MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos

MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos (http://www.mmaforum.com/)
-   UFC (http://www.mmaforum.com/ufc/)
-   -   compubox (http://www.mmaforum.com/ufc/104284-compubox.html)

gigogreco 08-13-2012 09:03 AM

compubox
 
its so goddamn cringeworthy listening to those 2 buffoons(rogan and goldberg), quoting the number of strikes landed and especially significant strikes, as gospel. I dont need some fat dude sitting ringside, occasionally pushing a button and trying to tell me whats significant or not. Likewise i dont need two commentators telling me the stats, like they are the truth and nothing but.

ive been following boxing a bit longer then mma and one of the worst things about boxing, is the compubox invention. It sounds so fancy, Compubox, it actually sounds like a computer is registering every blow, but the truth is, that compubox is two fat guys sitting close to the ring and they press a buttton, everytime they see a hit. Their numbers are as usefull as any fan who watches from his living room, perhaps even worse,as the guy watching from his couch have the luxury of rewatching certain parts of the fight.

I know that american sports is filled with statistics, from hockey to nba, nfl and baseball, but trying to force something similar into mma, just doesnt work. Especially since its based on 2 guys pressing buttons, the margin for error is just to big, for it to ever be trustworthy.

We are often in situations, where we as fans disagree with the judges about the outcome, but the judges are atleast somewhat educated. The guys in charge of compubox arent and ill bet my sorry ass bankaccount, that those in charge of mma stats, arent educated either.

am i the only one who cant stand it.?

funkasaurus 08-13-2012 10:59 AM

Mute your TV then.

Dtwizzy2k5 08-13-2012 11:04 AM

This is a ridiculously ignorant post. First of all, the UFC doesn't use "Compubox" it uses FightMetric. Secondly, it's easy to make it sound bad when you constantly refer to the people in charge of it as "two fat guys", when for all you know it could be highly educated normal weighted people.
The live statistics they use aren't 100% accurate because, as you said, it's a group of humans recording the statistics and there is always human error. However, these people are trained specifically for this task because it's their job and I'm certain that they look specifically for whether a strike landed or not as opposed to just sitting back on a couch and watching the fights laidback like a casual fan.

Having said that, FightMetric goes back after the fights and rewatches it in slow motion so that the final statistics that get released on the website are actually close to 100% accurate. Even though the live unofficial stats arent perfect, it still paints a picture of what's going on in the fight which is the whole point. So if a fighter is outlanding someone 100 to 20, then obviously there is domination going on because the margin of error isn't going to be at 80%.
As for "significant strikes", they just refer to every strike excluding those pitter patter BS strikes you see when a guy is laying on top of the other guy and not really putting weight behind the punches. Pretty much every standing strike is considered "significant" though.

I dont know why it bothers you so much anyways, the stats tell an accurate story about the fight and it seems like you just have anger issues towards fat people and commentators.

Swiss 08-13-2012 11:56 AM

I know where you're coming from with this. Goldberg makes me cringe full stop but the 'significant strikes' count does my head in. American sports in general does have this sort of obsession with statistics so I guess it's a natural progression to include something like this, given the audience is so used to it. It works with sports like baseball and cricket a lot better because you either score or don't score. But, to me, the easiest way to make an exciting, emotional sport into a dull and clinical one is to throw a lot of statistics at it.

I realise it's part of the scoring criteria but just counting "significant strikes" is completely misleading as it ignores the quality of the strike and the damage (if any) that it's caused. The fact that the in-fight stats are inaccurate makes it pretty pointless imo - wasn't it the Condit v Diaz fight that had a huge discrepancy between in-fight and post-fight figures? I think it also skews the angles the commentators are coming from as well and the way we experience the fight.

I guess with accurate stats it can be quite useful in post-fight analysis but all it ends up being is fodder for internet arguments and turns a good, healthy argument into some weird game of top trumps.

Toxic 08-13-2012 12:18 PM

I hate the statistics and they are never close to 90% accurate if you want proof find me 10 fights where FightMetric and CompuStrike come up with the same numbers cause it will never happen unless we are talking about one of those one punch knock outs.

gigogreco 08-13-2012 03:04 PM

funkasaurus: not an option, i like listening to the commentary in general, but not when they quote absolute rubbish.

dtwizzy:

you yourself claim they arent perfect or close too and thats the problem, they are being used or abused and thrown out there as the truth by rogan and goldberg.

thats just "strikes". The next one is something a complete wack-job couldnt even have invented and thats significant strikes. Whats significant and how is that measured.?

the stats dont tell anything about a fight really, as they are flawed.

Swiss: you worded it more elowuently then i did and i wholeheartedly agree with you assesment. whats the point in quoting those numbers, when they are flawed.

goldberg really relied on those numbers and kept talking about them in edgar vs bendo. His judgement was clearly clouded by it and as a result, so will the general audience viewing at home. Rogan also used the numbers and quoted them for the truth, funnily enough though, he actually gave edgar round 3 a short while after using the same numbers, that basically gave bendo the round.

toxic: exactly.

Killz 08-13-2012 04:10 PM

I like Rogan and Goldberg for the most part, but I am getting sick of hearing "HE'S ROCKED!!!!!!" when he quite clearly, is not.

IIGQ4U 08-13-2012 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killstarz (Post 1614997)
I like Rogan and Goldberg for the most part, but I am getting sick of hearing "HE'S ROCKED!!!!!!" when he quite clearly, is not.

I am in full agreement! :thumb02:

funkasaurus 08-13-2012 06:52 PM

Tbh, we all instantly assume someone is rocked when they get dropped or stagger. Joe Rogan is as much of a fan of all of us.

I think Goldberg and Rogan are two of the best commentators in any sport. Rogan has the 'I'm saying what I really think' attitude, and both guys can get you hyped.

Dtwizzy2k5 08-13-2012 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gigogreco (Post 1614978)

dtwizzy:

you yourself claim they arent perfect or close too and thats the problem, they are being used or abused and thrown out there as the truth by rogan and goldberg.

thats just "strikes". The next one is something a complete wack-job couldnt even have invented and thats significant strikes. Whats significant and how is that measured.?

the stats dont tell anything about a fight really, as they are flawed.

My point is that the stats aren't SO far off as to misconstrue the point of quoting the statistic. For example, who cares if someone is outpunched by 50-10 or by 45-15? The point is that one person is clearly outpunching the other. And like I said before they post up the official numbers on their website shortly after the fights which are almost 100% accurate. If you disagree then find a fight and watch it in slow motion and count landed/missed strikes yourself and you will see how wrong you are.
I already defined "significant" for you, it's basically any strike besides pitter patter punches on the ground or in the clinch that have no momentum behind them. It's not that complicated, I don't know why people are so confused.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.8 , Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2