The official Mayweather vs. Pacquiao aftermath trash receptacle

I just got done watching Klitschko-Ibragimov in slow motion and it was still horrible.

 

you need to rethink life there boss

 

You saw that in slow motion and you're still alive? :scaredas:

 

Trolls, do you believe that

 

lol some one is missing the sattire

 

Slo-mo or not, I like the idea of re-watching each round twice, the first time tracking punches thrown / landed for boxer A and the second time tracking punches thrown / landed for boxer B.

That way the same person is tracking punches for each boxer. In real-time, the compu box system requires two operators, one watching and tracking each fighter. Well, each operator could have different tendencies with respect to what they count as a hit.

The ability to slo-mo every second of every round could really help in seeing what actually is landing, resulting in more accurate punch-stat numbers. Inherently, the real-time "live" system HBO / Showtime uses to show stats never seem to be reviewed. With the technology they have, Showtime / HBO should go back and re-track their stats after the fight using all the technology they have available. (multiple camera angles, etc)

However, since they don't ever seem to check their stats, we as fans could do this by watching each round twice and track punches. Manually slo-mo-ing the fight video (50% or something) could really be useful in noting which punches land.

Note: using a 60 frames-per-second (i.e. 720p) fight recording would be a lot smoother for manual slo-mo. Most sports on TV default to only 25 or 30 FPS with blur at 1080p, making slo-mo more choppy.

I would definetly be interested in taking a closer look at many fights and re-tracking punch stats.

 

Slo-Mo is a terrible way to watch a fight.. besides, you still only have the one viewing angle..

you watch and score in real-time.. preferably live.

May won, Pac lost.. move on.

 

I watched it in fast forward. I couldn't tell who landed what but Floyd won at the end, his hands were raised. He was running particularly fast though.

 

115-113 Mayweather

Pacquiao won: 3, 4, 6, 9 and 10.

Most people had 9 and 10 for Mayweather, but he did absolutely nothing in those rounds.

 

Sometimes it's hard to decide on what lands in real-time, especially if it's a fast combo. I see a usefulness in going back and watching the rounds in slo-mo and getting a more accurate picture of what landed. There's usually only one viewing angle, but sometimes the camera changes, like before that first GGG knockdown last night, where the camera switched. That's why I wished HBO / Showtime could review all the punch stats, as they would have access to all of the camera angles. When they change cameras during live-action, you could miss something, but most of the time I don't think you will miss any punches.

I just think that we as fans should re-track punch stats. The system currently utilized by HBO / Showtime is far to inaccurate. You have two different guys scoring punches for each boxer, at the same time, without the benefit of slo-mo replay. It is not like a boxing video game, where each punch can be calculated and determine to have landed or not, based on mathematics and accurate punch stats are given every time. This current official system is far too bogged down with human error to be used and largely influences a fight, as it goes on.

I'll give you an example. During Willie Monroe Jr vs GGG, in Round 4, # of landed punches were reported to be about even as it flashed on the screen towards the end of the round. But yet at that point clearly Willie Monroe Jr was winning that round, even if GGG landed a few more towards the end, it would still be Willie Monroe Jr's round on my card. Basically, flashing those stats on the screen during a fight is completely misleading.

I also find the un-official press scores to be distracting as a fight is being presented. Boxing is best presented when no one is trying to guess the score as the rounds pass but it is a mystery. Too many times, the HBO or Showtime presentation makes it seem like a fight is mathematically impossible for boxer A to lose, you always hear many times "they need a knockout to win" when in reality they or we should have no idea of how a fight is being scored. (look to fights in the old days, like 60s or 70s and you'll see what I mean, the decision is usually a big surprise and that is part of the fun of it, missing a lot in today's day)

Like I watched it live (GGG vs Willie Monroe Jr) and thought Round 3 should have been a 10-10 round, and round 4 should have been 10-9 in favor of Willie Monroe Jr. If I watched that again in slo-mo I might feel different, but that was how I was feeling at the time. In reality, I didn't need punch stats to score it real-time. I just look at the exchanges and who comes out of each "punch exchange" better.

In conclusion, basically what I'm saying is I don't need punch stats to help me score a fight in real-time. However, imho punch stats have become so random and inaccurate, and never checked, that people on message boards and what not use punch stats after each fighter to "prove" stuff, like boxer A was better or something than boxer B. It's like the most typical argument that people cite on here outside of the official cards. Where convenient, in many cases the "official cards" are deemed a "joke" by the overwhelming majority of fans, and in those cases punch stats as a secondary way to "prove" that.

Take a look at Pacquiao Bradley 1 is an example of this. The decision was mocked, first because the HBO crew was sure Pacquiao won, causing outrage, on top of that Pacquiao had much better punch stats. We see all the time that people use these inaccurate, unchecked and frankly random official punch stats (punches landed) as the crux of their boxing arguments, and it's about time we put those punch stats to the test and re-track them if they are continually being used as pillars of boxing debates.

Lets start with Floyd Manny, watch each round twice, looking at each boxer's punches, don't even try to score the round, just count punches landed / punches thrown. Use slo-mo if it makes it easier. (I think it will, since you not only have to watch but you also have to decide what lands and what doesn't) We need to prove that these numbers can only much more accurate when using things like slo-mo and only one punch-stat operator watching each round twice.

We might get some variation, and it would likely vary from fight to fight, but I bet our consensus would be very different than what the official #'s are more times than not.

 

To be fair, Anglo does have over 4k profile views. He is obviously a well respected member of ESB.

 

Punch stats didn't exist 100 years ago. Why can't we create a group dedicated to re-tracking fights? Most people here seem to be heavily biased to their favorite fighter. Either you like Floyd and hate Pac or like Pac and hate Floyd.

We need to be truly un-biased in this, so if you're biased to where you can't score a fight neutrally, then this might not be down your alley.

But I for one and very interested in putting these punch stats to the test. I wish HBO or Showtime had a show that reviewed judges decisions and re-tracked punch stats. If there is a correlation between scoring and punch stats, then we need to find it. If not, then wins and losses are being determined by things unrelated to "scoring" in the sense of the word that "scoring" occurs in other sports. If punch stats are wrong, and if winners and losers are determined simply by opinions and preconceptions, I believe we are going down a road where it will be harder to take the sport seriously.

We could start someting called Eastside Punch-Stats, a re-viewing of the official punch stats in fights where there is a need for extended debate. Far too often these official #'s are used when they are not accurate or tested properly.

 

look *****3s, you can all say whatever you want but at the end of the day you're all watching the rematch on May 07, 2016.

Let's call the first fight a wash and move on...

 

look *****3s, you can all say whatever you want but at the end of the day you're all watching the rematch on May 07, 2016.

Let's call the first fight a wash and move on...

 

You are obviously not unbiased enough to take part in this experiment. We have 2 tools that we use to determine who deserved to win a fight. Either the official scores, or punch stats.

You say "compubox has nothing to do with scoring". I agree, if you read my longer post I explained that. However, punch stats are used during HBO / Showtime telecasts and they influence the way we view a fight.

My view is that punch stats have nothing to do with scoring as well, 1) because I suspect they are highly inaccurate and never checked, and 2) even if they are accurate it says nothing about the actual impact / power of a punch.

One person can land 1 punch, and another person can land 20 light glancing jabs and if the 1 punch gets the guy spaghetti legged that blow can win, I could score the round for him if that 1 punch was truly impressive.

However, we live in a world where punch stats are used during fights, and after the fight as something to cite on message boards. I personally believe that these numbers are completely random with filled with error. How I can prove this is by 1) watching fights back in slo-mo and re-tracking punch stats 2) having others also do this to try to come to a consensus and to avoid bias.

Here's why this is important, and please pay attention. Although I agree that scoring has nothing to do with punch stats, for rounds that are hard to score, punch stats can be useful to determine who deserved to win a round more...

Reviewing close rounds, and re-tracking punch stats, could help us determine if a round should be scored even or if someone truly deserved to win a round. As it is now, we never go into this kind of detail. No one ever tests those official punch stat numbers, for those tough rounds where either:
1) we are just either picking a guy randomly (who we like)
2) we simply cite the official scores
3) we are simply choosing whoever has the higher reported punch stats as the winner of the round

Basically, many times either 3 of those choices are not reliable. However, more accurate punch stats could help us score fights more accurately.

My view is if we are going to debate boxing results, lets do so in an accurate manner. Lets take this Floyd vs Manny fight and truly try to determine who landed more. Lets not just take HBO / Showtime's word for it. We know those punch stats are never reviewed or re-tested, and it's absurd because anyone should realize how much error is in two operators deciding what lands and what doesn't in real-time. It's far too inaccurate to base anything off them and since they are used, like in this case as a way for Floyd fans to "prove" he won. And it works both ways, remember Pac Bradley 1, HBO commentary team was sure Pac won and was shocked at the decision, right. Then they said "well look at the punch stats" this proves it. No it doesn't prove anything because it is a guessing game and error prone.

I hope I can find a few good men to put punch stat #'s to the test once and for all.