, obviously haven’t thought it through. Just saying it’s usually pretty in-line with who I thought the winner was watching the fight objectively, as oppose to some judging scorecards.
For you are there examples of bouts where a guy who landed less punches than his opponent deserved to win based on quality punches? Can you think of some examples? This system would make it impossible to pace yourself wouldn't it. Think of the consequence of this. It would affect boxers strategy and incentives. It would make it so a seek and destroy fighter who gets outlanded in a round but lands the best punches of a round can't win a round. Not only that but you're putting results completely out of the intelligent "judging" of the contest and into the hands of two punch clickers. You'd be throwing the entire concept of boxing judging out the window.
The sad truth is that agenda driven fans on Boxing24 have no clue how to score a fight and pick whatever line of reasoning suits their agenda for that night. Fury's slickness this night? Kovalev's activity that night? The last thing being looked at is clean, effective punches landed. For every Byrd or Ross card there are 100x **** cards on this forum.
Can you believe this guy is suggesting throwing intelligent judging out the window and putting results solely in the hands of compubox punch clickers?
It’s already been done in the ams and it ruined the sport and did nothing to get rid of corruption. They don’t know that because they don’t know **** about boxing.
It should be the same as right now. If you're banking on your opponent to tire, the pay off will come later in the fight. or not. The intensity of punches is only measurable to the one receiving it, how else would you judge knockdowns by jabs and glancing blows. There are way too many variables to really judge and differentiate powerpunches unless a knockdown or something similar dramatic occurs. So we can't go by the looks of a punch, this isn't figure skating. Boxing does not want to change this, because it lives off the controversy. A change of a verdict does not generate money, a rematch does.
I'm all for intelligent judging but most of the time, compubox is in line with "intelligent judging", however, when the judges are corrupt, its not in line with compubox. As for less punches and win, entirely possible. I guess a lot of Malignaggi fights are like that. Guy throws a lot of pity pats and expects to win. You can't really tell how hard a "power punch" is unless there's visible reaction, provided its a clean hit. So if the compubox numbers were accurate enough, 1 guy lands 100 power punches (clean, verified on tape etc.) and another landed 80 power punches. Neither guy was visibly hurt. Can you really argue the guy who landed less punches (assuming jabs are the same) won? Thats the thing with the numbers, at least its objective. In the famous words of the great TBE..."men lie, women lie..." ..ahh fk it.
Here's your flaw. This is prize fighting. Prize being money. Money that comes from an audience. The audience doesn't want to see a jabbing contest, they want to see two men trying to hurt each other. You make it strictly about who touches the their opponent more and you can kiss the big prize away.
Thing is, you got 2 human beings clicking - they can be on someone's payroll too. I swear I've watched fights where they are showing real-time punches landed per round and one fighter lands like 2-3-4 punches, and the number doesn't change, so who knows who to trust? Sketchy judging and the attendant controversy feel like part of the sport by now.
I clearly stated a few times that you have to objectively score power punches more than jabs. I always do. In the example I mentioned above, 100 vs 80 power punches whilst both fighters landed an equal amount of jabs. I’d probably say that you could score a power punch double that of a jab, of course I haven’t thought this out systematically, it was an off the cuff remark. That said, the compubox numbers (type of of punches partitioned) does tell a very good story, usually, specially if it was re-verified on tape.
I get that you're frustrated with judges scoring a lot and your idea is to do it more objectively. But we've seen instances where Compubox operators get rounds wrong, they miss punches or sequences. And you got to remember it's two different people right one is looking at the punches one fighter is landing and the other is looking at the other fighter's punches. How do we know those 2 people are counting the same kind of punches? One Compubox operator might be older and not as quick with the clicker than another, or their could be possible corruption in it like with Mayweather Canelo. I mean we know Mayweather outlanded Canelo but his punches landed numbers were pretty inflated. Maybe those were TMT Compubox punch clickers you know? Another set of Compubox clickers like from GBP may have had the landed punches closer. Yes Mayweather outlanded Canelo but not by the margin Compubox said he did. And the reliance on Compubox is a big reason why people believe crazy things like Mayweather beat Canelo 12 rounds to 0. Punch counting can be very misleading and a lot of posters here seem to score rounds based on punch counting. That's not the right way to score rounds. You need to keep track of the quality clean punches and make an intelligent decision about what happened in your scoring.
How would Pac have a win over Mayweather? If Canelo couldn't get it with his judges how exactly would Pac get the nod? He lost fair and square. Seek counseling. Pac may not have used rehydration but he did use catchweights, and also fought names when they were already past it...just like Canelo. Fought Cotto after Cotto was nearly bludgeoned to death and STILL demaded a catchweight! LOL "He would have been undefeated since his jump to FW" LOL... well if we pick and choose periods of boxers careers they'd all be undefeated. Jesus.
