Uh.... because boxing is a little more complex and nuanced than that. One guy can land 50 pitty pat jabs, but if his opponent lands two shots that has his featherfisted opponent staggering around the ring like a methed out elderly homeless gentleman having a full body seizure while simultaneously shitting his pants, while inexplicably remaining on his feet. If left up to Compubox, they'd really get that one wrong.
Good boxing will be with only one criteria: unlimited number of rounds. Winner: last man remained standing. To exclude A side boxer's protection and nice business referage, referee too should not been used.
Judges arent really needed to attend the fights in Vegas as I heard it on the grapevine their scorecards are filled in the night BEFORE the fight lol
What makes you think Compubox and those systems are that accurate? Besides, it doesn’t account for how clean and hard the punches are anyway.
Ultimately, though, more judges are needed, at least in title fights. I'd say 15. 3 on each side of the ring and 3 watching on cctv. This ensures a number of people scoring the fight from a number of different viewing angles. And plus, having so many more judges should make the final decision significantly more accurate. It would also make it a lot more expensive to "fix" a fight with so many more judges to bribe.
Compubox isn’t a computer, it’s people clicking on connects. There’s a great video showing punches landing on arms or elbows getting counted as punches landed in a round by compubox. Also, boxer A lands ten jabs and one power shot. Boxer B lands five power punches and two jabs. Who gets the round? Human judges are here for a reason.
There should be five judges. Three as they are now and two on monitors. The two on monitors should vote with the ref on the origin of cuts (punch or head) and fouls. There will be less draws and one disproportionate judge would have less influence. The WBC is already considering a version of this for title fights.