Eh, I don't think it's realistic at this time to expect computerized stats anytime soon. Having said that, I liked this article because it's infinitely better than using live compubox scoring.
Eh, I don't think it's realistic at this time to expect computerized stats anytime soon. Having said that, I liked this article because it's infinitely better than using live compubox scoring.
Back when I was in school I had the opportunity to work on computer vision stuff, and I find the topic really fascinating. Also as a result, I appreciate the complexity of developing software that can accurately and automatically label how many punches of each type were landed. I agree that that tech is not right around the corner.
I appreciate their effort though. Maybe if I have time later I'll see if I agree with their punch counts for a round or two.
Next step... determine how cleanly the punches land and how hard the impacts are...
I appreciate stats, not because they paint the picture, but because sometimes they make you look twice at things you may have missed. No matter how good someone is, our brains can't catch ALL the action, especially when we're limited to whatever camera angle we're viewing.
I don't think this is a great fight for stats because the difference in actual punch quality between the two. But, stats are always welcome.
Comment