By Tom Donelson
Most boxing fans and quite a few pundits hate Compubox. I happen to like it for because in most cases, you can see the story of a fight in hard numbers. I will add that many critics are right about the Compubox system being imperfect since it is dependent upon humans to count punches, not a easy endeavor and of course, it does not show how hard a fighter throws a punch.
As Larry Merchant once observed, Compubox usually tells the fight's story correctly, 9 out of 10 times. Lets take a look back at last year's Felix Sturm vs. Oscar De La Hoya encounter. The numbers show that Sturm averaged 4-5 more punches landed per round but De La Hoya averaged 20 more punches thrown per round. Sturm was the more accurate puncher and De La Hoya the more active. Interesting enough, the numbers also show that De La Hoya slowed up immensely as the fight dragged on and Sturm was consistent throughout the fight with the same level of activity. Sturm averaged 45 punches thrown in the first six rounds of the fight and held his average throughout the last six rounds.
De La Hoya threw over 100 punches in the first round and his output immediately fell , he averaged 72 punches over the next five rounds. In the final six rounds, De La Hoya's output dropped to 54 punches per round. So what does this tell you? For one, De La Hoya did not properly pace himself in the fight, he threw too many punches in the early rounds and it led to fatigue in the later rounds.
Compubox reinforces what we saw in the fight, that De La Hoya slowed down and Sturm fought at a steady pace from round to round. You can even argue that maybe Sturm should have been more active if he wanted the victory. If nothing else, Compubox gives boxing fans the tools to argue their points on who won this fight from various angles.
The recent battle for the undisputed middleweight championship between Bernard Hopkins and Jermain Taylor is another close fight where the numbers tell the story of the fight. In the first 6 rounds, Hopkins was averaging 18 punches thrown per round, Taylor was averaging 38 total thrown punches per round. Also in the first 6 rounds, Hopkins was averaging 4 landed punches per round and Taylor was averaging 8 landed punches per round. It was not until the 8th round when Hopkins really stepped up his punch output. In the final 5 rounds, Hopkins threw an average of almost 40 punches per round to Taylor's average of 38.
While Hopkins picked up the pace late in the fight, Taylor was still able to maintain the same punch output that he displayed in the first 6 rounds. While Taylor was able to stay at the same pace, he was far less accurate with his punches. Hopkins was able to land an average of 12 punches per round in the final 5, Taylor averaged 5 punches landed per round in the final five. In the end, Hopkins landed 29% of his total punches, 96 out of 326, Taylor was only able to land 19% of his punches, 86 out of 453. It doesn't take an expert to realize why there are so many conflicting views on the winner of this fight. Hopkins was the more accurate puncher, but Taylor threw 133 more punches.
Judging last Saturday's winner would depend on what kind of fighting style you favor, the aggressor pressing the fight or the counter-puncher that waits for his openings. Regardless of who you think won the fight, the numbers clearly show that the fight was close and could have gone either way.
Inching toward Reforms.
In 2003, I called for a ranking reform using a combination of computerized rankings and subjective rankings by experts to determine who is the true champion in each weight division. Many networks use Ring Magazine's ranking system as their source of who is the true champion in each weight division. Ring Magazine is like having the parental good seal of approval because it has been a force in boxing journalism for nearly a century.
I have some problems with the Ring Magazine rankings. For one, I just don’t like the idea of keeping certain division vacant with no champions and I am not always in agreement with the Ring Magazine championship choices. My own idea is for a process that combines a subjective system similar to Ring Magazine rankings, rankings by the various sanctioning bodies and a computerized system based on points. The system can give some weight to the sanctioning bodies ranking since they are still the high powers in the sport. You balance the earlier referenced ranking systems with lists of rankings drawn up by select experts and you have the beginning of a system that can be made to work.