So I just did my own punchstats for BH vs. JC and...

[TyrantT316]

Of course. People shouldn't believe a statistical system that says De La Hoya landed over 120 punches on Mayweather and that Mayweather landed 220 on De La Hoya. Or that Gatti landed 41 punches on Mayweather. More like 4.

People using Compubox as evidence that Calzaghe won is as bad as Hopkins claiming his unmarked ugly face means he won.

I really only counted Gatti landing about 7 total for the whole fight vs Mayweather...and THOSE were taps

[βetamax]

Dude, ring generalship, aggression, going in to fight, chasing the fight, never backing off. These are all but some of the factors Joe may have gotten marked on, and citations often given for wins for other fights, yet strangely not here.

I only favor aggression as a way of determining an otherwise even round. Using a simplified example, if fighter 'A' pursues another and throws 100 punches but doesn't land a single one and fighter 'B' lands a single clean, effective counter I'm giving the round to that guy. Using the judging criteria fighter 'B' should be rewarded for clean punching and defense. Fighter 'A' on the other hand has really provided nothing more then ineffective aggressiveness. If neither guy landed a punch or an equal amount of punches then I would give the round to fighter 'A'.

This may be a big ask for you to even consider, perhaps it is too high, but I and many certainly believe Joe if anything landed more, especially on watching it back. Putting everyone's perspective aside, it is far more likely some of his punches were missed in the flurries, than Hopkins occasional 1 punch.

He was actually joking...

Hopkins should have had at least 2 points deducted for record levels of clinching, 160 over the fight. Hatton was pulled out and penalised for much less, so it's simply unjustified to say the Hopkins didn't deserve at least one point deducted. Furthermore it was a rough fight, but by far he did the most and worst, butting, holding arms, faking injury to take a break, fighting after the bell, it goes on.

I don't see why only Hopkins should be penalized. As I stated before Calzaghe landed multiple low blows and shots to the back of the head and back. Hell, here he landed 4 illegal shots in row in plain view of Cortez.

[IMG]http://i28.***********.com/albums/c217/natas206/hopcalz4.gif[/IMG]

Some people will go to any extent to fuel they're biased belief they're guy didn't lose. It's a little sad tbh. Guys, the majority of commentators, judges, and public even, fans included, believe Hopkins lost. So get off your high horse claiming you know best, and all these judges and people are factually wrong.

There are plently of fans, people in the media, etc. who felt Hopkins won including one of the judges.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. This is a boxing discussion forum and responding to someone with a claim as being biased, 'sore loser', etc. without being following by a rebuttal often means they have no answer and/or unwilling to challenge their opinion. Instead they try to dismiss the person instead of their thoughts, which could also be considered biased. I'm not accusing you of this personally, it's just something I've noticed in general.

[Kris Silver]

Fair responsde mt, genuinly good points there which I most certainly wouldn't dismiss, and I respect you seem a little more open to variables in perception too.

Giving a round to someone based on aggession as kind of a later resort is interesting, if it's even yes you consider it more, but I think judges and others are clearly factoring it in, more than that. It's fine to disagree, but most people disagree with some decisions in sports, the trick is getting as close the the middle ground as possible, and based on a majority thinking Calzaghe winning, I think it's worked here. If Hops one there'd be a majority making the case of Joe winning, with much more of a case.

Clearly judges factor in aggression and activity rate more than some, more than the people whom thought Hops won claim to. Oddly many ppl argued a case for Johnson beating Tarver based on the same/similar things, chasing the fight, agression. Yet here on Calzaghe, it's conveniently not mentioned or accepted as a reason for winning a few rounds. I'm afraid I just find that far too convenient.

I do think Hops deserves to be deduted a point at least, as he was way beyond the levels of Calzaghe bending the rules. He was more calculating, yet obvious at times, clinching, holding, butting, faking injury, time wasting. If your gona deduct a point of Calzaghe maybe, but being balanced you'd then have to take 2-3 off Hopkins, for doing the same things more, and several other noted things.

As I said, I'm not dismissing your view and your posts is one of the most decently, fairly put posts outlining points for a possible Hops win. I accept some of them. But ultimately I just find it too convenient, most don't hold the more balanced views you do and exaggerate the points to extremes to lose any credibility. I think there's far more clearly points for a Calzaghe win, that's what happened, that's what most are happy with, and that's why there's no huge out cry, of complaint filed.

If there should be one, it should be for the Johson loss, where a majority of viewers clearly gave it to him, and even he strongly made points as to why the decision was wrong. The same things are not true to any major degree for the Hops Calzaghe fight. So for me it's almost like some people are passionately, angrily beating a dead horse, exaggerating points, which is only discrediting any small points for Hops, and putting them further at odds with the majority imo.

[S.W.F.C]

[T-97]

compu box is a piece of ****. but in reality judges dont use that to score fights so it really doesnt matter why get worked up about it. Judges dont even see compubox numbers.

Who gives a ****?

[βetamax]

Fair responsde mt, genuinly good points there which I most certainly wouldn't dismiss, and I respect you seem a little more open to variables in perception too.

Giving a round to someone based on aggession as kind of a later resort is interesting, if it's even yes you consider it more, but I think judges and others are clearly factoring it in, more than that. It's fine to disagree, but most people disagree with some decisions in sports, the trick is getting as close the the middle ground as possible, and based on a majority thinking Calzaghe winning, I think it's worked here. If Hops one there'd be a majority making the case of Joe winning, with much more of a case.

Clearly judges factor in aggression and activity rate more than some, more than the people whom thought Hops won claim to. Oddly many ppl argued a case for Johnson beating Tarver based on the same/similar things, chasing the fight, agression. Yet here on Calzaghe, it's conveniently not mentioned or accepted as a reason for winning a few rounds. I'm afraid I just find that far too convenient.

I do think Hops deserves to be deduted a point at least, as he was way beyond the levels of Calzaghe bending the rules. He was more calculating, yet obvious at times, clinching, holding, butting, faking injury, time wasting. If your gona deduct a point of Calzaghe maybe, but being balanced you'd then have to take 2-3 off Hopkins, for doing the same things more, and several other noted things.

As I said, I'm not dismissing your view and your posts is one of the most decently, fairly put posts outlining points for a possible Hops win. I accept some of them. But ultimately I just find it too convenient, most don't hold the more balanced views you do and exaggerate the points to extremes to lose any credibility. I think there's far more clearly points for a Calzaghe win, that's what happened, that's what most are happy with, and that's why there's no huge out cry, of complaint filed.

If there should be one, it should be for the Johson loss, where a majority of viewers clearly gave it to him, and even he strongly made points as to why the decision was wrong. The same things are not true to any major degree for the Hops Calzaghe fight. So for me it's almost like some people are passionately, angrily beating a dead horse, exaggerating points, which is only discrediting any small points for Hops, and putting them further at odds with the majority imo.

Fair enough.

As far as point deductions, I don't know. Clinching is not illegal and it would be very hard to deduct a point for faking an injury (resulting in time-wasting) since it's not something the ref can prove vs. something like spitting out a mouthpiece. These may be dirty tactics but they're within the rules or fall in a grey area. So this leaves headbutting and holding, both illegal tactics. I'm also not sure that any of the headbutt attempts could be considered intentional. How did these tactics compare in total numbers to Calzaghe's low blows, hits behind the head and back? How many warnings did each guy get?

Perhaps Hopkins was the more guilty but was there actually enough justification to give a clear "yes", a point should have been deducted? If someone can provide a good argument I'll be glad to listen.

[Mozza]

...it confirmed what I and a lot of others have suspected all along - it's a complete joke. I watched the first 3 rounds in slow motion (it's time consuming, maybe I'll get to the rest of the rounds later) scoring for Calzaghe since he is who I suspect has the more deceptive numbers based on his higher punch volume. The first round numbers were fairly close but the next 2 were horrific. I found roughly 50% less punches landed then Compubox and 90% of them were TAPS to the body and head, mainly during clenching...and these are being scored as "power punches" since they aren't jabs. 50% less is also being generous and giving the benefit of the doubt since in some cases the action was blocked.

I challenge anyone to do the same and I think you'll get similar results.

I would be happy to take up your challenge but I have a life. Calzaghe won, deal with it.

[Pugilistic™]

i do agree that compubox is unrealible and people shouldn't score fights this way

[βetamax]

I would be happy to take up your challenge but I have a life. Calzaghe won, deal with it.

Says the guy with almost 4,000 posts on a boxing forum. I guess you don't spend much time watching boxing either, huh? Not that I expect everyone to go out and do the same thing but it's funny that you've chosen to take a shot at me since your comfortable with the outcome of the fight.