Is Compubox valid or not valid?

nah, purely fictional

If they really intended compubox to be accurate why have only one person pushing the button? At the very least there should be 3 people for each guy and then the total averaged as the median score. Compubox is a way for the powers that be to justify decisions that are outragish. This. Or at least two guys per fighter. This answers the question. Cumpubox is not valid as it is today. That does not mean they get it right occasionally, but far too many times they are off by quite a bit.

It has some merit as a measure of punch output. But beyond that, it's not just useless, it's harmful.

Since May 2nd i have seen posters who lived and died by compubox now discredit it..They used it to say Floyd lost to Castillo,used it to say Manny beat Jmm in the 2nd and 3rd fight..but now all the sudden it does not apply? So is it valid or not valid? I've always hated compubox because there is nothing valid about it. It's two guys pressing a button whenever they believe a punch has landed, so that depends on where they are, the angle they are viewing the fight at and the crowd. The validity, or lack of, has nothing to do with May/Pac. I hate it every time Lampley mentions the compubox score at the end of a round because it means nothing. You and I could do the job, it can be that subjective.

It might give a general idea of patterns/trends in a fight or in looking at someone's career...but it shouldn't be a basis for an argument in the same way a lie detector isn't admissible in trial. It's not valid.

Can't think of a time where I saw the compubox tally for a fight where it made or broke my impression of what I saw. It's really not reliable enough for me to hold with much regard.

your agenda is strong today, bro. manny and floyd fought. floyd won. both were past their best. manny was much further gone. they could have fought five years ago or so, in manny's prime, and manny would have still lost.

Since May 2nd i have seen posters who lived and died by compubox now discredit it..They used it to say Floyd lost to Castillo,used it to say Manny beat Jmm in the 2nd and 3rd fight..but now all the sudden it does not apply? So is it valid or not valid? Larry you know better. It's NSB, where rules apply to everyone except your favorite fighter. Remember how Mayweather fans talked crap about Pacquiao asking for catchweights? Funny how they were quiet when Mayweather asked Canelo for a catchweight. Cotto fans complained about Pacquiao draining him only to defend him when he does it to other fighters now. Everyone talked about how unfair it was for Chavez Jr. to put on 20 lbs on fight night, but say nothing when other fighters do the same. And my favorite. All Pacquiao fans saying that the commission needed to do it's job that extra drug testing wasn't necessary, suddenly change their mind about it when Pacquiao gets KO'd by Marquez. Suddenly it's drug testing is necessary.

It can give an indication. It can support a point of view. But, imo, on it's own is in no way definitive.

Ok but this is where most run to in order to say Floyd lost to Castillo it was an extrremely close fight could have gone either way most people , including the hbo commentary team, had it for castillo but the compubox stats were a complete joke in that fight

one for the fl0mos https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bf0XmNUCcAAHzQm.jpg those punchstats for castillo floyd I are way off imo they were counting punches landing on arms and elbows i had that fight 114-112 floyd Ok but this is where most run to in order to say Floyd lost to Castillo

http://i.imgur.com/BXnpnHd.jpg

it's not accurate at all as far as punches landed. punches thrown maybe since that is easy but throwing punches doesn't matter. in mayweather pac i did my own numbers and they inflated floyd's landed punches by about 40 percent. then there is calzaghe/hopkins which was a complete joke. 220 landed by calzaghe when he was just hitting air. wrong. fail. Right and the clinching didn't matter in Calzaghe-Hopkins but now you can't stop crying like a little girl about clinching.

Since May 2nd i have seen posters who lived and died by compubox now discredit it..They used it to say Floyd lost to Castillo,used it to say Manny beat Jmm in the 2nd and 3rd fight..but now all the sudden it does not apply? So is it valid or not valid? i watched a few rounds of May 2nd in slow motion and I have to say I saw quite a discrepancy...so maybe it's validity leaves doubt.

Compubox is not perfect but it the best we have for the purpose. Judges are not perfect either and they sometimes make terrible judgements, but overall they get it right. The only way to make it better would be to remove the human element from it and that would not be possible with today's tech. If someone has a better way to do it, I suggest you invest some money and build it, then conduct extensive testing at your own expense and finally contact the television networks to do a demo of your new system and prove that it is better and you will become a very wealthy man. Until then, either use it as a tool, one of many, or disregard it entirely. Your choice.

those punchstats for castillo floyd I are way off imo they were counting punches landing on arms and elbows i had that fight 114-112 floyd

one for the fl0mos https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bf0XmNUCcAAHzQm.jpg

absolutely not its been proven to be wrong on several occasions over the past 10 years ive been watching boxing

Since May 2nd i have seen posters who lived and died by compubox now discredit it..They used it to say Floyd lost to Castillo,used it to say Manny beat Jmm in the 2nd and 3rd fight..but now all the sudden it does not apply? So is it valid or not valid? It's invalid because it plays no part in the judges scoring. Also, too many button pushers are scoring punches that are blocked or don't land at all.

If they really intended compubox to be accurate why have only one person pushing the button? At the very least there should be 3 people for each guy and then the total averaged as the median score. Compubox is a way for the powers that be to justify decisions that are outragish.