This Is An Illustration of Why Compubox #'s Should Be Banished

compubox is biased, open to interpretation, and innaccurate, just like official judges and arm chair judges

clowns on here love to quote it when it suits their purposes and discredit it when it suits them too

boxing scoring is subjective, any 'fan' who hasn't worked that out yet needs to be slapped

 

:yep

hopkins fans couldn't get off compuboxes nuts following the hopkins-taylor fights when it showed that he out landed taylor in both fights.

now it doesn't mean **** according to them. (not aimed at acb)

 

Truer words have never been spoken, which is why personally I like Showtime's telecast of a big fight over that of HBO's who almost always rely on bogus punchstat numbers and shoves it down the viewers throats.

Especially gagging to me is the part right after a fight is finished, one of the first points that Jim Lampley points too afterward is "Punchstat numbers show....."as if those numbers should overule the cold raw reality of what we just witnessed!:-(

 

killa Rx-3 bro! :thumbsup

 

Compubox should have counted hop's headbutts ... maybe he would have landed more than Calzaghe then...

 

so how many slaps did he land?

 

And how misleading of a name they gave to it. I tell u honest... there was a time when i started following boxing (7 years ago) i thought it was a computer because of the nameatsch
I thought that the fight was filmed, put on a computer with 3d images and than the punches were counted (which is possible to do nowadays). ALL because of the name:nut yeah well maybe i was a bit stupid to think that, but still. F*cking misleading name. It's all done by human hands:fire

 

yeah, im guilty of being naive at one time too... the name implies its done by computer and you think its infallible, but then you realise its just some dudes with a clicker and it takes the shine off

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

But he didn't, that's the point. Granted he didn't throw nearly as many, his shots were landing far mroe frequently than Calzaghes.

 

That was one of the two best punches that Hopkins landed the whole fight. Lederman gave Hopkins that round (in which he been completely dominated) just because of that one punch. If a fight is judged by who landed the best two punches then Hopkins surely won.

 

This .gif shows us a a punch landed for each fighter and an intentional head-butt landed for B-Hop.
How does it illustrate that comubox is misleading? Are you saying those slapping movements by Calzaghe were scored as landing blows by Compubox? Not possible.
Bottom line, Hopkins lost, he didn't do enough to win, it's time to move on.

 

you're not making driving miss daisy, AKA head shoeshine boy of GBP look any better here.

 

I'm aware of the subjectivity in Compubox, but we cannot dismiss the numbers it gave for the whole fight based on a 10 second clip of which we have no Compubox statistics for! They may have actually counted it 1 punch for 'Nard and 0 for Joe, in which case it would probably have been right - we have no numerical evidence to use that clip as a sample!

I remember that particular sequence of events and I thought that Joe looked to have missed all those punches anyway, even when played at full speed. However, I do not believe that the 10 second clip is that representative of the whole fight, especially not the last half.

Do you have the whole fight in slow motion?

 

In real time that would be about a second and a half.....