BoxRec

What do you think of CompuBox and it's place in the sport? Time to ditch it?

Yep, this isn't the amateurs, not on punches landed, quality of punches, making the fight, ring generalship, lucky Floyd fights in this era, in the 50s he would have been told to fight by the ref, running was frowned upon

Pureist wrote:Yep, this isn't the amateurs, not on punches landed, quality of punches, making the fight, ring generalship, lucky Floyd fights in this era, in the 50s he would have been told to fight by the ref, running was frowned upon

Pep was a defensive fighter in te 50s - was his 'running' frowned upon?

Lomachenko used lateral movement in the first fight too, but he turned and hit, didn't get on the toe and vacate the building

Pureist wrote:Lomachenko used lateral movement in the first fight too, but he turned and hit, didn't get on the toe and vacate the building

So you are just ignoring the last two points made by myself and Fergus

It's alright as long as it's not looked upon to be 100% accurate. It's just something for the fans really. Compuboxis not used by the judges and is not going to change any scoring, so who cares really.

Ricky_ wrote:What do you think of CompuBox and it's place in the sport? Time to ditch it?

Oh I see how this works, when CompuBox showed the numbers for MP in his victories you guys quoted it religiously but now that he got totally shutdown and rendered mostly ineffective you want to question CompuBox.

You can't have it both ways; if CompuBox meant the world to you guys when MP was landing shot after shot after shot on Clottey, Margarito and Oscar then it should still mean the world to you when he LOST EASILY to Floyd.

Sour grapes and Sore Loser is woven into the entire meaning behind you starting this post and I expected as much from a Turd like you who talked all that sh*t for the last few years leading up to this fight and now you have nothing but pathetic excuses.

You are so depressed, you need therapy for real.

KBB wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:What do you think of CompuBox and it's place in the sport? Time to ditch it?

As long as it favors Floyd and helps his claim as the best ever, I'm all for it.

I really like Floyd.

Just don't take it too seriously.

1st point---Whilst some may claim that the rounds in the pro ranks aren’t scored in the same way as the amateurs, when all other elements are equal, it’s usually the busier fighter that connects the most will win each round.--------- there is no claim, amateurs are solely on points, the easiest way for you to understand would be watch the round and ask yourself at the end of it, which fighter would you not want to be, if Floyd throws 5 jabs and lands and then gets rocked by a right, who would you score the round for------------ 2nd point, pep engaged much more than floyd and often went forward with a number of punches, not potshotting, lomachenko is an outstanding defensive fighter, but he uses his defence to turn the tables into attack, a very impressive, exciting fighter

The thing is… I do believe that CompuBox can be improved… and they could perhaps insert sensors into the fighters’ gloves to count the punches that “connect” against “something”, coupled with measuring the actual impact of the blows. The human element can still be used as-is to gauge scoring shots (i.e. blows landed that were not blocked by the guard).

I know there was a company trialling that kind of system last year with one of the orgs, so it may be something you see soon. Personally I'm not sure how useful it would be though.

KBB wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:What do you think of CompuBox and it's place in the sport? Time to ditch it?

Oh I see how this works, when CompuBox showed the numbers for MP in his victories you guys quoted it religiously but now that he got totally shutdown and rendered mostly ineffective you want to question CompuBox.

You can't have it both ways; if CompuBox meant the world to you guys when MP was landing shot after shot after shot on Clottey, Margarito and Oscar then it should still mean the world to you when he LOST EASILY to Floyd.

Sour grapes and Sore Loser is woven into the entire meaning behind you starting this post and I expected as much from a Turd like you who talked all that sh*t for the last few years leading up to this fight and now you have nothing but pathetic excuses.

You are so depressed, you need therapy for real.

I've never quoted compubox numbers, who are you talking to, or is that just something you thought might help your arguement

Impractical Poster wrote:

KBB wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:What do you think of CompuBox and it's place in the sport? Time to ditch it?

As long as it favors Floyd and helps his claim as the best ever, I'm all for it.

I really like Floyd.

Just don't take it too seriously.

There's no doubt the copu-box system is seriously flawed and doesn't always accurately reflect what happened in the fight. After I watched the fight in slow motion, it's pretty obvious the judges were counting some missed shots as scoring shots for both fighters lol. It was also obviously apparent that Floyd still clearly out landed Pacquiao and it was at a 2/1 rate. But as far as the accuracy of it is concerned, it's very flawed and just not accurate. In the Mayweather/Pacquiao fight, it was accurate in the sense that Floyd landed more at a higher percentage, but the numbers just didn't add as far as total punches landed. It was more like Floyd landed at 20% connect rate and Pacquiao landed at a 10% connect rate.

So then the number of punches really doesn't matter, the quality does which means your statement about the one who usually lands the most punches in a round wins like in the amateurs is incorrect, so where do you rate making the fight and ring generalship, or is that insignificant aswell, I will read your expert analysis in the morning, it's bedtime in australia

Pureist wrote:So then the number of punches really doesn't matter, the quality does which means your statement about the one who usually lands the most punches in a round wins like in the amateurs is incorrect, so where do you rate making the fight and ring generalship, or is that insignificant aswell, I will read your expert analysis in the morning, it's bedtime in australia

The judges don't see the copu-box stats when they're watching the fight. The copu-box is for the viewers watching on TV. The judges still use all of the criteria such as defense, ring general ship, effectively landed punches, the more effective punches landed etc.. The thing here is Pacquiao didn't land that many effective punches and the rounds he did land the more effective punches he won the round. There were just too many rounds where Pacquiao just simply didn't land anything of significance and if he did, he didn't land enough of them when Floyd was landing damn near 2 times as many.

How many times have we seen a fight where one fighter clearly outscores the other and has better copu-box numbers, yet the judges have the other man winning? It happens all the time. The judges don't see the copu-box stats. The Copu-box stats are just simply tallying in punches landed (not taking into consideration the other scoring criteria) and like has been mentioned many times, the way it's done there's plenty of room for error.

Pureist wrote:

KBB wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:What do you think of CompuBox and it's place in the sport? Time to ditch it?

Oh I see how this works, when CompuBox showed the numbers for MP in his victories you guys quoted it religiously but now that he got totally shutdown and rendered mostly ineffective you want to question CompuBox.

You can't have it both ways; if CompuBox meant the world to you guys when MP was landing shot after shot after shot on Clottey, Margarito and Oscar then it should still mean the world to you when he LOST EASILY to Floyd.

Sour grapes and Sore Loser is woven into the entire meaning behind you starting this post and I expected as much from a Turd like you who talked all that sh*t for the last few years leading up to this fight and now you have nothing but pathetic excuses.

You are so depressed, you need therapy for real.

I've never quoted compubox numbers, who are you talking to, or is that just something you thought might help your arguement

I don't need anything to help my argument, your boy lost!!

fergusg wrote:

Pureist wrote:So then the number of punches really doesn't matter, the quality does which means your statement about the one who usually lands the most punches in a round wins like in the amateurs is incorrect, so where do you rate making the fight and ring generalship, or is that insignificant aswell

I assume you’re talking to me, since your post is in the context of something I wrote.

If you’d already read my previous posts in this thread, I merely claimed that punch stats are useful to dispel any myths perpetuated by those holding biased opinions. So if something can be measured effectively, it should be. However, I also conceded that punch stats in general (thrown, landed or eventually impact) cannot possibly illustrate the entire “story” of a fight, but they are a useful barometer that can be used to refine ones opinion so that it’s more in line with reality.

They don't dispel any myths, they're always off and all they do is give uneducated fans something to quote like yourself

NateJR wrote:

Pureist wrote:So then the number of punches really doesn't matter, the quality does which means your statement about the one who usually lands the most punches in a round wins like in the amateurs is incorrect, so where do you rate making the fight and ring generalship, or is that insignificant aswell, I will read your expert analysis in the morning, it's bedtime in australia

The judges don't see the copu-box stats when they're watching the fight. The copu-box is for the viewers watching on TV. The judges still use all of the criteria such as defense, ring general ship, effectively landed punches, the more effective punches landed etc.. The thing here is Pacquiao didn't land that many effective punches and the rounds he did land the more effective punches he won the round. There were just too many rounds where Pacquiao just simply didn't land anything of significance and if he did, he didn't land enough of them when Floyd was landing damn near 2 times as many.

How many times have we seen a fight where one fighter clearly outscores the other and has better copu-box numbers, yet the judges have the other man winning? It happens all the time. The judges don't see the copu-box stats. The Copu-box stats are just simply tallying in punches landed (not taking into consideration the other scoring criteria) and like has been mentioned many times, the way it's done there's plenty of room for error.

See this is the exact problem with compubox, you say Floyd landed nearly twice as much as pacquaio, frogshit, your going by compubox, quoting their numbers, many of floyds punches were parried, look like they connected but in reality they didn't, one other poster did the fight in slomo and had Floyd landing 10 more punches for the entire fight, that number would be far more realistic, twice as much is a ridiculous statement and only backed up by a fraudulent compubox

Impractical Poster wrote:

KBB wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:What do you think of CompuBox and it's place in the sport? Time to ditch it?

As long as it favors Floyd and helps his claim as the best ever, I'm all for it.

I really like Floyd.

Just don't take it too seriously.

Haha nicely played

Pureist wrote:

NateJR wrote:

Pureist wrote:So then the number of punches really doesn't matter, the quality does which means your statement about the one who usually lands the most punches in a round wins like in the amateurs is incorrect, so where do you rate making the fight and ring generalship, or is that insignificant aswell, I will read your expert analysis in the morning, it's bedtime in australia

The judges don't see the copu-box stats when they're watching the fight. The copu-box is for the viewers watching on TV. The judges still use all of the criteria such as defense, ring general ship, effectively landed punches, the more effective punches landed etc.. The thing here is Pacquiao didn't land that many effective punches and the rounds he did land the more effective punches he won the round. There were just too many rounds where Pacquiao just simply didn't land anything of significance and if he did, he didn't land enough of them when Floyd was landing damn near 2 times as many.

How many times have we seen a fight where one fighter clearly outscores the other and has better copu-box numbers, yet the judges have the other man winning? It happens all the time. The judges don't see the copu-box stats. The Copu-box stats are just simply tallying in punches landed (not taking into consideration the other scoring criteria) and like has been mentioned many times, the way it's done there's plenty of room for error.

See this is the exact problem with compubox, you say Floyd landed nearly twice as much as pacquaio, frogshit, your going by compubox, quoting their numbers, many of floyds punches were parried, look like they connected but in reality they didn't, one other poster did the fight in slomo and had Floyd landing 10 more punches for the entire fight, that number would be far more realistic, twice as much is a ridiculous statement and only backed up by a fraudulent compubox

I watched the fight In slow motion as well.. You start tallying up those jabs Floyd was landing, Floyd landed twice as many punches. Floyd jab was the best weapon in this fight by both fights and in the later rounds was very effective.

You can call it horseshit or what ever you want to call it. Those are facts, Floyd clearly, clearly outlanded Pacquiao damn near if not 2/1 in that fight. I don't need you to tell me what I saw, I know for a fact what I saw and they weren't no parried punches lmao.

Out of interest, what were your final numbers?...

It's a fun little tool to look at after a fight. The only problem with it is it doesn't count for quality of punches. The numbers can easily be off too. I don't put too much stock into it though.

CrazyHorse wrote:It's a fun little tool to look at after a fight. The only problem with it is it doesn't count for quality of punches. The numbers can easily be off too. I don't put too much stock into it though.

I enjoy the comp box stats the same way I enjoy Lederman ' scorecard.
Just something else to argue with your buddies about while watching the fight. Nothing wrong with them

fergusg wrote:

Pureist wrote:

fergusg wrote:If you’d already read my previous posts in this thread, I merely claimed that punch stats are useful to dispel any myths perpetuated by those holding biased opinions. So if something can be measured effectively, it should be. However, I also conceded that punch stats in general (thrown, landed or eventually impact) cannot possibly illustrate the entire “story” of a fight, but they are a useful barometer that can be used to refine ones opinion so that it’s more in line with reality.

They don't dispel any myths, they're always off and all they do is give uneducated fans something to quote like yourself

You're like many others... no compelling or intelligent argument, so you resort to insults.

Where is the insult? And please tell me what they dispel

Honestly who really gives a damn about CompuBox when you can clearly see and tell by the crowd's reaction that MP lost this fight, they were so quiet you could hear a mouse fart.

Nearly every boxing writer/expert and every boxer stated that Floyd won this fight EASILY!!