What defines significant strikes?

[kashmir]

Significant strikes refer to all strikes at distance and power strikes in the clinch and on the ground. It does not include small, short strikes in the clinch and on the ground. Those will be included in the Total Strikes category. (fightmetrics.com)

Isn't this definition too vague? How are 'all strikes at distance' equally significant. What is a 'power strike' precisely? Do you think its time the idea of significant strikes gets an overhauling? A jab is not as significant as a cross. Its not rocket science.

 

[Degen Gambler]

the whole concept is stupid

 

[yookfarb]

Judges don't have access to fightmetric, so why does this matter?

 

[JayElectra]

Punch stats shouldn't be something that anyone places much faith in.

 

[Nelly]

Stats are just numbers to look at but should never replace watching the actual fight when you're trying to score for someone.

 

[kashmir]

Judges don't have access to fightmetric, so why does this matter?

The heavier striker who lands with efficiency, deserves more credit from the judges than total number landed. (VIII G of unified rules.). The concept of significant strikes probably exists to compute this criteria. I'd say they are failing. It doesn't affect judging but every time the word 'significant strikes' is thrown around it doesn't mean much.

 

[BareKnucklez**]

It should just be total strikes. Significant strikes is too vague and inconsistent

 

[flanellograf]

Punch stats shouldn't be something that anyone places much faith in.

Yes, they should. Provided they are detailed and qualitative enough, and well done.
Problem with fight metric is that it's not really publically known exactly how much and what they actually count. The fightnomics book clears it up a fair amount. It's a lot deeper than most people know. They log a LOT of data for every fight.

 

[JayElectra]

Yes, they should. Provided they are detailed and qualitative enough, and well done.
Problem with fight metric is that it's not really publically known exactly how much and what they actually count. The fightnomics book clears it up a fair amount. It's a lot deeper than most people know. They log a LOT of data for every fight.

They've been around in boxing for a long time and no one worth their salt ever uses them as the crux of an argument regarding a fight. They're there to give people that don't understand the sport an idea of what is going on.

 

[flanellograf]

The heavier striker who lands with efficiency, deserves more credit from the judges than total number landed. (VIII G of unified rules.). The concept of significant strikes probably exists to compute this criteria. I'd say they are failing. It doesn't affect judging but every time the word 'significant strikes' is thrown around it doesn't mean much.

It means exactly what fight metrics defines it to mean. That people have their own interpretation of what it should mean is something else. And they do have qualitative judgements in there, they just try to keep it to a minimum, because it would explode the data they track exponentially and it would introduce a lot more subjective bias.

 

[flanellograf]

They've been around in boxing for a long time and no one worth their salt ever uses them as the crux of an argument regarding a fight. They're there to give people that don't understand the sport an idea of what is going on.

Compubox isn't fightmetrics, and boxing is scored differently. So that's not much of an argument.

 

[chinarice]

I've come to learn that many people have damage meters on their TV or screen they happen to watch the events from.

 

[JayElectra]

Compubox isn't fightmetrics, and boxing is scored differently. So that's not much of an argument.

They're both striking stats. They're both unreliable and should never be used as the crux for any argument regarding a fight.

 

[flanellograf]

They're both striking stats. They're both unreliable.

That's some stellar logic right there.
No.
Again, striking stats are not inherently unreliable. It depends on how they are done.

 

[JayElectra]

That's some stellar logic right there.
No.

They're used for the exact same thing (to tabulate how many strikes have been thrown and how many land). They're not reliable.

 

[flanellograf]

They're used for the exact same thing (to tabulate how many strikes have been thrown and how many land). They're not reliable.

Fightmetrics has some quantative data in there, and a lot more than just striking stats.

 

[JayElectra]

Yes, they pretty much are. Fightmetrics has some quantative data in there, and a lot more than just striking stats.

And we're talking about the striking stats. The unreliable striking stats.

 

[flanellograf]

And we're talking about the striking stats. The unreliable striking stats.

Perhaps you missed the "quantitative" part. Because that can really be the only gripe you have with them.
And I'm not really sure what resolution compustrike has, so I can't really compare. Do you know exactly what fightmetrics tracks?

 

[Scamrock]

They've been around in boxing for a long time and no one worth their salt ever uses them as the crux of an argument regarding a fight. They're there to give people that don't understand the sport an idea of what is going on.

I disagree. People say watching the fight and using the eye test is better than stats. But I cant tell you how many times Ive heard somebody claim one guy was robbed because he clearly outstruck his opponent when the stats show otherwise.

When you have one guy watching as a fan just eyeballing it, and another guy watching with the specific purpose of counting strikes, who are you going to trust to give you a more accurate breakdown of the striking?

 

[JayElectra]

I disagree. People say watching the fight and using the eye test is better than stats. But I cant tell you how many times Ive heard somebody claim one guy was robbed because he clearly outstruck his opponent when the stats show otherwise.

When you have one guy watching as a fan just eyeballing it, and another guy watching with the specific purpose of counting strikes, who are you going to trust to give you a more accurate breakdown of the striking?

People who know what they're watching.