Why do we needed judges when we have compu box?

how do they count power punches then?

 

Compubox fuk up heaps. Plus can't judge effectiveness of punches or other ring work.

 

The whole power punches criteria is ******ed, just ask Ishida.

 

After the fight, I will say that compubox numbers are about as reliable as the three judges scoring the fight. Its just some douche clicking a button every time he thinks someone landed. Manny threw alot and missed almost all of them, while Marquez consistently landed and landed hard.

 

It's a means to validate the judges decision. It's one way to keep them on their toes. The Compubox results actually validated the judges' decision. That's why it's credible.

 

Anything that isn't a jab is a "power" punch. Seriously

"Compu"box has four input commands:

1) Jab connect
2) Jab miss
3) Power punch connect
4) Power punch miss

That's it.

There are two operators for each fight, each operator watches one fighter and records what they see by pressing one of the 4 buttons.

Do they watch from a viewing area with unobstructed sightlines? Nope, they're ringside and subject to missing the action in the same way as the judges.

Basic as hell and yet this redundant information is given the sheen of respectability and infallibility by virtue of the lofty phrase "Compu"box.

The picture below is a fair example of a compubox machine:

This content is protected

Don't make the mistake of thinking this post is written in anger at the Marquez result, for me Compubox always has and always will be smoke and mirrors to effectively judging a fight.

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

Todorov UD Floyd, compubox doesn't lie

 

Compubox is really inaccurate

 

I actually think boxing scoring should be changed in the wake of compubox. Sometimes, performances can be deceiving or commentary can be biased, leading to a controversy. I'd give compubox a "score" each round. The fighter who landed more punches in a round should be awarded the compubox round score.

Punches landed don't tell the whole tale, though. The Arreola Adamek fight and the Chamber Peter fight were compubox blowouts, but most people watching the fights felt the fights were much more even, with Arreola and Peter landing much more impactful punches and being the aggressors. By the same token, sometimes a fighter will look better than he does until viewed via compubox. Malik Scott, for instance. He landed about the same as Glazkov, much less than Chisora, his punches weren't as impactful as either, but to most observes he seemed to be winning handily, even though he really wasn't at all.

Giving compubox a score would help offset that, and be a fair recognition of the increased technology and a nod to empirical, non subjective performance.

 

Wladimir Klitschko was losing to Tony Thompson when he stopped him.

Compubox doesn't lie.

Felix Trinidad landed over 160 punches on Oscar De La Hoya.

Compubox doesn't lie.

Arturo Gatti landed 41 punches on Floyd Mayweather.

Compubox doesn't lie.

 

So one pitty pat punch scores the same as a big punch?

 

Compubox is worse. There is only 1 counter per fighter which is reason enough to only use their numbers as an aid not a fact. Landed punches does not necessarily reflect the effectiveness of the punch. Ring generalship, etc aren't factored at all.

 

Not all punches are the same

 

The scoring of boxing matches is utter bollocks.

Here's why:

http://therumpuscompass.com/2014/03/04/on-scoring/