Which Statistical Data Could Shed The Most Light

[The Old LefHook]

In the mean time you can watch moorer sparring matthew saad, toney sparring Mclellan and Hearns sparring mcallum. Footage of them ****ing away.

Simmer down, old stick. I didn't say you were wrong. I said I believe I read something by Manny once that addressed this. Now fact is Manny did not like to bring in sparring partners, instead going in-house. Mind you that does not mean he would not choose to keep certain guys apart. I believe the two that were expressly mentioned were Moorer and Hearns, and maybe McClellan too. Beyond that I may have made the faulty assumption that he would not let his killers face each other in sparring. Moorer was considered particularly cruel. At least I think that I think I read that somewhere. He liked to talk about beating people until their jaws were just hanging there.

I feel pretty confident about Moorer and Hearns, but not the others I guess. What's it matter? Read my signature.

[Bundana]

curious why you don't like what Mike sliver has to say, a very knowledgeable boxing historian. Sure he throws some crazy numbers around, but so dowe all, including you. He's got a pretty good depth on knowledge though. I literally read his book once years ago - this is the 3rd time you have brought it up.

It's been a couple of days, since I asked you... so I'll try again: What crazy numbers have I been throwing around?

[them_apples]

It's been a couple of days, since I asked you... so I'll try again: What crazy numbers have I been throwing around?

Well no crazier than silvers numbers. You fixate on the word crazy but failed to interpret my point.

I program it for you:

crazy numbers = numbers with limited value

“crazy numbers” are being used to argue complex claims.

so no, not crazy - but no more informational than a lot of observations, is all I’m trying to say. Same goes for Mike Silver, I won’t use his numbers to back my points up - when billions of circumstantial things have changed since then.

I’m serious though thats why I don’t feel compelled to respond sometimes. You read something I say and fixate on the way I word it. We end up arguing about nothing. I didn’t need to explain to you what crazy numbers meant.

[Bundana]

Well no crazier than silvers numbers. You fixate on the word crazy but failed to interpret my point.

I program it for you:

crazy numbers = numbers with limited value

"numbers" are being used to argue complex claims.

so no, not crazy - but no more informational than a lot of observations, is all I'm trying to say. Same goes for Mike Silver, I won't use his numbers to back my points up - when billions of circumstantial things have changed since then.

I'm serious though thats why I don't feel compelled to respond sometimes. You read something I say and fixate on the way I word it. We end up arguing about nothing. I didn't need to explain to you what crazy numbers meant.

Ok, forget the word "crazy". Just give me an example of numbers of limited value, I have been throwing around. Come to think of it... forget about the "limited value" thing as well. How about just giving me an example of any kind of numbers, I have posted here, that you disagree with?

[them_apples]

Ok, forget the word "crazy". Just give me an example of numbers of limited value, I have been throwing around. Come to think of it... forget about the "limited value" thing as well. How about just giving me an example of any kind of numbers, I have posted here, that you disagree with?

I don't "disagree" with them, I take them with a grain of salt. Your numbers from boxrec aren't "wrong" they simply don't paint a fact or truth about anything, they are simply complimentary to an argument. It's like com*****g any history, you use sources, but you are always at the mercy of the sources value.

We won't enter some serious numbers territory anytime soon, it would require things to be measured from day one with intention of com*****g all the data in years to come. Likened to Zuckerburgs VR head sets or Apples phones. "Freakanomics" is a good eye opener.

Since the word "crazy" was the only thing you were questioning, I'm not sure what we are arguing about. If I don't respond it just means I don't know if it's worth continuing.

[QueensburyRules]

I don't "disagree" with them, I take them with a grain of salt. Your numbers from boxrec aren't "wrong" they simply don't paint a fact or truth about anything, they are simply complimentary to an argument. It's like com*****g any history, you use sources, but you are always at the mercy of the sources value.

We won't enter some serious numbers territory anytime soon, it would require things to be measured from day one with intention of com*****g all the data in years to come. Likened to Zuckerburgs VR head sets or Apples phones. "Freakanomics" is a good eye opener.

Since the word "crazy" was the only thing you were questioning, I'm not sure what we are arguing about. If I don't respond it just means I don't know if it's worth continuing.

- - Moneybot frequent use of crazy adopted by U mean U moneybot clone.

See how that work? Prove U not moneybot clone...still waiting on Godot...

[Willie Pep 229]

- - Moneybot frequent use of crazy adopted by U mean U moneybot clone.

See how that work? Prove U not moneybot clone...still waiting on Godot...

"I am Moneybot's alt!" - Had you all going there for a while, didn't I?