Compubox - Fact or Fiction?

Compubox - Fact or Fiction?

By Rob Day

Quite a quiet relaxing day full of nothingness and the usual humdrum and then I tuned into my favourite boxing show on the net: TalkinBoxing with Billy C, broadcast out of New York, in the good old US of A. Tuned in and listened to a fantastic debate about Compubox and how accurate it actually is?
I have seen quite a few HBO and ESPN shows, that use the Compubox system that counts the number of punches thrown and landed by both fighters for each round and for the duration of the fight. In truth, I would see the figures and never question there validity or accuracy but several great points for debate were raised by Billy C and the other hosts/guests including Scotty Crouse and Alex Alex Pierpaoli.

CompuBox, Inc. started in 1985 and it really has gone from strength to strength in Boxing and more recently MMA, it’s the market leader in this field and for me a welcome addition to a boxing broadcast. At each fight, two operators sit at ringside and each counts the punches thrown and landed by the fighters, one operator concentrates on Fighter A and the other operator on Fighter B. The punches are recorded by the operator tapping a pad that feeds the info in to the Laptop.

Is it accurate?
For me its not 100% accurate, as you have several different things coming into play. It sounds simple sitting watching a fighter and then tapping a pad each time he throws and then lands a punch but a similar system is used in amateur boxing where they have five judges counting the punches landing - if 3 out of the 5 judges see a punch land and tap their pad, then the punch gets counted as a point. Sounds good in theory but the judging at the recent Commonwealth Games in India was woeful. From my TV, I’d see the punch land but apparently all 5 judges missed it! Listening to former WBC Super Middleweight Champion Richie Woodhall, doing the commentary for the BBC, you could hear his anger at the amount of times the judges kept getting it wrong.

Compubox unlike amateur boxing only uses two people and to be honest less seems better in this instance and I use the amateur system to highlight what is basic human error when recording punches live. Compubox have two people sat at ringside and recording the punches - sounds easy! But you have a restricted view at points in the fight, so can’t possibly see what punches were landed all the time. The ref may get his big old butt in the way, as some do annoyingly get in the way of the camera sometime.
How do you count thrown and landed punches by people like Hector Camacho, Sugar Ray Leonard and Meldrick Taylor, when they were at their best? Those guys would and often did unload a blistering salvo of 8 or more punches at a time. It’s very difficult if you ask me to count every punch in real-time.

The punches landed are broken down into two categories; jabs and power punches. This for me is too vague when looking at it overall. Some fighters use a ramrod jab that’s harder than another fighters left hook. Jabs can be pitty pat or being used to set up a follow up power punch or a jab like say, Frank Bruno, used to use will take your head off. (And is really a power punch) Does anyone class a Paul Malignaggi uppercut, cross or hook as a power punch? Ok, I’m being over picky here but you see the point when you hear on the broadcast “total power punches landed” - it isn’t a completely accurate picture.

For me Compubox is a very good addition to a show and it gives food for thought but it shouldn’t be taken as a true indicator of who won a fight and it should always be remembered that the live figures aren’t completely accurate due to very likely human error. Also, it’s not showing the overall picture as I pointed out with regards to anything other than a jab being called a power punch.
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).
At the end of the day the viewer/fan has to make up his own mind on who wins a fight based on what he/she witnessed. Once I’ve watched the fight, I then look at the bigger picture and compare my score with how the commentators scored it and the figures presented by Compubox.


Could it be made better?
I believe it can and several great points were raised by the host Billy C on his talkinboxing show. Firstly, the fight should be re-scored afterwards using replay and this method is going to be a truer reflection on the number thrown and landed than the live count. It would be quite interesting to see the difference between live and replayed stats. Also, if you’re recounting via replay you could start counting the types of punches i.e hooks, uppercuts etc rather than just categorising them under power punches.

If someone has a punch almost totally deflected but gets through without power is that a land? Can you tell from a single angle where a punch went? Could you get anything other than a rough guess as to what happened when Gamboa threw 13 punches at Solis in 2 seconds to end the fight? It's a cop out for those unable to score a fight.

Scottrf wrote:If someone has a punch almost totally deflected but gets through without power is that a land? Can you tell from a single angle where a punch went? Could you get anything other than a rough guess as to what happened when Gamboa threw 13 punches at Solis in 2 seconds to end the fight? It's a cop out for those unable to score a fight.

I absolutely agree.

There is also the question of ' relative to the fight ' quality of punching to be considered. I don't wish to go all ' abstract ' here, but a heavy punch landed by, let's say George Foreman, is not going to affect George Chuvalo in the same manner that it affects Ken Norton, but any non - human scoring device will not differentiate between the two. A good judge will understand that a man like Chuvalo is quite happy to take a shot to land one, and if he takes that shot and keeps coming he is making better going of the fight than a man who takes the same shot and immediately retreats into a shell.

I've seen stats which claim that Ali landed more punches than Frazier during their first fight, but Frazier, on the night, was clearly the more effective fighter and he thoroughly deserved the win. Punches should be scored, not merely by NUMBER, but rather by number AND EFFECT, and it's not always so easy as to differentiate between what constitutes a ' power ' shot and what doesn't.

Thing is Scott, how many fights do you watch (and score) that go against the stats compubox come out with?

It's more of a gimmick for viewers, but there is a definite correlation between the stats it pumps out and the way the fights get scored.

Well firstly I think people score too much on activity rather than effectiveness, so that's likely to be the case. But how many fights do you watch where the guy on the right hand side of the boxrec schedule wins? It's a corrolation/guide but I think too much emphasis is placed on it. Most people who quote is endlessly probably don't understand the intricacies of the scoring system or use it when they haven't made their mind up on which way to score the round (not the judges here but the viewers and the commentators that have access).

Scott

All i'm saying it that it doesn't paint the big picture, but there is a correlation between results and compubox numbers.

And i don't get your boxrec point, might as well saying how many times does a fighter win when they enter the ring first. It's coincidence.

I find it a fun gimmick and nothing more, but it's rare that a guy landing "X" amount less punches turns out to be the winner.

coxy0001 wrote:I find it a fun gimmick and nothing more, but it's rare that a guy landing "X" amount less punches turns out to be the winner.

You would think, but has it ever been analysed in detail? Calzaghe outlanded Hopkins in every round in power shots and total shots landed, how many had a shutout?

Interesting article and it reminds me of watching soccer on a sunday afternoon (when i get the chance) and the possession statistics..Funny thing is you often see a team having 55-45% of the possession and losing 3-0. Same with this thing it might measure a shot landing but it doesn't measure effectiveness...

Look at any old Azumah Nelson fight he probably throws three times lesss punches and yet stacks up the rounds..

Me I'd get rid of the useless piece of equipment..You can see the story well enough by just watching a fight....That's why I'd have two judges and the ref scoring.

Scott

Do you mean the accuracy of it?

When i've thought "yup, he won that round" i've not seen the stats which tell a different story. In most close fights the punch stats tend to correlate that as well, rare you get a "close" fight (or seemingly) and the stats be lopsided for one guy etc.

Don't know how many times you've scored a round for one guy and see him be outlanded by 20 punches etc

Maybe in 50 years time a computer will be able to scan the ring, measure punch velocity and point of impact and read a fighters reaction i.e. knees buckling, retreating etc... and then gives us a 100% accurate read-out

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Interesting article and it reminds me of watching soccer on a sunday afternoon (when i get the chance) and the possession statistics..Funny thing is you often see a team having 55-45% of the possession and losing 3-0. Same with this thing it might measure a shot landing but it doesn't measure effectiveness...

Look at any old Azumah Nelson fight he probably throws three times lesss punches and yet stacks up the rounds..

Me I'd get rid of the useless piece of equipment..You can see the story well enough by just watching a fight....That's why I'd have two judges and the ref scoring.

Soccer??? Ball meets foot frequently.

There's a good argument for having the ref score a fight along with the judges as he will obviously have a different perspective on the fight but given some of the awful calls made by refs over the years (KD's called/not called/points deducted/not deducted etc) I think you may just be swapping one poor official for another.

I agree that compubox is a fancy gimmick and about as useful a judge of a fight an an audience clap-o-meter!

I just think the ref can hear more of the groans a Boxer makes and probably has more idea being just a whisker away of the effects of fighters work....

Don't buy this argument he has his job cut out just refereeing the fight..Think he can do both.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I just think the ref can hear more of the groans a Boxer makes and probably has more idea being just a whisker away of the effects of fighters work....

Don't buy this argument he has his job cut out just refereeing the fight..Think he can do both.

Unless the ref is Terry O'Connor..... He got that one (Fury vs Fat Johnny Mac) badly, badly wrong.

Well more often than not the guy who throws more shots probably wins. The use would be if it could tell you much about the accuracy of the punching, which I don't think it can, maybe distinguishing between shots that connected somewhere and fell short or slipped. You keep saying "it's rare that..." which is easy to say, harder to prove and would need to have reasonable accuracy in close fights to have any meaning (In the Calzaghe-Hopkins fight it gives a terrible picture for example). Are more powerful punches, punches that find the exact spots aimed for shown in the statistics? No, a glanced shot to the ribs is given the same value as a clean one to the chin. In a one sided fight the stats might tell you it's one sided, but what's the use of that?

What about the ref in the Murray fight? Let Murray get away with at least three low blows and called a clear KD as a push.

Some of them are as ineffectual and BLIND as football referees

DAVE667 wrote:What about the ref in the Murray fight? Let Murray get away with at least three low blows and called a clear KD as a push.

Some of them are as ineffectual and BLIND as football referees

Alright Shah, calm down!

coxy0001 wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:What about the ref in the Murray fight? Let Murray get away with at least three low blows and called a clear KD as a push.

Some of them are as ineffectual and BLIND as football referees

Alright Shah, calm down!

He a bum hahahahahaha I hope he never wins one fight again ever. This joke fighter make me laugh hahahahahahaha I am funny poster you guys have nothing upon me hahahahahaha John Murray is a bum hahahahahah......or something cos I was actually suggesting that Murray should have had a 10-8 round earlier!

Thats the thing with Compubox or rather HBO coverage. Jim Lampley the analyst/commentator reals of the stats like they are fact when I ersonally feel you can only get an accurate set of stats after the fight by studying a replay.

It is a nice addition but its not 'fool proof'.

WelshDevilRob wrote:Thats the thing with Compubox or rather HBO coverage. Jim Lampley the analyst/commentator reals of the stats like they are fact when I ersonally feel you can only get an accurate set of stats after the fight by studying a replay.

It is a nice addition but its not 'fool proof'.

Agreed, WDR.