BoxRec

just to confirm how punch stats mean diddly squat. an example of a 4 round fight.

round 1... fighter A has a great round, picking off fighter B with the jabs. fighter A lands 21 punches, fighter B lands 6. round score 10-9 to fighter A

round 2... fighter A gets caught early in the round by fighter B, A gets on his bike for the majority of the round while his head clears, fighter B is in pursuit but cant catch him to land very much. fighter A lands 3 fighter B lands 8. round score 10-9 to fighter B

round 3... fighter A has a great third, hooking at will to head and body and catching most of fighter B's punches on the gloves and arms. neither fighter is hurt badly, but fighter A landed 17 punches to fighter B's 5. round score 10-9 to fighter A

round 4..final round. both fighters stand and fight, not too much landing but fighter B shading it with the cleaner shots as both fighters tire. fighter A landed 9 shots to fighter B's 11. round score 10-9 to fighter B

result.....a draw. 38-38

fighter A landed 50 shots
fighter B landed 30 shots

on paper with the punchstats, fighter B is a mile behind, but in reality its a draw.

but fighter B is the champion and its a well known fact that you have to take the belt from the champion so fighter B wins

True, Rhino.

It gets messy when you have fighter A landing 5 flashy shots and fighter B landing 1 hard one. Who do you score the round to? It's not just about how many in the round, but also about ring generalship, aggression, how hard the punches are, etc.

It would be so much easier if there was a guide for it.

Asterix wrote:True, Rhino.

It gets messy when you have fighter A landing 5 flashy shots and fighter B landing 1 hard one. Who do you score the round to? It's not just about how many in the round, but also about ring generalship, aggression, how hard the punches are, etc.

It would be so much easier if there was a guide for it.

absolutely mate, its not as clear cut as the scoring of amateur boxing, which is laid down and very specific (scoring punches are ....... punches that are thrown with sufficient force, to the target area with the knuckle part of the glove)

no points for style nor defence etc in amateur boxing, but the pro style is so so hard to judge. hence all of the hassle we gt with judges and fighters and human opinion.

The punch stats have always been largely irrelevant, the only person who should care about them is the bloke getting paid to sit there and count them.

Flump wrote:The punch stats have always been largely irrelevant, the only person who should care about them is the bloke getting paid to sit there and count them.

Agree, punch stats mean nothing. Most useless thing ever introduced to be honest.

Unless you are HBO's Jim Lampley and they are of biblical importance when analysing a fight.

Round on round punch stats make sense and give a good indicator of who won the round, unless you have a puncher like Tyszu versus Mallignaggi, or 1 fighters landing very clean and another fighter is just landing deflected blows, punch stats arent always that accurate and they are hard to do, but you should score the fight to the man landing the cleaner more effective blows (with effective being damaging/stunning type)

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:Round on round punch stats make sense and give a good indicator of who won the round, unless you have a puncher like Tyszu versus Mallignaggi, or 1 fighters landing very clean and another fighter is just landing deflected blows, punch stats arent always that accurate and they are hard to do, but you should score the fight to the man landing the cleaner more effective blows (with effective being damaging/stunning type)

plus style, plus defence, plus aggression... its a whole can of worms..

rhino222 wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:Round on round punch stats make sense and give a good indicator of who won the round, unless you have a puncher like Tyszu versus Mallignaggi, or 1 fighters landing very clean and another fighter is just landing deflected blows, punch stats arent always that accurate and they are hard to do, but you should score the fight to the man landing the cleaner more effective blows (with effective being damaging/stunning type)

plus style, plus defence, plus aggression... its a whole can of worms..

Defense is accounted for in if the punches are landed or not isnt it? Aggression needs to be affective to. Whats style - showboating

6 round fight.

Round 1, Boxer A lands 2 punches Boxer B lands 1... 10-9 Boxer A

Round 2, Boxer A lands 2 punches Boxer B lands 1... 10-9 Boxer A

Round 3, Boxer A lands 2 punches Boxer B lands 1... 10-9 Boxer A

Round 4, Boxer A lands 2 punches Boxer B lands 20...9-10 Boxer B

Round 5, Boxer A lands 2 punches Boxer B lands 20...9-10 Boxer B

Round 6, Boxer A lands 2 punches Boxer B lands 20...9-10 Boxer B

Result- Three rounds each, 57-57 a draw

Punchstats- Boxer A lands 12 punches/Boxer B lands 63

Punchstats mean diddlyswitt in a fight unless as someone already said they use them for round by round not the whole fight picture..

Yeah, punch stats mean nothing - it doesn't show anything such as ring generalship, control of the action etc - for me huge factors in scoring a fight.

If done a bit differently they could have some factors, if they were done in a minute by minute breakdown. Fights like Froch vs Dirrell and Haye vs Valuev - dull fights with not many punches thrown or landed - sometimes there is a need to look at who did what in each minute and use that to score a round.

For example, having seen the Haye vs Valuev for a second time, Round 7. Haye didn't throw ANYTHING, not a feint, not a miss, didn't even attempt to throw a punch for the first 1 minute 30 seconds. Valuev was being the aggressor and did, at least, try and engage in something. Valuev did win this round pretty clear becuase in the last half of it he was landing the more meaningful shots.

Given a different scenero in which Haye puts on a good spurt in the last 30 seconds (something he did do quite often) does that win him the round? Well it would depend on what Valuev did in the first 2:30 and how effective was the little spurt. However, in close fights with not alot of action I think a minute by minute punch stats could be quite useful.

Another example is Froch vs Dirrell round 7. Universally called a BIG Froch round. This is the round in which Dirrell really started to complain to the ref in the last minute and Froch really put on a good last serge. Watching this round again, with no sound, it was actually Dirrell who was instigating most of the attacks, throwing more, landing more, for the first 2 minutes. Froch was doing very very little. Froch came back well, and still for me won the round cause of ring generaliship. However, viewing that round minute by minute changed my own view from it being a MASSIVE Froch round, to calling it a round in which I could see if you wanted to score it to Dirrell. Cause his jab and movement won him 2/3 of the round.

I aint advocating that a minute by minute breakdown should be used as "the bible" of scoring, but I think it would certainly make a relevant debate to close decisions and will also make people realise how important the last 30 seconds are in fights. Hopefully, the actual officials would take a note and at least make more of a conscious effort to realise that boxing isn't just about the last 30 seconds. Froch (vs Dirrell), Haye (vs Valuev) and Calzaghe (vs Hopkins) all stole rounds with work in the last 30 seconds and the previous two minutes ignored.