Effective aggression vs compubox. Which should carry more weight in a major title fight?

Question

In the last 20 years compubox has become a huge stat in the argument of who won a major fight. However pure traditional fight fans are often angered and shocked. They point to examples of major title fights where a challenger who hits and runs is often given the nod over the defending champ who mixed it up and did more damage.

Answer 1

U are hotter than the San Fernando Valley in July!!!!!!! WOW!!!!!    What was the question????..... Oh yeah, compubox to me is a joke. I like good ol' fashioned effective aggression.......Im going back to look at ur 360 and Myspace pages peace! :)

Answer 2

Compubox is interesting to the fan, but I think that judges should score fights the way they did in the old days by effective aggression.  If a fellow lands 3 pity pat punches and runs and his opponent answers with a hard left hook while in pursuit, I'm going to be more impressed with the effective aggression.  Don't get me wrong as sometimes a guy may not necessarily be as hard a puncher, but is using an effective jab, should also be given strong consideration.  A good boxing judge that really knows how to fairly score a fight, should be all that is needed in scoring a fight.

Answer 3

The effective aggressionor should always get more points. They are the one taking the bigger risk. Risk makes the fight more exciting especially in a major title fight. So they should be awarded the points. It all goes to waste though if the judge has a favorite.

Answer 4

3 punches equal 1 point therefore who ever lands more wins.

Answer 5

If you move forward and hit me with three so-so punches and I hit you with one punch that knocks you out, I win.  You may have been the aggressor, but I was more effective.  

In your scenario a counterpuncher would have a hard time ever winning a decision because, by definition, he's looking to land fewer but harder punches.  There's a lot of difference between agression and effective aggression, and "Which fighter did the most damage?" is the most important question.  

One commentator recently said he tended to score rounds by asking, "Which fighter would I rather have been in that round?"  I think that would be a very good start to judging a fight.

Answer 6

i guess agression really does make it i mean to me

thanks

~Cherokee74

Answer 7

Compubox is a gimmick that cable and pay per view have come up with to stir debate and controversy. This keeps the paying public interested and drives their ratings (on cable) or buys (on pay per view). Prizefighting should be scored and only scored on the degree of absence or presence of; Defense, Clean Punching, Effective Aggressiveness, and Ring Generalship. No category takes precedence over the other. Having said that one of the four points is clean punching not volume of punches landed.

post note: Amateur boxing is decided by who landed the most punches not the cleanest. I think this way of scoring amateur fights is bunk!

Answer 8

Effective aggression should be the key.  To me, punches don't mean anything if they don't do any damage.

Answer 9

Effective aggression should put you up by a point at the start of a round, and you win it unless the other guy clearly outlands you by a wide margin. That is why fights are more boring these days- they don't reward the guy who makes the fight like they used to.

Answer 10

Effective aggression rules. Did I mention that I have the deluxe box-set of all the Bond movies?

Answer 11

it doesnt matter when the judges are corrupt,for example j.l.castillo vs fraud mayweather...castillo was the champion fighting like the challenger...castillo was pressuring and using effective aggression and also outpointed mayweather but castillo still lost...mayweather was running and holding through the whole bout,even the ref was in on the fix...in the 6th round castillo landed a body shot to mayweathers rib cage and floored mayweather on his back..the corrupt ref ruled it no knock down...harold ledderman scored it 115 to 111 win for castillo,george forman & larry merchant also had castillo winning...final compubox numbers had castillo winning by a mile..see for your self http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2sZVx05B...

Answer 12

Here's hoping your avatar is actually the person asking the q.

I'm the traditional, purist fight fan and was apalled at the compubox until I came to the realization that it is usually more accurate than judges.  I've gotten to the point where I don't need a compubox or a judge to tell me which is the better fighter.

Answer 13

Effective aggression should carry more weight.  But I don't  think compubox should be ignored, because it gives insight into the activity of the fighters in relation to each other.  You need to consider the stats, but effective aggression over the course of the fight carries more weight in my view.

Answer 14

In descending  order of importance---Fights are most accurately scored by: 1) Judges........2) Compubox......3) Harold Lederman