BoxRec

Kalan wrote:Anyone seeing that fight 116-114 is a half-wit. He doesn't have a efficiently operating brain in his skull.

I don't care if he's British, Polish, Nigerian, American, or Chinese... Stupid people come in all shapes, sizes, colors, genders, orientations, religious beliefs, and nationalities... They all have the same thing in common, an inability to observe and grasp what's happening right in front of their eyes with enough clarity and objectivity to be a decent Boxing judge.

The Guardian website scored it 114-113 in favor of Fury. I guess they are idiots too with a close score like that.

Compubox stats for the fight were similar percentages:
CompuBox Punchstats
Total Punches Klitschko Fury
Landed 52 86
Thrown 231 371
Pct. 23% 23%

Jabs Klitschko Fury
Landed 34 38
Thrown 162 169
Pct. 21% 22%

Power Punches Klitschko Fury
Landed 18 48
Thrown 69 202
Pct. 26% 24%

There's a ton of idiots out there... And I could GAF LESS what their scores were... And tons of people who hate Tyson Fury, because he acts and talks like an idiot and he has a screw loose. He behaves like an oaf and tells everybody to shove it, so he's not the most popular man.

That's why Klitschko was such a big favorite in the first place.. People couldn't seeing Fury representing the sport.. I could GAF less about any of that.. I only care about who really won and who really lost -- and that the right winner gets it.. I've seen too many robberies..

But as your stats prove beyond question, Fury dominated the fight.. More jabs and almost 3 times as many power punches landed by Fury.. That fight was 118-110 but they were trying to give Wlad every close round and it wasn't working. Wladimir's corner was desperate. They were begging him to throw but he refused to because he was getting hit whenever he tried to mount an assault.. He's an old man with slowed reflexes and Fury is a young man with sharp reflexes.

Kalan wrote:But as your stats prove beyond question, Fury dominated the fight.. More jabs and almost 3 times as many power punches landed by Fury.. That fight was 118-110 but they were trying to give Wlad every close round and it wasn't working. Wladimir's corner was desperate. They were begging him to throw but he refused to because he was getting hit whenever he tried to mount an assault.. He's an old man with slowed reflexes and Fury is a young man with sharp reflexes.

Big deal. 4 more jabs. 30 more power punches, but Klitschko's percentage landed is higher. The percentages are similar and that is why boxing experts scored it close. Two of the judges scored it 115-112 for Fury, but it was closer than that and the ref should have deducted another point from Fury for punching in back of the head. The so-called winner of this fight is retired for now and Klitschko is challenging the best heavyweight soon. Fury will never do what he did again and he knows it. That's why he's retired. Let's see him fight someone around his age like Deontay Wilder.

RScarf1 wrote:Compubox stats for the fight were similar percentages:

Power Punches Klitschko Fury
Landed 18 48
Thrown 69 202
Pct. 26% 24%

exactly! it is the percentages that
matter. who cares that tyson lands
three times as many.

Makes perfect sense...

Klitschko didn't throw... You can't win if you just stand there with your thumb up your ass all night... Wlad admitted he fked up... "I didn't let my hands go" ... Fury asked him "Why didn't you let them go?" ... He had no answer.

Forgetting computer rankings and going on my obervations, personal bias, etc. I've always thought my own rankings have been pretty good. Yes I know that is almost as predictable as thinking that your own favourite jokes are always funny, but bear me out.

I'm at least accepting that where my judgement definitely becomes unreliable is in rating p4p generally, and heavyweights as p4p in particular. I believe I have a tendency to underrate heavyweights p4p because of the necessity to allow for differences in ... well, I guess speed, mainly. I find it easy to imagine a 250lb Lomachenko thrashing all comers, while struggling to imagine a 130lb prime Klitschko making much of an impact in that division.

For that reason I'm content to allow BoxRec to do my p4p analysis for me.

Incidentally, sorry RS1 but I'm with Kalan on the Fury/Klitschko decision and I would fiercely resist any accusation of nationalistic bias in my saying that.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Statistically, it was close and some people felt it was close.

RScarf1 wrote:Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Statistically, it was close and some people felt it was close.

not by the statistics you cite though.

man wrote:

RScarf1 wrote:Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Statistically, it was close and some people felt it was close.

not by the statistics you cite though.

I think so. A fight does not get much more statistically even than that.

RScarf1 wrote:

man wrote:

RScarf1 wrote:Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Statistically, it was close and some people felt it was close.

not by the statistics you cite though.

I think so. A fight does not get much more statistically even than that.

Landed 52 86

really?

man wrote:

RScarf1 wrote:

man wrote: not by the statistics you cite though.

I think so. A fight does not get much more statistically even than that.

Landed 52 86

really?

Yeah really. Percentage landed is the same. Look how many Fury had to throw to get 86.

candyslim wrote:Forgetting computer rankings and going on my obervations, personal bias, etc. I've always thought my own rankings have been pretty good. Yes I know that is almost as predictable as thinking that your own favourite jokes are always funny, but bear me out.

I'm at least accepting that where my judgement definitely becomes unreliable is in rating p4p generally, and heavyweights as p4p in particular. I believe I have a tendency to underrate heavyweights p4p because of the necessity to allow for differences in ... well, I guess speed, mainly. I find it easy to imagine a 250lb Lomachenko thrashing all comers, while struggling to imagine a 130lb prime Klitschko making much of an impact in that division.

For that reason I'm content to allow BoxRec to do my p4p analysis for me.

Incidentally, sorry RS1 but I'm with Kalan on the Fury/Klitschko decision and I would fiercely resist any accusation of nationalistic bias in my saying that.

Thanks for your opinion on Fury-Klitschko... Now to the question of pound-for-pound... P4P is not about making Heavyweights as fast as Flyweights or making Flyweights hit like Heavyweights.. Either Flyweight or Heavyweight could be the P4P best, but in the case of Klitschko, his skills were never outstanding enough to make him the P4P number 1 ... I've seen him ranked as high as 4th.

P4P is assessing the overall skills and fistic assets various boxers bring to the game, regardless of the division they belong to.. Anthony Joshua has a lot more skill than Amir Khan, who can't slip, duck, or read incoming punches well and so grabs and gets flattened a lot... Vasyl Lomachenko has a lot more skill than Gerald Washington who ducked right into a hard right in his last fight because he lacks experience, knowledge, and finesse.. A Heavyweight like Jack Johnson isn't going to box like a Flyweight.. No eagle can maneuver like a hummingbird.. But Johnson may have been the best boxer of his prime regardless. He sure as Hell took care of Stanley Ketchel. Even considering the weight differential that was a beaut of a shot.

RScarf1 wrote:

man wrote:

RScarf1 wrote:
I think so. A fight does not get much more statistically even than that.

Landed 52 86

really?

Yeah really. Percentage landed is the same. Look how many Fury had to throw to get 86.

but in the end it is the punches that
land, which count, not the percentages.

a fighter who throws 2 and lands 1.
must clearly lose to a figher who throws
50 and lands 25.

..I'm pretty much sure that neither percentage nor the TOTAL number of punches over 12 rounds is relevant..it's the number of punches landed per round that counts..

greg wrote:..I'm pretty much sure that neither percentage nor the TOTAL number of punches over 12 rounds is relevant..it's the number of punches landed per round that counts..

Usually that is the case. In response to the exaggerated example of a boxer landing 1 out of 2 punches for 50 percent connect rate, of course percentages cannot be the only criteria. Everything has to be taken into consideration in each round. The compubox stats are the overall stats, but give an indication as to who was better. In Klitschko vs. Fury, I do not see how Fury is clearly better than Klitschko based on compubox stats and how I and others unofficially scored the fight.

Kalan wrote:
P4P is assessing the overall skills and fistic assets various boxers bring to the game, regardless of the division they belong to..

I understand the principles but I find the implementation particularly difficult in the case of evaluating a heavyweight's p4p merits in comparison to much smaller men. I consider myself generally rather good at comparing fighters in the same weight division, not too bad when the two are not too dissimilar in weight, getting progressively poorer as the difference in stature becomes more pronounced.

Introduce the big guys though and all bets are off. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, maybe it isn't logical, it's just how it is with me. I like to flatter myself that I'm honest about my strengths and weaknesses.

Maybe it is harder to judge P4P for the heavyweight division because of their knockout power compared to the lighter weight classes.

I don't think it's that in itself, I think it's more likely to do with pace and tempo, who knows?

RScarf1 wrote:Maybe it is harder to judge P4P for the heavyweight division because of their knockout power compared to the lighter weight classes.

that's how i see it.

greg wrote:..I'm pretty much sure that neither percentage nor the TOTAL number of punches over 12 rounds is relevant..it's the number of punches landed per round that counts..

how would you calculate the number
of punches thrown per round over a
whole fight?

man wrote:

greg wrote:..I'm pretty much sure that neither percentage nor the TOTAL number of punches over 12 rounds is relevant..it's the number of punches landed per round that counts..

how would you calculate the number
of punches thrown per round over a
whole fight?

..I wouldn't, compubox would:

http://compuboxonline.com/compubox-stat ... -6-liston/

https://www.BS.com/forums/view ... o-compubox

man wrote:

RScarf1 wrote:

man wrote: Landed 52 86

really?

Yeah really. Percentage landed is the same. Look how many Fury had to throw to get 86.

but in the end it is the punches that
land, which count, not the percentages.

a fighter who throws 2 and lands 1.
must clearly lose to a figher who throws
50 and lands 25.

If this were not the case of course, then if your first punch lands you should stop throwing any and just cover up in the corner for the rest of the fight. You have a 100% land percentage and anything else you do can only make it worse.

AJ jumped to no6 p4p. sounds
about right to me, though i did
not expect it to be that extreme.

man wrote:AJ jumped to no6 p4p. sounds
about right to me, though i did
not expect it to be that extreme.

Not that surprising, Fury was ranked No. 2 P4P at one point.