A question if Punch stats scored a fight

aren't punch stats just a human with a clicker? its effectively the same, its why I find them unreliable and tend to judge what I see with my own eyes

 

In 2018 you would think that computers could record the legal punches landed each round.

 

If all punches were equal, might have a point. Simply being that they are not leaved as much judgement and question as what we're already using.

 

Interesting idea, but no. Mainly because not all punches are created equal and there is more to boxing than stats.

At present, one advantage of punch stats is that the scorers don't feel pressure to score for the home/star fighter. Nobody bribes them either. But that would all disappear if the proposal was adopted.

 

This.

Punch counting would be a regression. Amateur boxing just recently evolved away from it to adopt more of a pro style of scoring.

 

Agreed. Punch stats are far more accurate than the judges. The problem is that not everybody hits as hard. Some guys are playing tag in the ring without ever throwing with bad intentions; so a guy can theoretically land fewer but harder shots and do more damage. Also, there are problems like what arose in the Whitaker vs De La Hoya fight, when one guy lands more jabs and the other lands more body shots. But overall, having a good decision is rarer than having a robbery lately and I think something has to be done. What we are doing is not working at all.

Another example: Leonard vs Hagler, ie Leonard's pitty pat flurries at the end of rounds.

Oh, and Kiwi is right, if we switched to punchstats the guys bribing the judges would just bribe the punchstat guys. They'd start point shaving, forgetting to count one or two jabs, or saying that a landed punch was a near miss. Meanwhile, Mayweather has 100% lazer accuracy.

 

I would like to have punch countering after the fight. Then present the winner round by round until its set. A little bit like the Eurovison song contest.

 

If you think punch stats are accurate please rewatch Angulo Vs Kirkland round 1, and compare your stats to compubox. Then come back here.

 

If you think that judges scores are more accurate than compubox please rewatch Holyfield vs Lewis I, Pacquiao vs Bradley I, De La Hoya vs Mosley II, Toney vs Tiberi, or just about any ****ing fight at all. Then come back here. For every one match that compubox screws up there are twenty that the judges screw up. Real talk. I've had a problem with compubox numbers three or four times in my life. I have a problem with a judges scorecard three times a day.

 

Compubox was about 40% on one guy, 60% off on the other, had Angulo throwing less and landing less IIRC. They were all sorts of wrong. I use that round as an example as it's one of the most fun single rounds.

The judges scorecards aren't great because judges aren't great. There's 3 people able tomake human error. Compubox is similar human error being the key, also ignores what a punch really is, (does a glancing blow counts as a connect? A partially blocked shot? Are all punches weighted equally? Etc etc)

There needs to be a better system, but using a broken and inaccurate system to replace a different broken and inaccurat system isn't the answer, especially when both depend on people.

Also do you not think if compubox scored fights you'd see more issues with the numbers incorrect as they'd actually have value to a fight? The operators would be feeling the same... "pressures" as the judges, they'd know who would offer them spots if they viewed a certain punch a certain way.

Would it also swing things towards a more amateur style of standing and winging arm punches, or hit and run, rather than the professional boxing we know now?

I agree that what we have now doesn't work, but for me Compubox isn't part of the solution, it's just another problem

 

So a Hughie Fury double-tap jab = a right hand/left hook combo that wobbles a guy and buckles his knees?

Yeah that makes sense.