If Compubox is so.....

[Mud]

i completely understand that. I'm not saying to just score fights just by punches landed.

i'm saying to prove how inaccurate or why its such **** to finalize opinions and or cement your own scorecard on who won a fight.

Im not sure exactly how it works, but the commentators treat compubox as fact, when actually its just a persons or peoples opinions, on what they saw.

We are watching the same fight, and may draw different conclusions as to what punches were power punches and which shots landed cleanly.

I dont have a problem with compubox. It seems fairly accurate, but it is also very flawed. its better to score a fight based on your own perspective.

[figzuki]

Compubox can not possibly catch EVERY punch that lands,lots of punches are landed in clinches,sometimes they give fighters credit for landing punches that were parried or rolled,so while it gives you a hint of what is going on it is far from accurate

all this is opinion so far. there has to be some proof as to why it is such crap according to all the pro boxing geniuses on here.

Not talking shiat to you specifically meng.

[figzuki]

Im not sure exactly how it works, but the commentators treat compubox as fact, when actually its just a persons or peoples opinions, on what they saw.

We are watching the same fight, and may draw different conclusions as to what punches were power punches and which shots landed cleanly.

I dont have a problem with compubox. It seems fairly accurate, but it is also very flawed. its better to score a fight based on your own perspective.

i agree with u, i never said it was perfect either. It seems pretty accurate to me tough.

like martinez vs burgos dec. burgos landed 234, martinez landed 164.

[Bushbaby]

TBH, I believe that we who watch the fights on tv have a better view of the fight than most ringside observers. The camera's always switch to show the best angles. The compu-box analyst, the judges, the commentators stay on 1 side of the ring at all times. I wouldn't call it unrealistic for them to see a fight differently than I do.

The best example that I can give is Pacman/Clottey & the famous thousand **** ****s when damn near every punch thrown missed. It would be interesting to see how compu-box recorded those.

[ИATAS]

some fights are easier or more accurate then others. Like daggum mentioned, the hopkins-calzaghe fight they had Calzaghe landing over 200 punches on hopkins which was absurd. You'd be hard pressed to find more than 30 clean punches landed on hopkins the entire fight!

Volume punchers are probably the hardest for compubox to accurately get. If a guy throws a 100 punches in a round, how they hell are they going to see everything that lands since they are sitting one spot ringside? They can't.

It's two guys with a clicker:


Now if the fight is at a really slow pace and each fighter throws, say, 20 punches a round, I'm sure it's a lot easier to be more accurate.

[figzuki]

TBH, I believe that we who watch the fights on tv have a better view of the fight than most ringside observers. The camera's always switch to show the best angles. The compu-box analyst, the judges, the commentators stay on 1 side of the ring at all times. I wouldn't call it unrealistic for them to see a fight differently than I do.

The best example that I can give is Pacman/Clottey & the famous thousand **** ****s when damn near every punch thrown missed. It would be interesting to see how compu-box recorded those.

this is the compubox here posted on our very own site:

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/view.php?pg=manny-pacquiao-joshua-clottey-compubox

it actually seems pretty accurate backing up the theory that they didn't score every blocked/missed punch.

[figzuki]

some fights are easier or more accurate then others. Like daggum mentioned, the hopkins-calzaghe fight they had Calzaghe landing over 200 punches on hopkins which was absurd. You'd be hard pressed to find more than 30 clean punches landed on hopkins the entire fight!

Volume punchers are probably the hardest for compubox to accurately get. If a guy throws a 100 punches in a round, how they hell are they going to see everything that lands since they are sitting one spot ringside? They can't.

It's two guys with a clicker:


Now if the fight is at a really slow pace and each fighter throws, say, 20 punches a round, I'm sure it's a lot easier to be more accurate.

i understand that completely and don't siagree with anything you said.

200 punches more on hopkins seems crazy but i watched the fight and calzaghe was def. super busy and it doesn't make me say "screw" compubox.

i need to see that one example where its clear that it is a crock of shiat.

[kebark]

It's just so inaccurate. For a really simple example watch round 1 of Angulo v Kirkland. Do a count of JUST Angulo's punches, then compare them to the number compubox gives.

[-PBP-]

This is why:

[S. Saddler 1310]

take some sets of CB stats and then go watch the fights in slow motion and compare your connect count with CB's connect count round for round. you'll see how dismally inaccurate CB connect stats are.

human error or an indicator of CB bias toward certain stars? one can only speculate, but HBO have this habit of ramming CB down its viewers' throats and CB has this habit of being pretty inaccurate in favour of some of HBO's hottest properties in recent times.