Using overall punch stats as an argument

it matters, if we didn't have it then we would be bias towards certain fighters, it also shows the flow of the fight and which guy was landing power punches and useless crap jabs.

 

People don't know the 4 scoring criteria in pro boxing.

It's shocking...

 

The only thing I really use it for is punches thrown.

The accuracy of it is highly questionable. I mean come on, Tony Thompson beating Wladimir Klitschko in their first fight before Wlad stopped him?

Gatti landing 41 punches on Mayweather? De La Hoya landing 260 punches on Trinidad, and Trinidad 160 on him? Floyd landing 220 shots on Oscar, and Oscar 120 on him?

When you think about it, it's a pretty difficult job when you have extremely fast pro fighters throwing punches, combinations, and fighters moving their heads to avoid them in split seconds.

Even if it WERE accurate, it still would leave much doubt. Fighter A lands 3 grazing blows. Fighter B lands two clean, flush punches. Thru the stats, it looks like Fighter A got the better of it, but Fighter B landed did the CLEAN PUNCHING.

 

Well said.

They're sitting ringside, below the fighters, with only one angle of the action too. When a network shows punch stats mid-round for just ten or so seconds and you see them changing as the fight plays out in front of you and you can tell it is far from a science.

I think Compubox needs to go through and do there punch stats AFTER a fight takes place so they can accurately determine what they are supposed to using replay.

 

I agree with the OP.

 

There should definitely be more 10-10 rounds. If I can't separate them, I always score it 10-10 - it seems the fairest way. Wish more judges would do the same.

I don't think anyone should use punch stats as a way to justify or criticise a result. The counter in itself is beyond flawed. The stats are only useful as a meaningless post-fight piece of information. Too much stock is placed in them.