Abril beats Rios yet Marquez lost to Pac...WTF?

Abril barely had a scratch on him. Marquez looked like he got ran over by a truck.

 

Yeah, because it is physical damage that loses you bouts, not point scoring at all :good

This content is protected

 

Yeah, because landing less punches will have people cry that you were robbed :good

 

too many haters in this thread.

 

What a shite comparison.

 

Bouts are scored on a round by round basis, not total punches landed.

Boxer A lands 111 punches in the first round. Boxer B lands 0.
Boxer B lands 110 punches over the following 11 rounds. Boxer A lands 0 over the next 11 rounds.

Who wins? Boxer A, right? :think

:good

 

Yeah.

http://www.***.com/forums/view.php?pg=pacquiao-marquez-trilogy-compubox

(the scene)

Only 1 round where JMM outlanded Pacquiao....but apparentely all JMM has to do is land one flashy punch to make the Mexican crowd yell out "TACOS!!!!" To sway scoring into his favor to win the round.

:good

 

Compubox. :-(

:good

 

Your analogy

Can you say Oxymoron?

:good

 

The Arum Factor.

 

No. Me stating stats does not automatically mean you bring up inaccurate stats. Me stating stats in that analogy like that does not mean they are fact. Compubox are not fact, they are not machines, they are humans, in turn subject to human error.

Viewers at home have a clearer view of punches landed due to the camera angle(s).

I don't even know why you are debating with me. From the off, your point is irrelevant. I stated that physical damage in a bout does not lose you the bout. Which is 100% fact, it's not even debatable. I never mentioned my view on the Marquez-Pacquiao bout. In fact, go to my first post in this thread.

:good

 

You brought up statistical numbers that reflects compubox stats as to who should win a fight so thats on you but since you are backtracking from it and going with the "compubox are inaccurate" argument then there is no point to debate it, but you are right about cameras giving better angles I recommend you watch the fight in slo-mo and tell me who landed more punches.

And if you read my first reply to you I countered your argument that landing more punches is intuitive to winning rounds and must be taken into greater consideration if damage isnt because if that is the case then rounds when a fighter is winning but takes a punch that has him in pain at the end should be awarded to him because like you said punishment doesnt win you bouts, right?

:good

 

I am not backtracking, bringing up false stats does not mean I am bringing up numbers that could maybe represent compubox numbers. They are false numbers brought up as an example, not representative of possible compubox stats. It was a simple example of how total punches landed in a bout, for the most part, are irrelevant.

Nah, I don't see the point in it. Judges don't have the benefit of watching the bout in slow motion. It looks a lot different in slow motion aswell, as it does in every sport. Punches can look worse, and the opponent can look a lot more hurt than they actually are. An example is football, tackles look worse in slow motion...well, because it's in slow motion.

Physical damage is individual to each boxer. Some cut, graze, bruise easily than others. I never mentioned punishment, nor did the person I was responding to.

 

You just did and you are backtracking again bro. You tried to bring up the argument that landing more punches in multiple rounds is more important than in the total fight by using a metaphorical compubox stat number. You brought it up so thats on you.

You cannot make the argument that watching a fight through television is more effective to score than ringside because of angles but refuse to watch it slo-mo because it looks different. Thats what ringside judging comparing it to television judging is....completely different. [/quote]

Just as well.

This content is protected

 

Me bringing up a false set of numbers does not equate to compubox numbers. Look through my post history about compubox, you will see my opinion on them. I feel they are ok to bring up to look at if you are showing someone who doesn't really follow boxing, and can't really see what happens during a round. They are a rough estimate, and can represent how rounds are playing out, IF the round is a clear round. But if the round is close, they should not be brought up as a piece of evidence that a certain boxer won the round.

Again, the example I used was to show how bouts are scored round by round, and total punches for the most part are irrelevant. You was the one who implied that landing more punches wins you the bout.

No I can. If bouts were supposed to be scored in slow motion, they would be scored in slow motion after the bout by the judges. If bouts were supposed to be viewed in slow motion, the boxers themselves would be fighting in slow motion.

The cameras give the viewers the advantage of some of the best views you can see the bout in, that doesn't mean you should then view and score the bout in slow motion...that's not representative of the sport we are watching. The only slow motion that should be shown of the bout is the highlights, it shouldn't be used as a tool to score the bout because like I said, it always looks much worse in slow motion.