If Compubox is so.....

take some sets of CB stats and then go watch the fights in slow motion and compare your connect count with CB's connect count round for round. you'll see how dismally inaccurate CB connect stats are. human error or an indicator of CB bias toward certain stars? one can only speculate, but HBO have this habit of ramming CB down its viewers' throats and CB has this habit of being pretty inaccurate in favour of some of HBO's hottest properties in recent times. Agreed. Lampley parrots them as fact at the beginning of every damn round. It's outrageous given how utterly unreliable they are.

i've never SWORN by it fool. and that was no proof provided by u, that was more of a trollish opinion. gtfoh Everybody was always so against it, but nonody could provide a certain truth to why it was so bad. If you really want to know, I'd recommend watching this video series. In it, you can see for yourself how wildly inaccurate compubox is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkqMKGdi4LU It doesn't seem plausible that people can determine whether or not high speed punches landed, in real time viewing, to a high level of accuracy.

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. Compubox counts punches per round too... not everyone is a retard.

compubox is reliable, but does not have the reasoning powers of the judges. great example was during pacquiao-bradley. bradley threw more (slapping) punches but pacquiao threw and connected more power punches

Those same people will use CompuBox to make their case for other fights, so don't pay much attention to them.

If compubox numbers are so great why don't judges get those numbers~ Compubox is not used by judges to score fights thus when used to talk about a fight and who won it is not being like a real judge, if you aren't judging like a boxing judge why would I care about someone who is influenced by some meaningless number.

it's defintely more accurate than watching it on tv and not keeping track of the punches landed...esp in a close fight ofcourse when there is a KD , no matter what the compubox say, you have to consider the one who got it to be the winner of the round (scored 10-8) unless the diffrence of punches landed between them is huge...(then it should be 9-9) of course, but scoring even rounds is discouraged also, so who knows.

it's defintely more accurate than watching it on tv and not keeping track of the punches landed...esp in a close fight ofcourse when there is a KD , no matter what the compubox say, you have to consider the one who got it to be the winner of the round (scored 10-8) unless the diffrence of punches landed between them is huge...(then it should be 9-9)

i've never SWORN by it fool. and that was no proof provided by u, that was more of a trollish opinion. gtfoh Everybody was always so against it, but nonody could provide a certain truth to why it was so bad. Well you've been provided with the Donaire-Mathebula punch stat's there is solid and clear evidence that it's not accurate or not always accurate. You've been provided with more than 1 example in this there lack of accuracy.

I gave you proof. The community here is sh1t because of morons like you who place importance on nonsense like compubox. You dont know sh1t about boxing if you're relying on such a broken system to tell you the story of a fight. i've never SWORN by it fool. and that was no proof provided by u, that was more of a trollish opinion. gtfoh Everybody was always so against it, but nonody could provide a certain truth to why it was so bad.

yea i got a sense of that too. What you have done is try to make an issue out of something and then ask the wrong question regarding this issue. Yes. Most People did not listen to you....Most people addressed the verocity of Punchstat numbers while you asked about whether these numbers are inaccurate in any way when purported to measure the amount of punches per a round. Heres the problem: The issue is how punchstat numbers figure into a meaningful statistic in any way. I think they are one decent measure but the way people rely upon them is criminal. Boxing is more than just a volume of punching. It seems that punch stat numbers are relied upon to a point of absurdity. Regarding the actual process of measurement? I think it is ok provided we all understand the role of human error. These numbers should be variated to account for human error in some meaningful way. Finally these numbers should integrate in a meaningful way... they should be a piece of the right story....I.e. boxer 1 throws lots of punches but his opponent looks fresh as a daisy and he looks like chopped liver....maybe punch stat is irrelevent. On the other hand if the situation is reversed and the guy throwing the punches does not look worse for the wear then the stats verify that he is landing more effective punches. Most people object to using these numbers for more relevence than they seem to indicate. If human error is figured into the equation they are meaningful.

Again the Kirkland v Angulo Round 1 example, I like both of those guys but the punch stats for the round were a mile off! Hah just went to look at that. Angulo landed 37 of 74 apparently and Kirkland was 28/103. I seem to think Angulo threw far more than Kirkland and missed a fair few more than he landed. Awfully inaccurate.

Because compubox numbers mean nothing to judging a fight, so bringing them up when talking about who won is not valid in the least.

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. It's still a human that presses the button hence there's subjectivity involved in determining whether a punch landed, hit the guard or was illegal. Therefore it is faulty to take compubox or punchstats numbers as the truth. They are indicative but nothing more.

Because just because you landed a punch according to the person clicking the button, doesn't mean it was effective. Let's say 2 fighters fought and both of them landed 10 punches in round 5, should that round be a draw? Let's say the out of the 10 punches fighter A landed, 7 of them were glancing, uneffecitve punches that weren't clean. Whereas, fighter B landed 7 hard, solid, clean effective punches. Who wins the round? Fighter B obviously. But compubox doesn't show this, compubox just shows stats. And this is going off the assumption that compubox is 100% accucrate, which it isn't nor is it even close. Even if it was 100% accurate, it still wouldn't be an effective way of scoring fights.

Most of the time when people complain about compubox its because their fighter lost or a fighter that they hate won. Again the Kirkland v Angulo Round 1 example, I like both of those guys but the punch stats for the round were a mile off!

Most of the time when people complain about compubox its because their fighter lost or a fighter that they hate won. yea i got a sense of that too.

take some sets of CB stats and then go watch the fights in slow motion and compare your connect count with CB's connect count round for round. you'll see how dismally inaccurate CB connect stats are. human error or an indicator of CB bias toward certain stars? can only speculate, but HBO have this habit of ramming CB down its viewers' throats and CB has a habit of being pretty inaccurate in favour of some of HBO's hottest properties in recent times. seems legit man. something like the donaire mathebula cb is something like i was looking for.

This is why: http://compuboxonline.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/donaire-mathebula.jpg

It's just so inaccurate. For a really simple example watch round 1 of Angulo v Kirkland. Do a count of JUST Angulo's punches, then compare them to the number compubox gives.