|
Post by billyc on Jan 19, 2011 5:05:58 GMT -5
During a few past shows, compu box has been discussed via opinions by myself and some other contributors. Those opinions were brought up to Compu-Box by Lee Groves. As a result, CompuBox contacted me and basically said they did not like me talking about my opinions and felt they (the opinons) were not correct.
I may not be as smart as Lee Groves, but I thought opinions were just that, opinions, and we are all FREE to have our own. Mine, now more than ever, is that to look at CompuBox more than just a conversation piece is a joke! Until compubox, or someone like them can PROVE beyond any doubt that a punch was landed, and recorded as such, without human error, EVERY TIME, then its not fact. Groves seems to base all of his own opinions on those stats which I think is also a joke. (like Pep being the number 1 P4P fighter of all time over SRR, Armstrong or Gans)
All I can say is this...ask yourself how many times you watched a fight and then saw the stats and thought, man...did so and so really land that many shots?
Over the next few shows...I am SURE to be talking about this. I am also putting up a poll question on BillyCboxing.com about your thoughts and I welcome emails at Billy@TalkinBoxing.com.
I will promise all of our listeners....I will NEVER force any of our team, guests, etc to hold back their thoughts and opinions in favor of someone elses...ever. Our show is based on opinons.
For the record...there is one type of person I just can't take in life and that is a little whimp snitch. This has become very personal to me.
If all of you like and think the stats are correct...then let me know and I will admit being wrong...but based on talks I have had over the past four days....most in the boxing world think that these stats, as they are done and presented today, are nothing but a joke.
|
|
|
Post by mh2365 on Jan 19, 2011 7:52:14 GMT -5
Get 'em Billy!
|
|
|
Post by billyc on Jan 19, 2011 8:08:27 GMT -5
Look...it is not me not liking Compubox...because I do! Its about us being led to believe that it is 100% fact...which it is not. The system is JUST as objective as we would be discussing a fight. If I thought I punch landed and you didn't....we could argue it, right? I could say it grazed him...you could say it landed flush...etc...so with that in mind, how are we supposed to take what someone else's (the offical counter) say's as fact unless they can back it up? It is still objective by that person (the counter). That is all I am saying.
CompuBox is fun and is helpful, but to cal it FACT...we are still a bit away from that...IMO.
It seems like I may be the only one....
There will be a pol question on BillyCBoxing.com later today!
|
|
|
Post by Londonerryan on Jan 19, 2011 9:42:46 GMT -5
I agree it isn't 100%. It shouldn't be considered as such and should never be used on a judge's scorecard IMO. Overall, as BC says, it's a good talking subject after a bout.
|
|
|
Post by welshdevilrob on Jan 19, 2011 10:06:50 GMT -5
I think Compubox is a good addition to fights/telecasts. But the numbers are not facts as there will be errors in them. I read somewhere this week that punches on the arms get counted - though don't know if thats true or not?
Do Compubox re go over the fight in replay to check that the live recorded stats were accurate? Not sure that they do.
Boxing has a few different opinions on who wins a fight; the judges - they get it wrong sometimes; the commentators and analysts - they get it wrong from time to time; the fans/viewers watching - not all see the same winner and compubox which tries to record the number of punches, but its not a fail safe system abit like the Amateur scoring system(where punches landed get missed).
Put the four sources of opinions together and then you have a clearer picture of who won the fight. One on its own is never enough. I don't include promoters, managers and the fighters themselves as they are obviously biased.
Compubox for me is a nice addition after the fight - it doesn't prompt my own decision on who won a fight or not.
|
|
|
Post by Londonerryan on Jan 19, 2011 12:11:14 GMT -5
I think Compubox is a good addition to fights/telecasts. But the numbers are not facts as there will be errors in them. I read somewhere this week that punches on the arms get counted - though don't know if thats true or not? Do Compubox re go over the fight in replay to check that the live recorded stats were accurate? Not sure that they do. Boxing has a few different opinions on who wins a fight; the judges - they get it wrong sometimes; the commentators and analysts - they get it wrong from time to time; the fans/viewers watching - not all see the same winner and compubox which tries to record the number of punches, but its not a fail safe system abit like the Amateur scoring system(where punches landed get missed). Put the four sources of opinions together and then you have a clearer picture of who won the fight. One on its own is never enough. I don't include promoters, managers and the fighters themselves as they are obviously biased. Compubox for me is a nice addition after the fight - it doesn't prompt my own decision on who won a fight or not. Well summarised.
|
|
|
Post by tontb on Jan 19, 2011 13:22:41 GMT -5
I'm a big fan of technology in general, but I think sport can really benefit from technology!
I have voiced opinions in the past on other boards that technology such as "hawk-eye" would be able to fullfill this role! In tennis, when a player wants to dispute a call, they have a replay and hawk-eye can tell if the ball hits the line or goes out. I don't see why it can not work for 2 people, and register when a punch lands.
As has been mentioned with this, arena's and special camera's need to be set up in venues, and this may come at a cost. But no doubt, with the speed technology moves at, hawk-eye technology could potentially become feasible and cheap enough to include as a method to run punch stats!
|
|
|
Post by dallen on Jan 19, 2011 14:58:59 GMT -5
Compubox is not 100% correct,it would be more reliable if you had four counters on each side of the ring.But also there are times when the referee would obstruct your view,so as far as i am concerned as long as it do not effect the decision carry on if thats what floats your boat. I never take any notice of the punch stats,its what i see with my own eye's which makes up my mind who won the bout.Never had them when i first started my passion for the sport,standing out in the cold watching Tom Sawyers swing his bare fist.
|
|
|
Post by billyc on Jan 19, 2011 16:12:52 GMT -5
DA...that's why this argument can NEVER be settled. Boxing is objective. You, me and some hot chick could be watching the same fight and see a punch thrown and have three dif opinions on if it landed, landed hard, or even landed. Not only could we all have seen three differant things, but the three of us could argue our point for ever.
With that said, why or how can I put trust in someone else's objective view of a fight and then say that the system is 90% accurate...90% for that guy...what about you, me or the hot chick?
The only way to really determine whether stats are 100%, would be to watch the fight frame by frame.....but whats the odds of that happening?
SO...the bottom line is that this stuff is for fun...info purposes, general discussion, etc....but don't tell me that it is fact nor put it in some record book as fact. As a writer, you have to prove what you say if you want it to be fact....so are the records for every other sport.
How many goals, time, TDs, Home Runs, points, yards, feet, etc, etc, etc....all of it is fact..black and white. If you want to be on the same field, FACT...then frame by frame would be the only way...or some new tech where there are counters on the bodies of the fighters where it-they would record a punch.
But...until we get there...I will have a hard time accepting figures thrown at me about the accuracy.
Like you DA...I watch and enjoy fights on what I am watching. I have a hard enough time with that! I don't need people to get all wrapped up in stats that are someone elses opinion...I might as well just read about it!
|
|
|
Post by mattc106 on Jan 19, 2011 17:08:12 GMT -5
I've never taken much interest with compubox and certainly don't see it as much of discussion point. I much prefer to talk about what I saw in a fight like a big punch or a great piece of skill or heart. You don't get that from statistics.
|
|
|
Post by davemurphy on Jan 19, 2011 17:20:44 GMT -5
To be honest, I thought Showtime fights were better because they DIDN'T rely on them (until very recently) and Yes, Lee, I KNOW that it's a different outfit than Compu-Box doing them on Showtime. To me, it's like a Lie Detector analysis isn't allowed in Court Room because the Jury doesn't know how to properly evaluate it compared to other evidence (like Lampley with the Punch Numbers and jumping on a two punch edge as significant) and also because the damn machine is only as good as the person using it. To me, it also just seems too hard to see a completely accurate account when one person has to watch so many things.
Plus, one thing that I didn't hear mentioned, or at least I didn't catch it if it was,and that's their positioning around the Ring. Much as Judges on opposite sides of the Ring could very well view an entirely different fight, how many times are the counters blocked by the opponents Back and unable to see landed shots as oppossed to Blocks, or vice versa.
A nice toy, but it's NOT a Stat IMO. Those are definitive things, like Goals, Home Runs, Scoring Averages, etc. When you try to put this in that category, then it's a Square Peg in a Round Hole. I don't mind it, but I do agree that people at home at the end of a close round will lean toward the numbers, instead of making up their minds for themselves, and therein lies it's biggest problem IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Daxx on Jan 19, 2011 17:52:56 GMT -5
I think Compubox should then defend themselves and somehow convince the public they can not make human errors....Are we to believe that they can see the angles that even the ref, judges even or cornermen can not....How many times have we been ringside sitting next to the apron as eith ringside reporters or even photographers and miss something?.....Can they prove they crazy glue eyelids open preventing the compubox employees from blinking?.....I mean C'Mon man we can't all be Max "I am the kid you all picked on in school" Kellerman and Dan "Burrito's by the pound" Rafael and not make a mistake when it comes to boxing can we
|
|
|
Post by tontb on Jan 19, 2011 18:30:21 GMT -5
No takers on a customised hawk-eye system then? I HATE you all!
|
|
|
Post by billyc on Jan 20, 2011 5:06:31 GMT -5
LOL..Ton....I think you are right about Tech...I mention that above...I am not familar with the "Hawk Eye" but I thnk the future will bring something like that to remove the human part of the Stats. The point here is that boxing is objective...from start to finish...so with that said, how are we supposed to listen to what Comp says....or better yet...listen to how great their accuracy % is when it is STILL based on opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Davema on Jan 20, 2011 11:52:32 GMT -5
compubox is like the bearded lady at a circus. Just another attraction in a show. To me it has ZERO bearing on how I watch or score a fight. Its a cute little thing to discuss after the fight and I find some interest in seeing the count after, but thats all.
as far as the accuracy goes, its as accurate as anything else out there, but I dont like to waste a bunch of thought on it.
|
|