"I'm the greatest of all time!" -Floyd Mayweather Jr.

I love how polarizing this is. One set of people just buy right in without question... and one set of people flatly dismiss it and call me a ***** (I have been called both ******* and ***** for years lol).

 

I think that the people who completely dismiss compubox numbers don't really understand what Compubox is, or what its intended for.

It counts punches thrown and landed. Thats pretty much it. And since it's controlled by a human, the numbers aren't ever gonna be 100% accurate. And if you look at a tiny sample size like ONE FIGHT and apply your conclusion from that to the entire history of boxing or just compubox... You do not have a future in science or research.

The data presented in that article is from a large sample size from each fighter... Between 6 and 9 fights.. It might not be 100% accurate, but the data has value.. especially when you look at that large of a sample size. It's called "The big picture."

Now, I'm NOT saying that this data regarding Floyd should be the end-all be-all to decide who the GOAT is... But it is definitely interesting and if the only argument you have is "OMG COMPUBOX IS GARBAJE" then you don't have an argument and you are bringing almost as much to the thread as the *** posting that same "100% *****" picture over and over.

 

Yeah, IB, I'm counting a total of... 2 of us. :nut

 

Too bad that's the same guy as GTSK, a ***** in disguise.

 

But you are getting punch-stats confused with scorecards.

Judges don't use Compubox to score a fight and they never will, but this doesn't have **** to do with winning fights... just like you pointed out.

Yes, glancing blows, pawing jabs... all that, you are correct. But all the fighters stats are counted the same... its not like Floyd's glancing blows were counted as landed more than J.M. Marquez's were... Compare the data side by side and there is something there of value.

You don't have to buy into the GOAT thing (I don't), but you can't just dismiss this stuff categorically.

 

You are still stuck in a "think small" mindset dude, sorry. Punch counting stats were never meant to tell the whole story of a fight anyway.

The point you make about styles vs compubox numbers is a good one, but only if the conversation is focused on one fight where they fight eachother.

At the end of ONE FIGHT, the stats probably don't mean much because in a given fight, the guy with the most landed punches could have lost by KO. And thats only one example of your own point.

Another example... In a given fight, the compubox numbers may not be accurate at all. I'm sure it happens all the time. The guys doing the counting are distracted or they DKSAB or whatever.

But if you take the data over lets say 10 fights for one fighter, you can probably expect to get a pretty good indicator (not perfect, not 100% accurate) of his average punches thrown and landed. Over a period of 10 fights, that fighter will likely have faced several different styles, so that part will be represented in the average. Even if the numbers may go a few percent either way due to styles and counting errors.

In this case, we're talking about a guy with no losses (Floyd), so we know that the result of all those fights were wins. We don't need to look for him landing more punches in a fight but still losing.

So what you have is the best statistical comparison possible in the sport of Boxing. We know that wins and losses aren't a good indicator because of widely varying levels of competition from one fighter's record to the next. Thats why Guillermo Rigondeaux's 9-0 and Emmanuel Augustus' 38-34 may be a little bit deceiving. And we know that there's really no way of actually deciding who would win between Floyd Jr. and SRR without a time machine and a contract...