Lomachenko dominates Compubox Ratings...

[Robbie Barrett]

I'm a compubox fan (which doesn't mean anything other than I like the idea of stats in boxing), but that +/- stat is a bs stat.

What difference does measuring my % landed vs my opponents % landed? I don't believe its a very accurate measurement of how good someone is in any way like its kinda advertised as with being the P4P of compubox stats.

I was previously a fan of it til I saw a recent post where Tyson Fury had a negative +/- number which sounded ******ed to me...til I looked at his punch stat numbers & saw guys were landing on him at a high %, but not at very high numbers.

That made me come to the conclusion that a better way to determine dominance in the ring would be to look at overall landed punches vs how many times you got hit divided by the number of rounds they fought.

So for example for Loma vs Rigo Loma landed 55 punches & got hit 15 times. Thats +40. Fight went 6 rounds. That gives him a 6.6 "score". It even kinda allows you to grade the dominance of a boxer vs other of his own performances. The Sosa fight for example would be a 17.6 showing how dominant that W was in comparison to the Rigo W.

But thats just me nerding out with numbers cuz I think there are massive issues with +/- cuz %'s are ****** in a volume game. /rant

Punch stats are useless because not only are they inaccurate but quality of opponent has a massive effect. Golovkin used to be near the top because he was fighting weak comp, he's tumbled down the ratings since stepping up.

[Mr. 29K]

And still got whooped by Salido! 😂

[Floyd is TBE]

Badou Jack is the most underrated fighter in boxing.

[kafkod]

Punch stats are useless because not only are they inaccurate but quality of opponent has a massive effect. Golovkin used to be near the top because he was fighting weak comp, he's tumbled down the ratings since stepping up.

Golovkin has always consistently fought high ranked opponents. They only looked weak when they were in the ring with him.

[Citizen Koba]

I'm a compubox fan (which doesn't mean anything other than I like the idea of stats in boxing), but that +/- stat is a bs stat.

What difference does measuring my % landed vs my opponents % landed? I don't believe its a very accurate measurement of how good someone is in any way like its kinda advertised as with being the P4P of compubox stats.

I was previously a fan of it til I saw a recent post where Tyson Fury had a negative +/- number which sounded ******ed to me...til I looked at his punch stat numbers & saw guys were landing on him at a high %, but not at very high numbers.

That made me come to the conclusion that a better way to determine dominance in the ring would be to look at overall landed punches vs how many times you got hit divided by the number of rounds they fought.

So for example for Loma vs Rigo Loma landed 55 punches & got hit 15 times. Thats +40. Fight went 6 rounds. That gives him a 6.6 "score". It even kinda allows you to grade the dominance of a boxer vs other of his own performances. The Sosa fight for example would be a 17.6 showing how dominant that W was in comparison to the Rigo W.

But thats just me nerding out with numbers cuz I think there are massive issues with +/- cuz %'s are ****** in a volume game. /rant

This is the exact conclusion I came to, man. I mean anyone with an iota of sense can see than compubox can give you 100% connect by throwing and landing just 1 punch a round whereas throwing 100 and landing 50 nets you only 50%... which fighter would you consider superior? My system is slightly different from yours but gives a better result (IMHO of course!). Instead of taking the difference in the number of punches landed as you suggest (which would give the same apparent result in a close 550 vs 600 punch fight as it would in a wide 25 vs 75 punch fight) I expressed the number of punches landed / the number of opponents punches landed as a ratio... in the case of Loma vs Rigo this gives a 3.66 in favour of Loma. It's a while since I've crunched any numbers cos I got better things to do with my time these days, but I do remember GGG and Kovalev both having a ratio in the 2.2ish sort of range (averaged over a number of fights) when they were tearing through their respective divisions - despite Kovalev never having particularly impressive +/- numbers. In general anything over about a 2.0 ratio represents a landslide win and anything over about 1.5 is pretty decisive and inarguable..

Anyway just my 2p, man. Make of it what you will.

[richardt]

Even setting Compubox aside, it is obvious Lom is one of the most efficient boxers in the top PFP.

[chrisJS]

In 2015 Danny Jacobs had a +/- of 24 was he on another level too? At the same time Klitschko had a +/- of -1, i guess he was shit?

Why so defensive? If it was about Floyd you'd be using it as a reference.

So is Loma a poor fighter? Does he have a porous defense? I think he's good. He's accurate and he doesn't get hit cleanly so the numbers aren't exactly Gatti like even if they are inaccurate.

[Citizen Koba]

Punch stats are useless because not only are they inaccurate but quality of opponent has a massive effect. Golovkin used to be near the top because he was fighting weak comp, he's tumbled down the ratings since stepping up.

It depends what you're using 'em for, man. Like any stats. They're just a resource. If you're part of the fanboy/hater brigade seeking to prove that this is or that guy is the best ever/a bunch of wank then of course it won't settle any arguments - but then what will?

The inaccuracy issue is of course valid, so punch stats produced based on replays are of course preferable, but one would imagine that (contrary to the claims of the paranoid and partisan on NSB) the inaccuracies will tend to average out for the fighters giving a result which ought to be at least relatively representrative in the main. Again I suspect here that your main problem with the stats is that you don't like the way people use 'em. That ain't the fault of the stats though.

[Robbie Barrett]

Why so defensive? If it was about Floyd you'd be using it as a reference.

So is Loma a poor fighter? Does he have a porous defense? I think he's good. He's accurate and he doesn't get hit cleanly so the numbers aren't exactly Gatti like even if they are inaccurate.

You're the one being defensive.

I'm discrediting compubox. You're taking as an attack on Lomachenko.

[wlad1111]

Sure these numbers don't tell you the whole story but they were never meant to tell the whole story. It's foolish to rely on these stats alone to see who are the best fighters but it's also foolish to completely disregard them. If they don't mean **** and are so inaccurate how come on top of that list are fighters that happened be on at the top of most experts P4P list?