Why do people use Compubox as evidence that someone won a fight?

I don't. Example, Marquez - Pacquiao 2.
Juan Manuel landed more punches (something like 15 punches more). And those were landed in round 8 when Pac was cut in above the right eye and Marquez landed 20 punches in the round whereas Pac landed only 5...

Throughout the fight, Marquez and Pac landed the same amount of punches. Pac's where harder, that's why he won.

 

Sometimes its squat, and sometimes it isn't. If a boxer runs all day, and barely outscores his opponent, then that is squat. But, its nothing like the olympic scoring if you are thinking its like that. I think that compubox does expose poor judging sometimes.

 

i know..... thats what compubox is for i guess..

to clear up those kinds of punches...

although i dont know how compubox works tho

 

Because that's the most logical proof of who threw more punches and who landed more . . . couple that with the visual of what really transpired on every round . . . then you have a logical winner.

In the 10 point must system . . . it doesn't matter if a fighter landed three powerful punches if the other guy landed 10 weak punches that cleanly connected . . . the fighter who got rocked still wins the round . . . not unless somebody was given a count.

Like it or not that's how the 10 point must system works. :deal

 

You're right. Puches can hit a glove and be loud as hell, but being able to hear is just one factor.

 

I wipe my ass with Compubox 10 jabs vs 6 landed hooks and crosses but
the total is all you get. Jabs are salad the real meat is in the power punches thats what tells the real story as to who is takeing chances, bringing it, dareing to be great, and really fighting.

 

I read compubox picks the winner over 80% of the time, which to be fair is about as good as some of the boxing better known judges, namely...Ford, Gampa, Letterman, Merchant, etc...

Since the juding in boxing is flawed too often, I think compubox is a fair tool to define ROBBERIES and BAD decisions.

Having said that Compubox does not score boxing the way the rules say it should be scored, as there are no buttons to press for defense, ring generalship, punches that really stun or hurt the opponent, and effective aggressiveness.

I would like to see Compubox take the next step. The potential is there.

 

I think the mistake that alot of fans make is that they use compubox as a way to dispute a winner for a whole fight which is flawed because if a fighter lands more punches in one round but his opponent lands more than him in the next even if it is less than what the other landed in the round before, it should'nt matter because everything is by a round by round basis it's not like you can transfer your punches to the next round just because you might've landed alot. Compubox should only be used when determing who won a round not a whole fight but even with judging from only a round even that can be subjective as bigcat brought out in his post.

 

As someone has already mentioned, Compubox is not infallible.

But it's not a complete waste either.

It usually predicts who I think has won the fight (70 -80 % of the time), but it can be misleading.

I would add that the official judges scorecards are probably not much better at predicting who I think has won the fight (75 -85 % of the time).

 

yeah something like that, one guy could be winning a fight and outboxing a fighter for 11 rounds than gets hurt in the final round takes a total beatdown for 3 minutes manages to survive, then BAM!!! compubox will give you some bull**** that compubox favors the guy who was outboxed through out the fight.

Also people dont understand, that Compubox is being counted by human beings who have their own prejudices and biases.

Look at Pavlik/Taylor 2 and Calzaghe/Hopkins if anyone thought those compubox numbers are accurate than they are out of their freaking mind.

 

Compubox is a tool, just like everything else.

Rely on it 100% and you're a fool.

But completely dismissing it is also foolish.

 

Exactly. In the right context, its an interesting and useful tool. Don't see why everyones slamming down the lemon lime and bitters over it, sometimes its misleading, but YOU watched the fight, so you can make that connection, other times it will represent what happened in the ring pretty well.

 

funny how guys use compubox when its for the benefit of their favourite fighters and other times it means ****.

 

I see nothing wrong with mentioning compubox as part of an argument in a fight as long as it's not your sole or even main basis for determining a winner.

When we argue fights on here we don't have fight tapes or anything like that so pointing outwho landed more shots is not a bad thing.