Does anyone have Toney-Peter Compubox stats?

[BIGPOPPAPUMP]

compubox does not work with Showtime, this there are no Compubox stats for this fight.

[Mr. Ryan]

compubox does not work with Showtime, this there are no Compubox stats for this fight.

I had a feeling about that, but was wondering if there were any other stats around that existed.

[Hitman932]

compubox does not work with Showtime, this there are no Compubox stats for this fight.

lol, why did you have to tell them? i wanted to see how long people were gonna go on looking

[gnostic19]

Data Boxing reported the blows as Peter 259/637 41%; Toney 164/446 36%. Peter led in attempts + controls 685 to 522, 57% to 43% of the total.

If Peter landed 259 punches i'm condaleeza rice.

[K-DOGG]

Just a thought, fellas.

While I personally did indeed score the fight for Toney; this is not the most outrageous decision I've ever heard...though the scores of the two judges who had Peter winning by 5-point gaps was "outrageous".

What kills me is the apparent sentiment that professional boxing is scored the same way as amateur boxing. Here's a heads up for all who do not know: it really doesn't matter who landed more punches in a professional prize ring.

While it is true that most of the time, the guy landing most of the shots wins the fight, it's not the only determining factor. For example, if "Fighter A" lands 40 punches on "Fighter B" during a 3:00 round; and "Fighter B" lands, say 15, but one of those 15 changed the tempo of the round and decidedly put "Fighter A" on ***** Street and on the defensive for, say, 1:45 of that round....guess who wins. That's right, "Fighter B".

You see, "Professional Boxing" is all about dominance....and James Toney did not dominate Saturday's showdown with Samuel Peter. True, there were intervals where his clean punching and defensive prowess were the most "dominant" aspects of the bout; but not so much that Sam Peter might as well not have been in the ring. How a fight is scored professionally is dependent upon the perspective of the individual judge and what he/she is looking for; ergo....subjective in nature. Compubox, quite frankly, doesn't mean **** in the pro-ranks, regardless of how cool it is to know the exact number of punches landed. You see, that technology is relatively new. When judging began many moons ago on boxing matches, the judge had to decide who won the individual rounds...and in some cases the whole damn fight without such modern convieniences; hence the whole, effective aggression, defense, ring generalship, etc criteria.

This IS NOT the amateurs....and should not be juged as such.

That being said, the two judges who scored it for Peter by margins of 116-111 need to have their eyes examined or their post-fight bank roll checked.

[El Jesus]

The Jose Luis Castillo/Mayweather 1 argumented is heavily slanted by Compubox. I know for a fact that in that fight, Castillo didint land as much as it says he did, since often times blows that glance/graze/partially blocked can count. Therefore compubox isnt always accurate, using it as a statistic in an argument on who won a fight is useless since fights are judged on 12 rounds, not who did the best on the stat sheet.

Use that as your basis, by that I mean your best judgement.