If Compubox is so.....

[figzuki]

I was having a friendly disagreement with some fellow posters here.

It had to do with the Pac-Marquez fight. I brought up punch stats and that seemed to be like the anitchrist lol. I guess we ended up agreeing to disagree.

Can someone please prove why punch stats and compubox are completely unreliable and can't poissibly cement a judges/your own personal opinion/score card.

I want 1 example to where ANYBODY, not just me, can say screw compubox or punch stats.

[Mato o Muero]

It's a guy pressing buttons. /thread

[figzuki]

Originally Posted by Mato o Muero

It's a guy pressing buttons. /thread

this is why half the community here is ****. cuz posters like you.

i ask for proof on why its so bad or unreliable, cuz punch numbers seem pretty accurate to me.

[figzuki]

Like for instance, Floyd has probably the highest connect % in history of compubox, is that not rue? he gets hit the least and his connect percentage is super high.

please someone prove why its wrong, or unreliable.

[dan_cov]

Because somebody may throw most of their punches in or over a certain amount of rounds.

I.E a fighter may throw nearly all of their punches in the first 3 rounds then gas and the other fighter schools them for the remaining 9 rounds.

Punch stats mean sh1t, if they did Mathebula would of easily beaten Donaire for example.

Fights are scored via rounds.

[Money Team.]

Compubox can not possibly catch EVERY punch that lands,lots of punches are landed in clinches,sometimes they give fighters credit for landing punches that were parried or rolled,so while it gives you a hint of what is going on it is far from accurate

[Money Team.]

Originally Posted by dan_cov

Because somebody may throw most of their punches in or over a certain amount of rounds.

I.E a fighter may throw nearly all of their punches in the first 3 rounds then gas and the other fighter schools them for the remaining 9 rounds.

Punch stats mean sh1t, if they did Mathebula would of easily beaten Donaire for example.

Fights are scored via rounds.

very,very true..a fighter can beat beating one guys ass for 8 rounds and get out thrown and out landed in the last 4..and people will swear the guy who clearly won the first 8 rounds lost based on punch stats

[figzuki]

Originally Posted by dan_cov

Because somebody may throw most of their punches in or over a certain amount of rounds.

I.E a fighter may throw nearly all of their punches in the first 3 rounds then gas and the other fighter schools them for the remaining 9 rounds.

Punch stats mean sh1t, if they did Mathebula would of easily beaten Donaire for example.

Fights are scored via rounds.

i completely understand that. I'm not saying to just score fights just by punches landed.

i'm saying to prove how inaccurate or why its such **** to finalize opinions and or cement your own scorecard on who won a fight.

[daggum]

watch calzaghe-hopkins deception on youtube

[figzuki]

Originally Posted by Ashy Larryx

very,very true..a fighter can beat beating one guys ass for 8 rounds and get out thrown and out landed in the last 4..and people will swear the guy who clearly won the first 8 rounds lost based on punch stats

to me that makes no sense.

punch stats couldn't possibly favor a guy who clearly lost a fight after a full 12 round fight based on only the last 4 rounds. This is eactly what I am talking about.

By the time the pac-marquez fight was over pac had landed 40+ punches over marquez, does anybody disagree? and he was also ahead on the official socrecards.