IF boxing was only scored by accurate Compubox / stats , our sport would be better

Its for the same reason baseball doesnt have a computerized strike zone. Your taking the human element out of officials hands. Shouldnt power punches count for something!?

Part of sport and excitement is also the unexpected , controversy does add to it even if it feels unfair at times. Stats help conversations but shouldn’t dictate the sport in my view

You must not know how boxing works then. Boxing is scored by rounds not total punches landed. A fighter can have a huge round and land 40 punches in one round to win it and land 5 punches in the next 2 rounds while his opponent lands twice as many to win those 2 rounds. So in 3 rounds one fighter lands 50 punches while the other lands half that, yet he landed more punches in 2 rounds to win them and be up 2-1 Ok good point, well on a round by round basis then

the art of boxing: to hit without getting hit! the man who 'lands' the most punches in a fight should be declared the winner, the ONLY exception being for KO/KD's there would be no unfairness and robberies you would still get the anticipation at the end of the fight when the results are announced so WHY are we still allowing 3 people with different viewing angles and opinions and other variables, to declare who landed the most punches in a fight? i understand it is 'how its always been' but we have developed so much since then..... this needs to be changed! i know it probbly won't, but why not? You must not know how boxing works then. Boxing is scored by rounds not total punches landed. A fighter can have a huge round and land 40 punches in one round to win it and land 5 punches in the next 2 rounds while his opponent lands twice as many to win those 2 rounds. So in 3 rounds one fighter lands 50 punches while the other lands half that, yet he landed more punches in 2 rounds to win them and be up 2-1

the art of boxing: to hit without getting hit! (...) ... I don't know what "art of boxing" really is about... but I've noticed that, sometimes, some guys "hit without being hit" for 99,9% of the time, until they get hit and get KTFO... (see Khan, for instance...)

Yea would be great, until you realize how they just make the numbers up to fit the agenda. Go and watch a Canelo fight, or a Pacquiao fight, watch 6 rounds with the sound muted and count the punches landed. Then go back and watch it with the sound and see what the official Punchstats say. They literally make it up, and 80% of you noobs treat it as gospel. That is actually true.

the art of boxing: to hit without getting hit! the man who 'lands' the most punches in a fight should be declared the winner, the ONLY exception being for KO/KD's there would be no unfairness and robberies you would still get the anticipation at the end of the fight when the results are announced so WHY are we still allowing 3 people with different viewing angles and opinions and other variables, to declare who landed the most punches in a fight? i understand it is 'how its always been' but we have developed so much since then..... this needs to be changed! i know it probbly won't, but why not? According to your logic Juan Manuel Marquez would be 3-1 against Manny Pacquiao because he out landed Manny in their first 2 fights.

Yea would be great, until you realize how they just make the numbers up to fit the agenda. Go and watch a Canelo fight, or a Pacquiao fight, watch 6 rounds with the sound muted and count the punches landed. Then go back and watch it with the sound and see what the official Punchstats say. They literally make it up, and 80% of you noobs treat it as gospel.

If you want points fighting go watch amateur boxing. You won't though, for the same reason no one else does. It sucks. Accounting for power and effectiveness lends to much more interesting fights.