Judges have not always had the benefit of electronic punch counts and many people still don't consider total counts or percentages as a clear indicator of who won the fight.
All those stats help analysts paint a clearer picture of a fighter, his opponent and such. From a fighters stats, they may be able to predict ways a guys can win or be beaten and all that, which is good for after a fight or building up a fight but stats aren't always helpful in showing who won an actual fight since there are other factors to consider.
punch counts are misleading and do not necessarily tell you who won the round or fight.
If we only counted punches then we don't need judges.
The Olympics use punch counts and a fighter gets no more credit for a one punch knockdown that a jab.
There is much more to boxing than punch counts.
Cause judges are there to watch and not let computers do the work
Who said they don't?
Its just that some judges are fkng paid azzes. If the fight goes to the score cards there is the tendency that they would rule in favor to their respective bets unless one fighter is clear dominant of the fight.
they dont score the fight per punch, they scores it per round... 8 if you get knocked down, 9 if they deemed you lose the round and 10 if you won the round...sucks
pac landed solid crispy punches to bradley, and still gave the round to bradley simply cus the latter got effective defense??? same w/ pac knockin down marquez 3x and they scored it a draw cus the latter effectively jabbed pac on the remaining rounds, wtf????
Because that's why they are the judged, only to judge what they see
the judges dont get to see the punches landed in each round but the comentators do why is that?
