Jaclem wrote:the best computer is still the human brain (though exceptions run rampant right here on this forum) and the best way to judge a fight is to have those with knowledge of boxing watch it and decide, based on that knowledge and experience, which fighter won the most rounds or points. subjective, yes....perfect, no....but it beats flashing lights, wires and buttons..that are all controlled by human inpuit anyway.
The difference is that, even though automated systems might be devised, built and programmed by humans, assuming they are working properly, they are at least objective. I'm not saying judging boxing will ever be completely objective, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive in that direction. Besides the fact that the human brain/vision system is designed so it can only fully focus on a single thing at a time (i.e. if you're watching one guy's punch land, by definition you can't be watching the other guy, except in a vague peripheral way) and we're of course limited by what we can see and hear. By way of analogy, in (say) baseball there are similar difficulties. Consider a close play at first base on a ground ball - how can the first-base umpire watch both the arriving ball and the runner's feet at the same time? Well, obviously he can't. But since there's only one ball and one foot touching the bag, he can watch the foot and at the same time listen for the ball smacking into the first-baseman's mitt. And since the runner and first baseman are always pretty much at the same relative angle to him, he can preposition himself in an optimal way. For other types of plays (e.g. did the centerfielder catch the line drive or just trap it in his mitt?) one of the refereeing crew may have a poor angle, but at least one other one will be in the right position to make a call - and they can even run toward the play to try to get the best angle. In boxing, you've got two fighters constantly changing angles and moving around the ring, the judges are static (and I believe sit only on one side of the ring), punches may be landing simultaneously and from all kinds of angles, the sound of a punch landing may be misleading depending on what part of the body it hits (e.g. if it hits the opponent's upper arm or shoulder it may sound solid, but is still not a scoring blow) and different judges often use completely different criteria (even if they've been trained to use a supposedly uniform set) for their scoring. For instance, in a classic boxer-vs.-brawler type matchup, you routinely have judges giving the brawler points merely because he's being "aggressive," even though the official criterion is supposed to be effective aggression. The compubox-style punchstats are also deeply flawed, because you (a) have humans deciding on scoring blows, and (b) anything non-jab that lands is classed a "power punch", irrespective of whether it lands with any force.
Humans are both fallible and corruptible, so anything that would help alleviate those 2 failings would be welcome, IMO. Probably much easier to do at the amateur level, though, where you have tops and headgear you could outfit in some way to enable automated scoring. Humans would still be needed to augment that with scoring of blows to the face, but those are the easiest kind of punches to score - even with a guy's back to you, you can tell if his head snaps back.
Other benefits could be with respect to illegal blows, i.e. for the fighters' protection. The same kind of pressure-sensistive system used for scoring blows could be used to tell if a blow was low (and of course the equipment used would have to be uniform, i.e. you wouldn't have these soft-bellied guys wearing their protectors halfway up their chest) or if a guy hit the other with a rabbit punch. (Only the former could be used in the pros, obviously).