Using overall punch stats as an argument

Well said

 

:happy

 

Using punch stats in general is flawed.

A clean head snapping punch and a glancing blow are both counted the same.

Also any punch outside a jab is considered a power punch, Ike Quartey main weapon was the Power jab yet wouldn't be scored as a power shot, yet a right hand without much weight behind it would.

 

This illustrates the problem with scoring in boxing. I know it's heavily discouraged in America, but we should have more 10-10 rounds and 10-8 rounds when one fighter wins convincingly without scoring a knockdown.

I saw the punchstat numbers for Alvarez/Lara RBR and there wasn't a whole lot to choose from.

I've always wondered how accurate punchstats are. It's basically just two guys hitting a computer key. It doesn't take into account if punches are partially blocked, and certainly cannot measure the impact each punch has.

Nevertheless, usually punchstats are a fairly decent indicator. If one guy lands double the punches, it's safe to say he'll win the fight a majority of the time.

 

have u seen the geeks sitting ringside that do the computations? that **** is NOT accurate at all. the stats mean nothing.

 

People are using punch stats as one tool to support their arguments, it is not their entire argument, they are not silly enough to base their entire opinion on them alone otherwise we wouldn't bother scoring rounds and would simply go the the punch stats at the end of a fight.

While they are not always a true reflection of a fight they usually pick the correct winner the majority of the time, but clearly not all the time. It's an imperfect tool which can be interpreted in different ways which reflects the subjectivity of scoring fights in general.

Punch stats shouldn't be seen as the be all and end all but it shouldn't be totally disregarded either. That of course is if we assume the punch stats are actually accurate which I don't always believe they are which only goes to muddy the waters even further.

 

It has meaning, but not in itself alone.
The numbers have to be taken in their proper context alone with other factors such as, ring generalship, clean and effective punching, defence, etc. :yep

I wouldn't say the punch stats were useless, but just not an all out indication of what happened in the fight.
This is why we need judges who not only truly understand the sport, but also aren't wearing big prescription glasses with 40/80 eyesight.

 

When people say they don't mean anything, they clearly are butt-hurt because it does not support their argument. Obviously punch stats are meaningful.


However, you cannot ALWAYS use them to judge a fight. Like you said, sometimes they are misleading because the guy who got his ass beat had one great round, which can even it out. But overall, they are useful.

 

Punch stats matter greatly and show the winner of a fight... in the amateurs.

Professional boxing has a set scoring criteria. "Clean punching" does not mean "more punches landed according to two guys sitting ringside in the heat of the moment with only their specific vantage point."

 

I highly doubt the accuracy of punchstats anyway.

 

I basically judge a fight based on activity and effectiveness. Valuev was given countless robberies throwing jabs and only jabs, I never scored any meaningful fight for him.

 

You're banging you head against a brick wall here mate. These morons just don't get it.

 

Punch stats are best for showing level of activity, which can help make a case for an otherwise close round...but that's as much as I can think of in helping to either score a round or make a case for a scored round. Level of activity counts in close rounds.

 

Larry Merchant said once that 95% of winners in fights have one thing in common. They landed and threw more punches than their foe.