Statistically Deontay Wilder is the most dominant force in boxing today.

[RadioBox]

Isn't statistically the most dominant force when it comes to respectable opposition. It's more correct to say he's statistically the most dominant force in boxing when it's purely objective numbers. "In boxing today" implies his opposition is what you'd expect, but it's not so, easily questionable.

There's really no point being proven here

Nobody talks like that.. we just cut to the point and say statistically he's the most dominant.. it's easier and it's more normal...

[Hougigo]

You know and I know you will never become the most statistically dominant force in boxing.... Wilder will add to this title this up coming Weekend.

The question is not if Wilder will get another KO(he will) the question is will he do it in 2 rounds or less?

I just have to beat 29 guys before Wilder does by KO.
Shouldn't be too hard, I'll just get a bunch of guys to make their professional debut against me.
Boom, statistically best in history

[RadioBox]

[QUOTE=hougigo;13624653]I just have to beat 29 guys before Wilder does by KO.
Shouldn't be too hard, I'll just get a bunch of guys to make their professional debut against me.
Boom, statistically best in history[/QUOTE]

No....that's much tougher. I'm talking about CURRENT.

[silentscoper]

28 Fights
28 Wins
28 Knock outs
100% KO Ratio

Average Opponent life span: 2.1 Rounds

This is a terrible argument.
I'm sure there are plenty of fighters currently with

1 Win
1 Knockout
100% KO Ratio

Average Opponent life span: 1 Round

By your sense of "statistically" then they are even more dominant than Deontay Wilder. Their opponents only last 1 round.

If you want to say, but Wilder has had 28 fights not 1 fight, that is too small of a sample then where does it stop. Why is 28 fights a good sample? Why not 30? Why not 40?

[RadioBox]

This is a terrible argument.
I'm sure there are plenty of fighters currently with

1 Win
1 Knockout
100% KO Ratio

Average Opponent life span: 1 Round

By your sense of "statistically" then they are even more dominant than Deontay Wilder. Their opponents only last 1 round.

If you want to say, but Wilder has had 28 fights not 1 fight, that is too small of a sample then where does it stop. Why is 28 fights a good sample? Why not 30? Why not 40?

28>than 1.
If you find someone who's stats is the same as Wilder's but with 33 fights.. than he will be the most dominant.. It's common sense dude..


Example:
1 Fight
1 Win
1 KO
Average Life Span of Opponents: 2 Rounds
vs

40 Fights
40 Wins
40 KO'S
Average Life Span of Opponents: 2 Rounds

Which is the more dominant stat?

[torosboxing75]

OK he has the most misleading record in boxing.

[bojangles1987]

Numbers don't lie.

[silentscoper]

Arg, I'm wasting my time though I realize my last post was ****** and incorrect as well. What I mean to convey is that statistics are only important given context. Being the most "statistically dominant" means little when your level of competition is low.

It would be more correct that to be the most statistically dominant, you also require the factoring of the dominance of the fighters defeated in calculating dominance.

[RadioBox]

Arg, I'm wasting my time though I realize my last post was ****** and incorrect as well. What I mean to convey is that statistics are only important given context. Being the most "statistically dominant" means little when your level of competition is low.

It would be more correct that to be the most statistically dominant, you also require the factoring of the dominance of the fighters defeated in calculating dominance.

False.... we are talking pure math here and in pure math.. side factors like quality is irrelevant to the equation.

Example:
Guy #1 have slept with 20 of the fattest and ugliest girls at his University.
Guy #2 have only slept with 2 girls, but they are both gorgeous.

Statistically Guy #1 have gotten more ***** than Guy #2.

Guy #2 may have gotten HIGHER Caliber... but statistically Guy #1 is above Guy #2.

[torosboxing75]

False.... we are talking pure math here and in pure math.. side factors like quality is irrelevant to the equation.

Example:
Guy #1 have slept with 20 of the fattest and ugliest girls at his University.
Guy #2 have only slept with 2 girls, but they are both gorgeous.

Statistically Guy #1 have gotten more ***** than Guy #2.

Guy #2 may have gotten HIGHER Caliber... but statistically Guy #1 is above Guy #2.

Your right and that's why statistically Guy#1 also has a misleading record.