NSB: Why are you inconsistent about Compubox and using it to determine fight winners?

[Combat Talk Radio]

Serious question again.

You guys are fairly inconsistent the vast majority of the time. But I've noticed HORRIBLE levels of inconsistency with Compubox.

Compubox themselves say NOT to use them to score fights.

We all know it's just some guys pushing buttons and they tend to miss punches especially when both guys are fast.

Look, I've got no issue if you want to use them to help you understand the story of the fight. I've got no problem with that.

My issue is that you are not consistent about it.

Cases-In-Point:

Tyson Fury vs. Otto 'All In' Wallin. According to Compubox Wallin might as well have been Joe Louis. But we all know that's not what happened. So you guys would (rightfully) say no, Wallin might should have gotten a cut stoppage, but outside of that, he was completely outboxed. Right?


Manny Pacquiao vs. Jeff 'The Hornet' Horn. According to Compubox Jeff wasn't even competitive, but your eyes don't lie. Manny struggled in 7 rounds, and you score round by round, that's a loss. A close loss, but a loss. But many of you say Manny "dominated" Horn. Why?

Yet...

Manny Pacquiao vs. Keef 'One Time' Thurman. According to Compubox Keef was the dominant fighter. So why do so many of you say that Manny "dominated" Keef?

And Deontay Wilder vs. Tyson 'Gypsy King' Fury. According to Compubox, the first fight was razor close. So why do so many of you say that Fury "dominated" Wilder? And then some others of you say that Wilder should have gotten a knockout so it doesn't matter?

Errol Spence vs. 'Showtime' Shawn Porter. Spence outlanded Porter, yet many of you felt that Porter beat Spence. Why?

Shawn Porter vs Yordenis Ugas. Porter outlanded Ugas, yet many of you felt that Ugas beat Porter. Why?

AGAIN, I AM ONLY REFERRING TO PEOPLE WHO KEEP SAYING "Fighter _____ won because Compubox doe".


You're picking and choosing which fighters you'll support Compubox for and which you won't. And that's inconsistent.

[Roberto Vasquez]

But isn't compubox the most accurate way to determine number of punch/punches landed etc?

It's not the be all and end all but it's a useful metric.

And I pretty much always agree with it. But it doesn't take into account things like hardness of general punches and the effect they have

The problem with any other ways of scoring is people ignore facts and look to their bias. eg. Fury/Wilder 1. It was close. But because Fury made those great ducks and dives to avoid the odd punch - it made him look a lot better. Even if a large number of punches still landed.

Human judges can be absolutely terrible and often you get one judge saying one fighter one fighter won and another judge saying the opposite.

[Citizen Koba]

Compubox really ain't much good or particularly accurate, but it's likely better than nothing at all, and most of the time it reflects the action that most people see. It shouldn't be used to score but there is a place for using to back up or justify a scoreline. I mean dudes on here just love to argue over fight results, and without compubox (or something similar) you just end up with endless subjective circular arguments.

I don't think the numbers route is ever gonnna replace educated subjective scoring (aka 'judging') but for anyone who does want that extra bit of ammunition (I rarely bother trying to change people's mind these days cos... why bother?) post fight video counts are almost without fail gonna be be more accurate than compuboxes real time efforts - assuming of course you can find a source that's relatively impartial. I can't swear to em, and there's vast, gaping holes in their database cos it's only run by a small crew I think, but these guys always came across as pretty dedicated and genuine

https://boxstat.co/

One of the dudes who runs it used to post on here many, many years ago (around 2013/4 or so if I recall it right) around the time I migrated over from ESB.

[Citizen Koba]

But isn't compubox the most accurate way to determine number of punch/punches landed etc?

It's not the be all and end all but it's a useful metric.

And I pretty much always agree with it. But it doesn't take into account things like hardness of general punches and the effect they have

The problem with any other ways of scoring is people ignore facts and look to their bias. eg. Fury/Wilder 1. It was close. But because Fury made those great ducks and dives to avoid the odd punch - it made him look a lot better. Even if a large number of punches still landed.

Human judges can be absolutely terrible and often you get one judge saying one fighter one fighter won and another judge saying the opposite.

That's how I see it, just a useful metric. In most fights it can give you a pretty good representation of the action, but in other fights, or particular styles of fight it can give a misleading impression. Like you say though, just one more tool in the kit. I can't see how having more data about a fight can be a bad thing, providing you're aware of the limitations of that data and utilise it accordingly.

It isn't the most accurate way of determining the number of punches landed though, that's always going to be a detailed analysis of the footage post-fight including slow mo, although of course that is painstaking work and heavily labour intensive and the figures ain't available for most fights - Boxrec has the advantage of easy accessibility even if it lacks accuracy both in the count and in the types of different punches it counts (ie just jab and non-jab).

https://boxstat.co/bout/2922262/vasy...-teofimo-lopez

https://boxstat.co/bout/2920580/scot...s-jono-carroll

https://boxstat.co/bout/2920284/jess...s-mikey-garcia

These dudes are the best at post fight video counts that I'm aware of and I believe they do do requests, but their database only includes a relatively small number of fights and they're so far behind up to date that it ain't even funny and for most fights it 's weeks or months before the stats are added if they get them at all. They break down by punch type (cross, jab, lead hook, rear hook, uppercut) and have stats for each type thrown, landed, accuracy and a combo and counter count.

[Robbie Barrett]

Some fights compubox are so far out from what's happening in the ring it's an absolute joke. It's just something to influence casuals to see the fight how someone wants them to. Biased commentary and garbage compubox could convince a casual a fight someone lost 12-0 actually won 12-0.

[Combat Talk Radio]

Some fights compubox are so far out from what's happening in the ring it's an absolute joke. It's just something to influence casuals to see the fight how someone wants them to. Biased commentary and garbage compubox could convince a casual a fight someone lost 12-0 actually won 12-0.

That's why I wish Code Red were still around. He was one of the few who seemed to get it about how to score fights.