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

[RadioBox]

No you need to look up the word dominant. It means being the top dog, the alpha male etc. THERE IS NO DOMINANT STATISTIC. YOU MADE IT UP!
But if there was such a thing Wilder would not be it! PBF or Ward would be as they are number 1 P4P (in most eyes) and have not come close to losing recently. The definition of dominant means being at THE TOP!!!!
Again see my original post. Wilder has perhaps dominated his opposition more than anybody which is a fair statement but he is not statistically the most dominant fighter in the sport because he is not at the top. YOU HAVE TO BE NUMBER 1 TO BE DOMINANT BY DEFINITION OF THE WORD! CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT?

statistically [stəˈtɪstɪkəlɪ -klɪ]
adv
(Mathematics & Measurements / Statistics) in terms of or according to statistics


dom·i·nant (dm-nnt)
adj.
1. Exercising the most influence or control.
2. Most prominent, as in position; ascendant



Statistically (Mathematics,measurements,stats) Wilder is the most dominant(most prominent, top position)fighter in the world right now.

Floyd Mayweather Jr is one of the most DOMINANT boxers in the world.. he is FAR from the most statistically dominant overall.

Floyd might be one of the most COMPUBOX dominant boxers but that is not in correlation to overall stats. Wilder's overall stats literally take a huge pile of steaming monkey crap on Floyd's.


Ok let's ask a mathematician.

Through his 1st 28 fights Floyd had 17 knock outs.
HIS OPPONENTS AVERAGE LIFE SPAN WAS:5.68 ROUNDS.


Wilder through his 1st 28 fights have 28 knock outs.
HIS OPPONENTS AVERAGE LIFE SPAN WAS 2.1 ROUNDS.


Who have a more dominant stat line? It's Wilder.

Stats and Math give **** all about caliber of opponents.. it does not factor in 'quality' or 'world titles'... I listed a simple mathematical concept because I thought it will impress boxing fans. I was wrong about that and I'm fine by it. You guys don't have to be impressed by Wilder's stats but I am NOT going to sit back and watch you guys also BASH my concept when it's 100% Mathematically correct.

[chocolate]

The stats are irrelivant and not impressive when a 42 year old Audley Harrison is the best name on the resume who David Price softened up and knocked out in one round before him! Audley has no heart or chin whatsoever!


Lets see him do that to Wladimir , Vitali, Haye,Chisora, Fury Thompson etc then we can talk! It's easy to boast a 100% record when 99% are stiff journeymen and the best guy Harrison is a grandad who has no heart, no chin and is delusional because he should have retired years ago!

[Furn]

Anthony Mundine is the only fighter to have fought every fight of his career on PPV.

Statistically he's the most famous, popular and marketable fighter of all time.

[WilkinsOlajuwon]

These are the types of fans boxing has today.

shameful

[110110110]

Alot of great fighters fought bums on there way to the top.

that dossent change the fact that Wilder koed his first 28 apponents, some of them bad some of them unbeaten at the time.

Dos that make him the baddest man on the planet ?, I dont know but even tyson didn`t get to more then 15 before he had the fight go the distance

[RightJab]

To me, them numbers suggest he's fought women and or blind people. I wish he'd go knock himself out and stay there....great guy though, great record too.

[craigus1990]

statistically [stəˈtɪstɪkəlɪ -klɪ]
adv
(Mathematics & Measurements / Statistics) in terms of or according to statistics


dom·i·nant (dm-nnt)
adj.
1. Exercising the most influence or control.
2. Most prominent, as in position; ascendant



Statistically (Mathematics,measurements,stats) Wilder is the most dominant(most prominent, top position)fighter in the world right now.

Floyd Mayweather Jr is one of the most DOMINANT boxers in the world.. he is FAR from the most statistically dominant overall.

Floyd might be one of the most COMPUBOX dominant boxers but that is not in correlation to overall stats. Wilder's overall stats literally take a huge pile of steaming monkey crap on Floyd's.


Ok let's ask a mathematician.

Through his 1st 28 fights Floyd had 17 knock outs.
HIS OPPONENTS AVERAGE LIFE SPAN WAS:5.68 ROUNDS.


Wilder through his 1st 28 fights have 28 knock outs.
HIS OPPONENTS AVERAGE LIFE SPAN WAS 2.1 ROUNDS.


Who have a more dominant stat line? It's Wilder.

Stats and Math give **** all about caliber of opponents.. it does not factor in 'quality' or 'world titles'... I listed a simple mathematical concept because I thought it will impress boxing fans. I was wrong about that and I'm fine by it. You guys don't have to be impressed by Wilder's stats but I am NOT going to sit back and watch you guys also BASH my concept when it's 100% Mathematically correct.

You don't understand do you. There is NO DOMINANT stat in boxing. It is not universally recognized what stats need to be attributed to such a stat because you made it up and are now making up the rules as to which stats count and which don't.
You literally just looked up the definition of the word dominant and still don't understand its meaning? Let me break it down into the parts that do not fit Wilder.

"2. Most prominent, as in position; ascendant" This means, THE NUMBER 1. TOP DOG! NUMERO UNO! That does not belong to Wilder in the HW division, let alone P4P. Do you not understand that?.
You said "Wilder is the most dominant(most prominent, top position)fighter in the world right now." THAT IS A LIE!!! WHERE ARE YOUR STATS FOR THAT? BECAUSE MINE AND EVERYBODY ELSE'S SAY HE IS NOT IN TOP POSITION. TOP POSITION MEANS NUMBER 1. HE IS NOT NUMBER 1.
Again, as you made up the "dominant stat" you can attribute whatever stat you want to it. The 100% KO ratio is just that, it means nothing more than a 100% KO ratio. I don't know how you are attributing that to most dominant man in the sport?
AGAIN!! I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE TO WRITE, HE MIGHT DOMINATE HIS OPPONENTS MORE THAN ANYONE IN THE GAME BUT HE IS NOT IN TOP POSITION IN THE SPORT. To be dominant BY DEFINITION, YOU HAVE TO BE IN TOP POSITION, in other words, if you are not ranked number 1, you are not dominating.
You made up something and made up the rules as to what stats count and don't count but 99% of people disagree with your maths of what stats apply and what stats don't.
BEING RANKED NUMBER 1 IS ALSO A STAT, it is a factor in the equation.
P4P number 1, World Champion of the division, losses, wins, rounds won/lost, KO's, average rank of opponent etc these are ALL relevant stats that need to be accounted for that you are MISSING OUT in your equation.
Garbage in - Garbage out. If you fail to factor in all of the statistics then your conclusion is useless.

[torosboxing75]

Reading between the lines, this is what this thread is really all about.

The Klitlickers won't like it but the facts are here in clear black and white that Wilder is currently the most statistically dominant Heavyweight.

(Correction) the facts are here in black and white that Wilder currently has the most misleading heavyweight record. Your welcome

[Citizen Koba]

28 Fights
28 Wins
28 Knock outs
100% KO Ratio

Average Opponent life span: 2.1 Rounds

Well, it depends what statistics you use doesn't it? If you're just going off win % and KO % then yeah, but there's dozens of other applicable statistics.
(Mostly, in this case, those that can be used to evaluate opponents' past performances).

Boxrec, for instance uses only statistics - as does any other computerised ranking system - yet doesn't rank Wilder particularly highly. Of course such systems each have their own flaws, but in general, the greater number of metrics you can build into your model, the more balanced will be your outcomes.

You never heard the saying 'Lies, damn lies and statistics'

[craigus1990]

Well, it depends what statistics you use doesn't it? If you're just going off win % and KO % then yeah, but there's dozens of other applicable statistics.
(Mostly, in this case, those that can be used to evaluate opponents' past performances).

Boxrec, for instance uses only statistics - as does any other computerised ranking system - yet doesn't rank Wilder particularly highly. Of course such systems each have their own flaws, but in general, the greater number of metrics you can build into your model, the more balanced will be your outcomes.

You never heard the saying 'Lies, damn lies and statistics'

This is exactly my conclusion, you just said it much more eloquently. Green K.