Less Subjective Evaluation of Fighters?

[October]

I've often wondered why there isn't a more objective way to evaluate a fighter's attributes (such as punching power). Fights are so few and far between in the modern era of boxing, and it seems like there would be a more comprehensive summary of a fighter given before a large PPV boxing match (or a match between two fighters of notoriety, at the very least).

Any ideas?

[MANGLER]

I've often wondered why there isn't a more objective way to evaluate a fighter's attributes (such as punching power). Fights are so few and far between in the modern era of boxing, and it seems like there would be a more comprehensive summary of a fighter given before a large PPV boxing match (or a match between two fighters of notoriety, at the very least).

Any ideas?

You look at the guy's record and see who he's beaten and how he beat them.

[abadger]

I see what you're saying. The Tale Of the Tape is a pretty old institution and nowadays we do have the technology to measure some more sophisticated things.

That said, what is really worth measuring? OK, punching power would be an interesting one, but after that? Handspeed? You can see which fighter has th faster hands within seconds of the opening bell. Footspeed? I'm not sure this could even be measured in a way meaningful to boxing. Cardiovascular capacity? I hope I never have to hear about this!

And all the meaningful statistics about what a fighter actually does when he fights are actually available, via compubox. You usually get a three or four fight summary of jabs, power punches, punches landed when boxers fight on HBO. I'm not sure what else we need.