Are compuBox statistics deceiving?

Remember also, that the only way Compubox could make their stats really accurate, is if they do second studies of the film after-the-fact. This means that, the night after the fight or the day after, the Compubox experts would have to rewatch the fight, this time in slow motion.

But, to do these second studies would be very, very bad for business, because the slow motion, next day replays would only reveal that the original Compubox stats (compiled under stress) are flawed.

So, in the end, for reasons of credibility, Compubox has an incentive not to study or double check their own stats. This is not good for those of us who are really concerned with the truth.

 

Very nicely stated. Compubox is indeed a novelty more than anything else.

 

Compubox stats are like judges. Usually, they give an a fairly accurate representation of what's going on, but sometimes they're way off.

It's bothered me for years how people cite Compubox stats like they came out of a ****ing computer that's been fed a live feed of a fight. It's a bunch of guys sitting ringside who all have their own biases (and probably issues with corruption).

 

Unfortunately, that's not true. After the Pac/Bradley shitstorm, I had to deal with several casual boxing "fans" (if you even want to call them that because they watch maybe two fights a year) who were quoting Compubox stats that they heard on ESPN and talk radio to me like ****ing Zombies. When I tried to tell one group of people that numbers weren't always accurate and were just a representation how a small group of guys saw the fight, I was called a "conspiracy theorist." One douchebag kept laughing at me and asking me "how it could be possible that HBO security let anybody hack into their fight computers live when they were on air?" :-(

It's a good thing that I know when to walk away from an argument.

 

Well, the Pac/Bradley fight actually supports the punch stats. It wasn't a close fight. That's why no one but a couple media dudes and a bunch of flaming fanboys on this message board think it was legit. It would be hilarious to sit down with anyone who thinks that was a close fight and go through it round by round. There's no way in hell they could justify their claim.

 

yes, sir.

the main objective of compubox is to support predetermined objectives.

 

i know, right. bradley clearly won, the furor is absurd.

compubox stats are beyond inaccurate in this instance and HBO and the WBA go to extreme lengths to appease their cash cow and his fans

 

Totally false. You won't find a round in the three fights I listed where they are within 2-3 punches accurate.

 

We don't need a statistical ****ing picture we are watching the fight

 

That statement shows you to be one of the butt sore flaming fanboys. Fight analysis shows CompuBox's punch stats for Pacquiao to be grossly fraudulent. That you would come on here and tell a blatant falsehood is laughable. A prime example is the round that Lampley tried to use on his show, a round seven which CompuBox stated Pacman landed 27 punches. Even in Pac fairytale land you couldn't stretch the small of amount of punches he landed into 27 even if you multiplied the number by three.

If I sat you down and meticulously went through the fight round by round, I would have to put you on suicide watch, because your beloved Pacman wasn't landing a damn thing.

 

saying usually, is a stretch.

 

Yup

 

They are rubbish and misleading.They give people credit for what they haven't done.

 

Pac landed about 20 punches in the last minute alone in that round

so : :smh

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zekVi1j_DHI[/ame]


Here's the round. Watching just counting mannys shots. I count 27 easy.

Although there are times when its hard to tell due to the spead and the fact bradley moves his head in the direction of the punch so i do admit that some may look like they are landing byt they are not.

But I still count 27