Pacquiao v Bradley Discussion Continued

[mobeck]

As for the Compubox issue, the system doesn't work because it's not really a technology, it's entirely human dependent. It's three guys who watch the fight in real time and press buttons that correlate to the punches thrown. When ever human nature becomes involved, so does personal opinion and perception, sometimes it can look like a punch lands when it doesn't, one person might think it does, the other might not. One counter might want to count punches that hit gloves as landing punches, another may not. Combine these elements with the fact these guys watch the fight at full speed, so miss a lot of action and you usually get results that are not a just representation of what happens in the ring.

Yeah, three flawed humans watching and interpreting a fight...shame on Compubox. For SHAME. Good thing Boxing doesn't include this type of flawed setup anywhere in its official scoring system...

wait a minute...

 

[Sunfish]

Yeah, three flawed humans watching and interpreting a fight...

Oh wait, are we talking about compubox or judges?

If the compubox system doesn't work, than neither does the judging system.

Yeah, two humans scoring "clean" punches against three scoring on the actual criteria.

 

[The President]

Yeah, three flawed humans watching and interpreting a fight...

Oh wait, are we talking about compubox or judges?

If the compubox system doesn't work, than neither does the judging system.

Then what do your propose, three different species of judges? Seeing as judging is completely necessary and compulsory to the conclusion of a fight unlike Compubox. You will always need human judges, there will never be a need for a system of counting punches that does not work. That leaves a simple solution, stop using a flawed system that has no productive cause and does nothing bit give inept commentators invalid reference points and sway public opinion. Judging is necessary in deciding the winner of a fight, Compubox isn't and never will be, for this reason alone, I believe your argument is redundant.

 

[The President]

Yeah, three flawed humans watching and interpreting a fight...shame on Compubox. For SHAME. Good thing Boxing doesn't include this type of flawed setup anywhere in its official scoring system...

wait a minute...

Any particular reason for changing your post? You do realise three professionally trained judges, scoring under the official scoring criteria in order to officially determine the winner of the fight is just a little different from an optional piece of technology that inaccurately counts punches, with no other purpose than aiding commentary teams right?

I look forward to seeing how you would go about changing this flawed judging system.

 

[mobeck]

Then what do your propose, three different species of judges? Seeing as judging is completely necessary and compulsory to the conclusion of a fight unlike Compubox. You will always need human judges, there will never be a need for a system of counting punches that does not work. That leaves a simple solution, stop using a flawed system that has no productive cause and does nothing bit give inept commentators invalid reference points and sway public opinion. Judging is necessary in deciding the winner of a fight, Compubox isn't and never will be, for this reason alone, I believe your argument is redundant.

What does it matter if HBO wants to employ Compubox? The judges decide the fight, not the public. Who cares if public opinion is swayed? The public is outraged by this decision and nothing will be done about it, so it doesn't matter. Bradley gets the win.

I just find it interesting that your problems with compubox are also quite prevalent in the current judging system. Flawed, subjective, open to interpretation etc. What do I propose? I propose a set of scoring criteria that is vastly more specific and less open to interpretation than is the current set.

PS: I reworded my post to make it more melodic and charming, because I know you guys appreciate good writing.

 

[The President]

What does it matter if HBO wants to employ Compubox? The judges decide the fight, not the public. Who cares if public opinion is swayed? The public is outraged by this decision and nothing will be done about it, so it doesn't matter. Bradley gets the win.

I just find it interesting that your problems with compubox are also quite prevalent in the current judging system. Flawed, subjective, open to interpretation etc. What do I propose? I propose a set of scoring criteria that is vastly more specific and less open to interpretation than is the current set.

PS: I reworded my post to make it more melodic and charming, because I know you guys appreciate good writing.

What do you mean, what does it matter? You can't expect to pronounce statistics you get from a flawed and inaccurate system as facts and not take shit for it. It's not difficult to understand that HBO using Compubox every single round to back up their own agendas is not only clearly a way of influencing people to adopt their perspective on the fight, but a clear disservice to the fighters and fans involved. As a fan of the sport, I care if public opinion is wrongly swayed, why wouldn't you care? You need to ask your self one question that solves this entire debate, why should HBO use Compubox knowing that it is regularly inaccurate and that it can wrongly sway the public audience? What is the use for it? As fans we are all about cleaning up and improving the sport, so why are you defending a system that clearly detracts from the sport?

You argument is completely useless I'm afraid, Judging is a completely necessary part of boxing, you can't change the fact you need three judges who will be subjective and open to interpretation, any effort to change that would kill the sport. So with that said, why would I complain about the judging system? Of course it's going to produce dodgy decisions now and again, that's what subjectivity and interpretation does, but Compubox does that without any need or cause, which is why the system is pointless, and it's a comparison between the two should not be made.

What kind of scoring criteria? You've presented a hypothesis without any explanation, and I'd be interested to see you take this further. The current criteria has become a constitution, it was played with and tampered with until they got it right, and it is right. By the sounds of it you want a system that takes away the onus of perception and interpretation, which basically means counting punches. They have that in the amateurs, now you go watch an amateur fight and tell me you want pro boxing to be scored like that.

 

[Seano]

Changing the system because Pac lost is stupid.

 

[eddymotto]

See that's where your going wrong, no one said HBO Commentary is the reason why most people thought Manny won, not one person said that. The only arguments you have seen are that the commentary was bias and did influence people, it wasn't the reason Manny won, but it did play a role in people thinking this fight was a shutout. So basically your arguing your own point that nobody is negating. I think you've came to too many conclusions without reason to.

I have already made my point regarding the distribution of scores in the samples. I have highlighted why that supports my position.

 

[mobeck]

What do you mean, what does it matter? You can't expect to pronounce statistics you get from a flawed and inaccurate system as facts and not take shit for it. It's not difficult to understand that HBO using Compubox every single round to back up their own agendas is not only clearly a way of influencing people to adopt their perspective on the fight, but a clear disservice to the fighters and fans involved. As a fan of the sport, I care if public opinion is wrongly swayed, why wouldn't you care? You need to ask your self one question that solves this entire debate, why should HBO use Compubox knowing that it is regularly inaccurate and that it can wrongly sway the public audience? What is the use for it? As fans we are all about cleaning up and improving the sport, so why are you defending a system that clearly detracts from the sport?

You argument is completely useless I'm afraid, Judging is a completely necessary part of boxing, you can't change the fact you need three judges who will be subjective and open to interpretation, any effort to change that would kill the sport. So with that said, why would I complain about the judging system? Of course it's going to produce dodgy decisions now and again, that's what subjectivity and interpretation does, but Compubox does that without any need or cause, which is why the system is pointless, and it's a comparison between the two should not be made.

What kind of scoring criteria? You've presented a hypothesis without any explanation, and I'd be interested to see you take this further. The current criteria has become a constitution, it was played with and tampered with until they got it right, and it is right. By the sounds of it you want a system that takes away the onus of perception and interpretation, which basically means counting punches. They have that in the amateurs, now you go watch an amateur fight and tell me you want pro boxing to be scored like that.

(1) You are WAY too worked up about this

(2) When did I defend compubox? I simply compared your description of it to the judging system and found that they both shared many commonalities.

As for the Compubox issue, the system doesn't work because it's not really a technology, it's entirely human dependent. It's three guys who watch the fight in real time and press buttons that correlate to the punches thrown. When ever human nature becomes involved, so does personal opinion and perception, sometimes it can look like a punch lands when it doesn't, one person might think it does, the other might not. One counter might want to count punches that hit gloves as landing punches, another may not.

You can't sit here and tell us that your description isn't EXTREMELY similar to a description of what boxing judges do, can you?


(3) Since you clearly believe I'm wrong, stupid, and/or uninformed, I am very confused as to why you're so interested in my "hypothesis" on scoring criteria. But, since you asked:

Better definitions of: effective aggression, clean and effective punching, and ring generalship would be quite helpful to shore up judging. Pretty simple.

And that's all I've got. I have no more to say. Scoring in boxing is inconsistent and often sucks, and it has for a long, long time. If you think it's all fine and dandy, then I'm not going to try to change your mind. And although I believe Pac beat Bradley handily, there have been MUCH worse decisions in boxing history before--this fight just reminds us of all those let downs.

 

[faderator]

Changing the system because Pac lost is stupid.

changing the system because pacman got robbed is not stupid.

 

[Seano]

changing the system because pacman got robbed is not stupid.

Yes it is. Very stupid.

Can I change the rules next time my favorite fighter loses too?

 

[Confucamus]

Prez, mobeck's right. You are getting way too worked up here. Chill, guy.

It's funny, the only times I have witnessed all this criticism for compubox around here is Pac/JMM III and Pac/Bradley. Both tallies supporting Manny btw. Both times saying they don't mean shit or don't reflect the true nature of the fight or are inaccurate, etc. The complaint has usually been carried by those who dislike Manny or his fans which is why I choose to mostly ignore the complaints. I have my own view on compubox however.

Compubox may not be 100% accurate ALL the time, but I still think it should be used. The IDEA of it is great. Tally the total punches thrown and landed by both fighters. Usually, it's just for statistical value and a visual tool for the narrative of the fight. Other times, it is useful in comparable fights (like Pac/JMM III) to make a case for either side winning. As a fan, I like seeing the punch stats and I don't really see a problem with it. The judges can't see it so it's not like it affects the scoring.

As far as accuracy, I'm sure they are off sometimes. Certainly not as off as people make them out to be. For Pac/Bradley specifically, I said before, take away 70 or 80 punches off of the full tally and mark them as missed or made up entirely if you want. The remaining numbers will show Manny still boxed the shit out of Bradley.

Now, Compubox is definitely subject to human error. Absolutely. Let's look into this. These people are trained to record punches thrown AND landed. Separating jabs from power punches. Their training involves watching old fights that already have had their punches counted accurately and they are tasked with recounting them. I imagine they have to go through this many, many times to ensure that they acquire the proper skill set to record punches. I'm sure there's some time of graduation process where they are licensed to record fights. But I imagine you can only be so good. When you have a guy like Manny, who throws multiple punches in combos faster than the speed of light, it's a lot harder to count than, say, a Klitschko fight. Or maybe even a Floyd fight. Floyd tends to throw one or two punches at a time, so I'm sure the compubox stats for his fights are dead accurate. But when you have guys at the smaller weights who throw endless punches in flurries and spurts and sometimes you can't even count how many thrown nevermind landed, it gets tough. But that's what these people are trained to do and I imagine they do their best.

I still like compubox. It's a useful stat. Go listen to a football game or a baseball game if you want to hear a multitude of useless facts being rattled off. But this is boxing. Why WOULDN'T you want to have the punches be counted?? I sure do. When there is a fight with a lot of punches thrown by VERY fast punchers, I tend to be a little more skeptical of the numbers. For sure. But I still think it serves it's purpose well, most of the time.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

38 people here are fu*king stupid and just started watching boxing.

 

[Patman]

Yes it is. Very stupid.

Can I change the rules next time my favorite fighter loses too?

Floyd won't lose, brah. =)

 

[The President]

(1) You are WAY too worked up about this

(2) When did I defend compubox? I simply compared your description of it to the judging system and found that they both shared many commonalities.



You can't sit here and tell us that your description isn't EXTREMELY similar to a description of what boxing judges do, can you?


(3) Since you clearly believe I'm wrong, stupid, and/or uninformed, I am very confused as to why you're so interested in my "hypothesis" on scoring criteria. But, since you asked:

Better definitions of: effective aggression, clean and effective punching, and ring generalship would be quite helpful to shore up judging. Pretty simple.

And that's all I've got. I have no more to say. Scoring in boxing is inconsistent and often sucks, and it has for a long, long time. If you think it's all fine and dandy, then I'm not going to try to change your mind. And although I believe Pac beat Bradley handily, there have been MUCH worse decisions in boxing history before--this fight just reminds us of all those let downs.

1.) Not another 'I can't really refute anything you say so I'll say your either taking this too personally or getting worked up about it'. You definitely graduated from the Slimpickenz84 school of boxing discussion if you don't mind me saying. Just because I believe strongly in something doesn't mean I'm getting 'worked up', getting worked up is getting agitated and away from the discussion at hand, I think you'll find I've backed up everything I've said and stayed completely on topic.

2.) You didn't directly promote or defend Compubox, you just drew pointless comparisons that are contextually insignificant and I outlined to you the problems with Compubox to support my argument and stance on the issue.

Again, what don't you understand about putting things into context? I could say a cat has 4 legs and a tail, it's still isn't a dog dude. Just because judges are open to bias and interpretation doesn't mean it should be directly compared to Compubox. I''l say it one more time, Judges are a necessary institution, Compubox is not, without judges you have no fight, without Compubox you lose nothing and are likely to gain something if anything. For those reasons, your comparison are pointless, and you still haven't told me why they aren't pointless yet. I never at any point said judges don't get things wrong and aren't flawed at times, but guess what, you can't change that, you can change Compubox.

3.) You need to practice what you preach dude, I didn't at any point say you were stupid or uninformed, looks like somebody is getting a little worked up to me! I wanted to hear your hypothesis out of respect for your argument and thought process. Unfortunately it hasn't quite met up to expectation.

Clearer definitions of the already in place criteria isn't very substantial is it? How can you make it more clear, they are what they are, clean punching refers to the fighter landing the cleaner blows, effective aggression refers to the fighter who is more effective with his aggression and so on. No offense but I think it might be more of a case of you not understanding the criteria.

Again, unless you have got something that is a bit more substantial than the above it's pointless carrying on this debate, everyone knows judges are inconsistent, but funnily enough it's only ever brought to argument when ever certain fighters lose.

 

[The President]

Prez, mobeck's right. You are getting way too worked up here. Chill, guy.

It's funny, the only times I have witnessed all this criticism for compubox around here is Pac/JMM III and Pac/Bradley. Both tallies supporting Manny btw. Both times saying they don't mean shit or don't reflect the true nature of the fight or are inaccurate, etc. The complaint has usually been carried by those who dislike Manny or his fans which is why I choose to mostly ignore the complaints. I have my own view on compubox however.

Compubox may not be 100% accurate ALL the time, but I still think it should be used. The IDEA of it is great. Tally the total punches thrown and landed by both fighters. Usually, it's just for statistical value and a visual tool for the narrative of the fight. Other times, it is useful in comparable fights (like Pac/JMM III) to make a case for either side winning. As a fan, I like seeing the punch stats and I don't really see a problem with it. The judges can't see it so it's not like it affects the scoring.

As far as accuracy, I'm sure they are off sometimes. Certainly not as off as people make them out to be. For Pac/Bradley specifically, I said before, take away 70 or 80 punches off of the full tally and mark them as missed or made up entirely if you want. The remaining numbers will show Manny still boxed the shit out of Bradley.

Now, Compubox is definitely subject to human error. Absolutely. Let's look into this. These people are trained to record punches thrown AND landed. Separating jabs from power punches. Their training involves watching old fights that already have had their punches counted accurately and they are tasked with recounting them. I imagine they have to go through this many, many times to ensure that they acquire the proper skill set to record punches. I'm sure there's some time of graduation process where they are licensed to record fights. But I imagine you can only be so good. When you have a guy like Manny, who throws multiple punches in combos faster than the speed of light, it's a lot harder to count than, say, a Klitschko fight. Or maybe even a Floyd fight. Floyd tends to throw one or two punches at a time, so I'm sure the compubox stats for his fights are dead accurate. But when you have guys at the smaller weights who throw endless punches in flurries and spurts and sometimes you can't even count how many thrown nevermind landed, it gets tough. But that's what these people are trained to do and I imagine they do their best.

I still like compubox. It's a useful stat. Go listen to a football game or a baseball game if you want to hear a multitude of useless facts being rattled off. But this is boxing. Why WOULDN'T you want to have the punches be counted?? I sure do. When there is a fight with a lot of punches thrown by VERY fast punchers, I tend to be a little more skeptical of the numbers. For sure. But I still think it serves it's purpose well, most of the time.

That's all well and good, it still doesn't mean HBO have to present the numbers as factual information on every single broadcast... "the compubox shows fighter a is clearly outlanding fighter B" erm no it doesn't. Compubox should only be available after fights, that way it will not be used by commentators to try and sway people and to basically give them something talk about. Broadcasting would be a much better place without Compubox. I have no problem with fans interested in seeing punch stats, even though they are usually wrong, it's more to do with HBO running the technology by projecting it in their broadcasts. I'm not interested in hearing Jim Lampley support every single one of his arguments with Compubox numbers that are largely hokum, nor am I interested in him telling me a certain fighter is winning or doing better because of the numbers.

As a boxing fan I'm always looking for ways the improve the sport, and taking Compubox out of the hands of HBO would be as step in the right direction.

 

[Seano]

Floyd won't lose, brah. =)

If he does I'll just throw myself on the floor, scream and call everyone retards while yelling "robbery!" Seems to have worked for this fight.

 

[Seano]

38 people here are fu*king stupid and just started watching boxing.

 

[Confucamus]

That's all well and good, it still doesn't mean HBO have to present the numbers as factual information on every single broadcast... "the compubox shows fighter a is clearly outlanding fighter B" erm no it doesn't.

Well, like I said, for the most part it does. I believe it's a useful stat for fans but I guess that's where we disagree. So there's not much further we can go here. Slimpickenz84 School for Boxing Discussions is out on this subject!

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

lol, the poll at no bs boxing wound up:

Pacquaio 38
Bradley 0