LOL @ people judging fights by compubox stats

theyd be even more useful if a fight was judged as one event but thats not how its scored. Its scored by the round. If one person scrapes 6 and the other wins 6 in dominating fashion (not 10-8s though) then its a draw. It doesnt matter how as an entire fight it looks its about rounds thats how its scored.

 

What happens if he doesn't push the button? It would be wrong then, surely?

 

Ban MayweathersDraw....

 

Ban the Russian champion.

 

I played one of the compubox guys at Tekken 4 once.

He was really good.

 

Really, or was he just button basher?

 

Actually, it IS just two idiots, and they sit right next to each other, so they have they same view / same blind spots. What do they do when the ref in in-between them & the fighters? Do they just guess?

- And how do you input punches for both fighters at the same time? I sure couldn't do it. My fingers don't move that fast, nor is my brain capable of accurately processing that much info in real time. - and neither is theirs.
They don't even use speed input devices.

The obvious conclusion is that HBO has no interest in making compu-box accurate. None. If they did, they be using a much different system: Perhaps 2 teams of 5 (one for each fighter) consisting of a guy at each side of the ring, plus one watching the overhead camera. - And maybe they should watch instant, semi-slow replays, just slow enough that they're done as the next round starts.

^ That would all be possible, and not difficult, and would yield vastly more accurate results. But they don't do this. Ask yourself why.

The answer is obvious.

 

Actually, it IS just two idiots, and they sit right next to each other, so they have they same view / same blind spots. WHAT DO THEY DO WHEN THE REF IS IN-BETWEEN THEM & THE FIGHTERS? Do they just guess?

- And how do you input punches for both fighters at the same time? I sure couldn't do it. My fingers don't move that fast, nor is my brain capable of accurately processing that much info in real time. - and neither is theirs.
They don't even use speed input devices.

The obvious conclusion is that HBO has no interest in making compu-box accurate. None. If they did, they be using a much different system: Perhaps 2 teams of 5 (one for each fighter) consisting of a guy at each side of the ring, plus one watching the overhead camera. - And maybe they should watch instant, semi-slow replays, just slow enough that they're done as the next round starts.

And this could all be considered "temporary" punch stats, with more official numbers tallied a few minutes after the round, but another team of counters watching the fight in true slow motion. You'd still have the results by the time the winner was announced.

^ That would all be possible, and not difficult, and would yield vastly more accurate results. But HBO doesn't do this. Ask yourself why.

The answer is obvious.

 

This thread is the truth. I've been banging on about 'punch stats' for about seven hundred year - bogus. In amateur boxing there are five guys and an adjudicator to get rid of tricky judges. At pro shows there are two men and a poodle.

Adios.

 

To be honest, compubox doesn't interest me one bit. I don't care - i can judge the fight myself without statistics that can scew logic.

 

Pretty much agree with everything that's said in this thread.

You don't need punch stats to score fights, or you shouldn't anyway.

HBO don't, unless it suits their agenda of course. Look at round 1 of Mayweather vs Hatton - Floyd landed more punches at a higher connect rate, and Lederman gave the round to Hatton, based on aggression and ring generalship.

I felt the round was pretty close and scored it to Hatton too, though 10-10 isn't beyond question.

Using punchstats as a justification for a decision is wrong, but in some instances it's fine to back up an argument to a degree.

Consider Groves vs DeGale, a much closer fight than Marquez vs Pacquiao (either the 2nd or 3rd fights) - whereby you can consider George having the tactical advantage, dictating the terms of the fight but DeGale probably landing a significant % of the heavy shots.

But the stats said Groves threw slightly more and landed slightly more, but again, that doesn't justify the decision - in this instance it's the tactical advantage that carries the most sway.

Marquez vs Pacquiao was everything in Marquez's favour.

1. He landed more shots - the stats are bollocks as far as I'm concerned

2. He dictated the terms at which the action unfolded - for most of the rounds

3. He was the more effective aggressor - most of Pac's good connects came when Marquez initiated, when Manny initiated he was made to miss badly and countered regularly

4. Marquez's defence was superior, slipping a lot of shots, compared to Manny who took a fair few on the gloves or on the end of the punch.

 

One idiot for one fighter, another idiot for the other. And HBO doesn’t own Compubox to the best of my knowledge.

It’s an interesting tool in context, but it doesn’t have anything to do with scoring a fight. There are no scoring criteria for volume, “making the fight” or “taking the title”. Paulie Malignaggi often looked like he was outworking Miguel Cotto in their fight, but Cotto got the decision. Why? Because he controlled the pace of the fight (ring generalship), he landed the better shots (clean punching), when he punched he did damage and pushed Paulie back, even scoring a knockdown (effective aggression), and he generally neutralised most of what Paulie did throw.

So, even though Paulie probably had an edge in the stats, there was no way he won that fight.

 

No one gives a **** about them anyway. The only thing I said last week was 'ooh PAC landed more, and still got his arse kicked!'