Comments Thread For: Emanuel Navarrete Batters The Face of Oscar Valdez, Wins Decision in Mexican War

[Lefty0616]

Then you"ve been watching it all wrong! Just look at the stats. ( oh right, stats don't coun't because you gotta score each round... )

Stats don't always count. And I'm going to give you an example that proves that case. I do math for a living. Imagine if Fighter A fights Fighter B (12 rounds). Fighter A lands all 2000 of his punches in round 1 and 2 - and doesn't miss any punches. Fighter B doesn't throw any punches in the first two rounds. That's a clear 20-18 score after two for Fighter A. Fighter A throws nothing the rest of the way, and Fighter B throws and lands 50% of his punches the rest of the way - he averages 100 punches each round, from Round 3 - 12. It's safe to say that although Fighter A won the first two rounds, that he loses the last 10. And let's say Fighter A really busted up Fighter B in the first two rounds too. Fighter B would still win 118 to 110. Some would say how could this be: Fighter A landed 2000 punches VS only 1000 for Fighter B, and he beat Fighter B up in the first two rounds. Fighter B wins because boxing is scored on a 10 point must system. Fighter B wins the chess match VS Fighter A. Stats wouldn't matter much in this instance. It's sort of like Ward VS Kovalev I. Ward got beat up and knocked down, but he won more rounds. That's why I had him winning.

But hey, I was obviously wrong in the instance of Navarette VS Vargas. I've been out voted, it happens. There were swing rounds that I gave to Valdez that most probably gave to Navarette. No one's perfect. I'll watch the replay.

[low blows]

Valdez hasn't looked the same since the failed test... imagine that

So true his failed PED test was filed down the memory hole. He never served any real suspension, I hope they throw the book at Whyte but I could see the dog ate my homework 2 excuse being "believed" by the BBC.

[steeve steel]

Stats don't always count. And I'm going to give you an example that proves that case. I do math for a living. Imagine if Fighter A fights Fighter B (12 rounds). Fighter A lands all 2000 of his punches in round 1 and 2 - and doesn't miss any punches. Fighter B doesn't throw any punches in the first two rounds. That's a clear 20-18 score after two for Fighter A. Fighter A throws nothing the rest of the way, and Fighter B throws and lands 50% of his punches the rest of the way - he averages 100 punches each round, from Round 3 - 12. It's safe to say that although Fighter A won the first two rounds, that he loses the last 10. And let's say Fighter A really busted up Fighter B in the first two rounds too. Fighter B would still win 118 to 110. Some would say how could this be: Fighter A landed 2000 punches VS only 1000 for Fighter B, and he beat Fighter B up in the first two rounds. Fighter B wins because boxing is scored on a 10 point must system. Fighter B wins the chess match VS Fighter A. Stats wouldn't matter much in this instance. It's sort of like Ward VS Kovalev I. Ward got beat up and knocked down, but he won more rounds. That's why I had him winning.

But hey, I was obviously wrong in the instance of Navarette VS Vargas. I've been out voted, it happens. There were swing rounds that I gave to Valdez that most probably gave to Navarette. No one's perfect. I'll watch the replay.

I agree to .. agree! Because no one, including me, questioned the fact that you gotta score each round, and take into account stats for each round, not just overall stats. There are some really tough fights to score. I personally had Kovalez winning. but I could kind of see why some like yourself had Ward winning. But that was a way closer fight than Navarette vs Valdez. You can't win a round just because you landed 2-3 good power shots, when the opponent landed 3-4 times more punches, including hard jabs.