BBC Magazine: Counting Punches

[Ton]

I've just come across this article on the BBC magazine website discussing the recent controversial bout between Pacquiao and Bradley.

 

The article questions how the judges saw the fight in favour of Bradley when all the numbers and statistics pointed clearly to Manny and if the numbers should decide the fight rather than humans.

 

It includes an interview with the Bob Canobbio, owner of CompuBox who discusses reasons why maybe the judges saw it as it was.

 

Despite compubox being "computerised" statistics, it still requires human input in the first place so it is never going to be fully accurate. What is put into the system is down to the opinion of the person watching the fight. What constitutes a power punch? How can they see if a show properly landed or not? It is full of potential holes.

 

I think the CompuBox numbers can help a little to show how a fight when, but it never tells the whole story.

 

So if we cannot rely on incompetent judges to score a fight, and punch numbers/stats don't always tell the story of a fight, what other alternatives might there be??

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18551754

[iamasadlittleboy]

I implore anyone who thinks ANYTHING positive about Compubox to watch the opening round of Angulo v Kirkland, make a mental note of that round...then look at the Compubox figures for the round.

 

What Compubox should do is to watch the bout THE FOLLOWING DAY in slow motion and make sure they get 100% accurate figures, don't try doing it on the night of the fight with a ringside computer as it's too inaccurate.

 

The scoring system needs to be used properly, just because it's a 10-point must system it doesn't mean that close rounds, swing rounds and dominant rounds with out a knockdown should all be scored 10-9. Personally a clear round with out a knockdown should be scored 10-8 much more than it is, a close round 10-9 and we need to use tied rounds more often.

 

There is a video going around on youtube that shows just how bad Lampley and co were on the right where he was saying things like "great left by Pacquiao" and when it was slowed down he was missing by 6".

 

Whilst I think we do need fights being judged on the night I'm not sure "ringside" judges really work well enough-They can only see so much of the action, they are influenced by the crowd and may even be influenced by hearing ring side commentators. Maybe they should be put into separate rooms in the arena and given a monitor to see the bout...or have completely open scoring so that we know a screw job is on before hand.

 

I've made my feelings on Juergen Langos' "friendship" with Otkay Urkal and Alexander Alexeev well known and I think things like that need completely out lawing. If you are "friends" with a fighter or a trainer or a promoter or a manager (etc) you shouldn't be allowed to judge or referee their fights, if you do you should be banned from judging.

[Ton]

Maybe if said judges were in a separate room, they could have multiple screens showing each camera covering the action (like in an editing suite where the editor presses the camera number buttons to broadcast at any given time). With all these different camera angles to view, they can switch between cameras to get the best view of the action. Of course this would require the judges to all be sat close together and there would need to be an observer to ensure they are not discussing the action or checking each others scores.

 

Another thing which could be introduced is a section for the judges to explain the decision in scoring each round. Just a quick note nothing elaborate. At least this way, if it came to a review, the round could be re-watched and the judge made to point out their reasoning behind giving the score etc.

 

On another level completely looking at technology, I think as some systems are developed and become more adaptable and reliable a similar system to Hawk-Eye could come into play. In snooker and tennis hawkeye can zoom in and out to see the exact position of the ball(s) and lines to judge things. More recently in football we've seen a hawkeye like replay showing the view referees and linesmen have of certain incidents.

 

I know hawkeye has to be specifically set up in an arena with cameras etc and is costly. And as far as I am aware they make use of objects and reference points (such as the balls, and lines of the pitch), but surely it can be modified to show 3D modelling of humans, and if they have made contact with each other.

 

It could even go beyond this, given the advancement of technology, being able to tell not only if a shot landed on an opponent, but also the power of the shot, and it could be fully automated without the need for a human to guess if the shot landed or not.

 

This obviously might be a pipe dream, but given the current technology of Hawkeye, and the speeds that technology evolves these days, I don't see why such a system is not plausible somewhere down the line. The main stumbling block I can see is the fact that it would require extensive set-up in venue's hosting events, and it would need to be done for all 12 round/title fghts, and would always require cameras etc. I aint sure if camera's pick up the action of a title fight if it isn't being broadcast on TV at some point?