Mike Tysons legacy?

[drunkenpiper36]

Did you count that yourself?

No. the punch stats are available online as they are for most modern fights.

Honestly? That's great I'm just going to use those to score fights from now on.

You can stick to those to score fights exclusively if you choose, but that's not what I did. I only mentioned it as one part of the discussion as I felt that a fighter's work rate should be relevant to the scoring of fights.

[Ambling Alp II]

You said earlier " Haven't seen it in years myself. But neither man was floored. Neither man was ever really badly hurt. And neither man had any points deducted for anything unsportsmanlike. So the only thing that leaves is higher output. Lewis outlanded Evander by about 60 punches."

What really sticks out is the part about the only thing that if left the higher output. That is what is silly. There are a lot of fights where neither guy is hurt, knocked down, or has points deducted. You can't just rely on punch stats to decide the outcome.

For many reasons it is flawed. To name a few:
1. Fights are not scored on a total system. It is scored round by round. You can have a few nice rounds, but you aren't going to win if you lose several close ones.
2. It's not a perfect count.
3. Punches that barely land count just as much in punch count that land flush. Weak punches count just as much as hard, solid ones. It should not be that way when scoring a fight. In the Lewis-Holyfield fight. Lewis landed a huge amount of very light jabs with nothing on them. Those punches shouldn't for very little when scoring a fight.

Lewis' "workrate" might look better on paper, but he wasn't working very hard with all of those pawing jabs.

Punch stats can be interesting. However, they can be very deceiving.

[drunkenpiper36]

You said earlier " Haven't seen it in years myself. But neither man was floored. Neither man was ever really badly hurt. And neither man had any points deducted for anything unsportsmanlike. So the only thing that leaves is higher output. Lewis outlanded Evander by about 60 punches."

What really sticks out is the part about the only thing that if left the higher output. That is what is silly. There are a lot of fights where neither guy is hurt, knocked down, or has points deducted. You can't just rely on punch stats to decide the outcome.

For many reasons it is flawed. To name a few:
1. Fights are not scored on a total system. It is scored round by round. You can have a few nice rounds, but you aren't going to win if you lose several close ones.
2. It's not a perfect count.
3. Punches that barely land count just as much in punch count that land flush. Weak punches count just as much as hard, solid ones. It should not be that way when scoring a fight. In the Lewis-Holyfield fight. Lewis landed a huge amount of very light jabs with nothing on them. Those punches shouldn't for very little when scoring a fight.

Lewis' "workrate" might look better on paper, but he wasn't working very hard with all of those pawing jabs.

Punch stats can be interesting. However, they can be very deceiving.

Yes, yes. I agree that "effective" punching plays a big part. but Evander wasn't doing much in the second half of the fight and couldn't seem to get around Lewis's jab. It was a close fight but I think majority gave it to Lewis as did I.