Compubox ranks todays top HWs in 10 categories

[DeJulez]

http://www.boxingscene.com/compubox-ranks-today-top-heavyweights-ten-categories--113186

Nice little read for those interested

 

[JayE]

Interesting to a point. Doesn't really tell us much (I don't really think boxing stats can ever really tell us so much).

 

[DeJulez]

Interesting to a point. Doesn't really tell us much (I don't really think boxing stats can ever really tell us so much).

Its funny cuz when I read the article some guy was talking about boxing being behind other sports when it comes to analytics. But boxing doesn't feel like an analytic sport. Seems to have too many moving pieces for a sport to be summed up by the numbers.

It is fun to read some stats like this tho.

 

[JayE]

Its funny cuz when I read the article some guy was talking about boxing being behind other sports when it comes to analytics. But boxing doesn't feel like an analytic sport. Seems to have too many moving pieces for a sport to be summed up by the numbers.

It is fun to read some stats like this tho.

Honestly, I'm close to hockey. There are so-called analytic stats that can give some idea of some things. There is the corsi % which is percentage of shot attempts (obviously the number favours you if you have more relative to the raw number). There is fenwick which factors in blocked shots to the shot attempt number. Over long periods of time, +50% numbers roughly correlate to succes in the NHL. The numbers fall drastically short of clearly showing cause of real success, but they show relative correlative success to a point.

That's in a much more trackable sport. Boxing doesn't need analytics because the more subtle moving parts aren't quantifiable and they're beyond important. We can track punch stats, and that's it. Punch stats likely roughly correlate to the victor over time. But that's no new news, and just because they correlate, doesn't mean the one who "allegedly" lands more wins.

 

[Breakfast Bar]

Fun read, although given the difference in comp it's tough to draw many conclusions. I guess the thing that jumps out the most is that Joshua should step up a level in competition since he's overwhelming opponents to the point where even his defensive stats look great. Luckily, he's going to do so.

 

[Hotora86]

Confirms once again Klitch is a happy jabber.

 

[DeJulez]

Confirms once again Klitch is a happy jabber.

Nothing wrong with living behind the jab. I do get annoyed when he can clearly throw the straight right and land, but chooses to keep jabbing away.

 

[stuff jones]

Its funny cuz when I read the article some guy was talking about boxing being behind other sports when it comes to analytics. But boxing doesn't feel like an analytic sport. Seems to have too many moving pieces for a sport to be summed up by the numbers.

It is fun to read some stats like this tho.

Boxing only has one player per team so by definition there are fewer moving parts then team sports.

 

[JayE]

Boxing only has one player per team so by definition there are fewer moving parts then team sports.

Yeah, and outside of punch stats, how would you quantify the majority of what goes on in the boxing ring? And even if you somehow find a way to do so, how much more are we really learning about what's going on?

 

[Crccr]

These stats don't show the level of opposition thougj

 

[JayE]

These stats don't show the level of opposition thougj

Another complication of analytics (which obviously can sort of be accounted for with further work, but still).

 

[DeJulez]

Boxing only has one player per team so by definition there are fewer moving parts then team sports.

The variables in boxing arent concrete like in team sports.
You cant have a football game go three hours and 3 judges decide who wins.

So punching stats are good, but how do you analyze ring IQ, and who has a better sense of range and timing and footwork and shit like that.

Thats what Im getting at.

 

[DeJulez]

Another complication of analytics (which obviously can sort of be accounted for with further work, but still).

That's another reason why analytics don't really apply to boxing as much, unless you're comparing them to fighters who have fought alot of the same guys.
The MLB and NFL and other sports play the same teams over and over. In boxing you can have 6 top HWs who fought none of the same guys. So yea competition makes it sort of difficult

 

[stuff jones]

Yeah, and outside of punch stats, how would you quantify the majority of what goes on in the boxing ring? And even if you somehow find a way to do so, how much more are we really learning about what's going on?

Well punching is the bottom line in boxing, isn't it?

I think there's a lot of improvement to be made with punch stats.

Human judges are using some kind of metrics in judging fights - let's make them explicit and see how we can measure them.

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

CompuBox was never meant to score fights. It's used for reference, the founder says even for scouting, discovering trends over time, etc. Take their numbers with a lot of salt. Each operator in charge of the fighter can be roughly on point that night or way off. The operators are sometimes former fighters. I'd like to see CompuBox improved and the UFC's FightMetric.

That said, the 2016 CompuBox 'Statistical FOTY' was Crawford. Yes, CompuBox has a Fighter of the Year based on just their stats. Lomachenko was their Runner-Up for FOTY. They both led in 4 categories each and after the Walters fight Lomachenko took over the Plus/Minus list at a +20.9 rating (highest rated since Mayweather's +24.5) as well as Opponents' Total Connect Percentage (lowest). This was published by BoxingScene 2 months ago.

http://www.boxingscene.com/lomachenko-number-one-compubox-plus-minus-list--111203

Fighter stats in 10 categories for 2016. There are realistically 9 categories because the +/- list is derived from two of them.

http://www.boxingscene.com/compubox-tabs-crawford-fighter-year-2016-stats--112252

 

[Shoemaker]

Yeah, and outside of punch stats, how would you quantify the majority of what goes on in the boxing ring? And even if you somehow find a way to do so, how much more are we really learning about what's going on?

Good point. I also think there's something to be said about using stats to build a team is different than using stats to determine if someone will be successful individually. The more team members, the better the odds that any one of them meets their potential. Individually, it's a much larger leap to make.



I'd be really interested in seeing punch stats relative to number of fights. Still not too meaningful, but it would be better than comparing stats for someone with 50 fights at an elite level with some with 20 fights against some B+ or A- level opponents.

 

[cuban23]

These stats are irrelevant because they're just fighting stiffs...

Of course AJ's stats are inflated when he's fighting Charles Martin, Dominic Breazale and Eric Molina.

 

[DeJulez]

These stats are irrelevant because they're just fighting stiffs...

Of course AJ's stats are inflated when he's fighting Charles Martin, Dominic Breazale and Eric Molina.

Yea and if Luis Ortiz was leading the way, you would be cheering these stats.

 

[DeJulez]

CompuBox was never meant to score fights. It's used for reference, the founder says even for scouting, discovering trends over time, etc. Take their numbers with a lot of salt. Each operator in charge of the fighter can be roughly on point that night or way off. The operators are sometimes former fighters. I'd like to see CompuBox improved and the UFC's FightMetric.

That said, the 2016 CompuBox 'Statistical FOTY' was Crawford. Yes, CompuBox has a Fighter of the Year based on just their stats. Lomachenko was their Runner-Up for FOTY. They both led in 4 categories each and after the Walters fight Lomachenko took over the Plus/Minus list at a +20.9 rating (highest rated since Mayweather's +24.5) as well as Opponents' Total Connect Percentage (lowest). This was published by BoxingScene 2 months ago.

http://www.boxingscene.com/lomachenko-number-one-compubox-plus-minus-list--111203

Fighter stats in 10 categories for 2016. There are realistically 9 categories because the +/- list is derived from two of them.

http://www.boxingscene.com/compubox-tabs-crawford-fighter-year-2016-stats--112252

You just wanted to talk about Loma and how hes ranked highly on the compubox stats. Nobody is fooled.

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

You just wanted to talk about Loma and how hes ranked highly on the compubox stats. Nobody is fooled.

Sure, and you just wanted to talk about Joshua and/or Wilder. I mentioned Crawford as being CompuBox's Fighter of the Year as well. It wasn't only about Loma. BoxingScene publishes this stuff, you know. In fact, search the forum and find me a single instance of me even talking about Loma being this or that in the CB stats before yesterday. The shit I posted is 2 months old and I posted the most recent as well pertaining to Crawford and the rest.

This infographic is much easier on the eyes to digest and initially I could've used it to promote Lomachenko to those that find CB stats interesting. Why didn't I? Because my post wasn't just about him. When Frampton was voted FOTY I made a thread to congratulate him and his fans, even when others thought that Loma deserved it. BTW, if I just wanted to talk about any fighter that I like to watch then I would make my own thread about him.