Astrology In Fighting... Interesting perspective

[Rassclot]

1. It's not a theory, it's an idea. It can't be a theory if it's not science because you need scientific evidence that can be duplicated to have a theory. Evolution is a theory. Astrology is superstition.
2. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation.
3. There wasn't even correlation in the Full Moon and Crimes studies. Every single one included "statistically misleading evidence" according to an analysis by Saskatchewan University Psychologist Ivan Kelly, Florida International University psychologist James Rotton and Colorado State Astrophysicist Roger Culver.

Try again.

you really love making up points in your mind and arguing with yourself don't you?



1. A theory DOES NOT HAVE TO BE SCIENTIFIC.

2. never said correlation = causation. your ******ation is kicking in gear again. inclination is not causation.

3. every theory has a counter-point. there are counter-points to the gravitational energies as well. but gravity still exists right? or does it not?

[BigStereotype]

you really love making up points in your mind and arguing with yourself don't you?



1. A theory DOES NOT HAVE TO BE SCIENTIFIC.

2. never said correlation = causation. your ******ation is kicking in gear again. inclination is not causation.

3. every theory has a counter-point. there are counter-points to the gravitational energies as well. but gravity still exists right? or does it not?

A theory does not have to be scientific, but you would then just be talking about a conversational theory, basically an unsubstantiated guess. You might not have directly SAID that correlation = causation, but when you direct me to studies which are already "statistically misleading," it really shoots a hole in your argument. And yes, there are counter-points to gravitational energies, but there is an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of the existence of gravity. Is there a single shred of real evidence in support of astrology, especially in boxing? Your studies are all based on anecdotal evidence which is hardly evidence at all, especially when you draw the line at who's an ATG. Again, not every fighter I listed is an all-time great, but you shot down de la Hoya, too.

[Rassclot]

A theory does not have to be scientific, but you would then just be talking about a conversational theory, basically an unsubstantiated guess. You might not have directly SAID that correlation = causation, but when you direct me to studies which are already "statistically misleading," it really shoots a hole in your argument. And yes, there are counter-points to gravitational energies, but there is an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of the existence of gravity. Is there a single shred of real evidence in support of astrology, especially in boxing? Your studies are all based on anecdotal evidence which is hardly evidence at all, especially when you draw the line at who's an ATG. Again, not every fighter I listed is an all-time great, but you shot down de la Hoya, too.

what i used is not anecdotal evidence. look up that term. the study we've been ffollowing in this thread is drawn from a sport with 10's of millions of competitors over 100 years of history. the top 50 of this sport are listed because of cold hard accomplishments and facts. do you know anything about statistics? if all signs are equal then random distribution would result in even distribution in a pool of 10's of thousands. not to mention millions. once again the inclination has been proven already and your pathetic attempt at waivering with your laughable ATG lists is an epic failure.


DLH is not an ATG. top 100 but not top 50. ATG list cuts off at 50. he's the most well known loser. even if you were to count him. he would only be 1. naming the anomoly does not a case make. it's like saying Asians are just as tall as Whites because you found Yao Ming.


-so you've agreed that this in fact is a theory.
-you've agreed astrology is supported by overwhelming statistical facts. albeit with opposing view-points. what theory doesn't have opposing views? statistical facts still stand.


check. mate. game.

i'm out. tired of discussing this conceptual topic with a 12 yr old. finish HS first.

[BigStereotype]

go join the debate team then come back.

what i used is not anecdotal evidence. look up that term. the study we've been ffollowing in this thread is drawn from a sport with 10's of millions of competitors over 100 years of history. the top 50 of this sport are listed because of cold hard accomplishments and facts. do you know anything about statistics? once again the inclination has been proven already and your pathetic attempt at waivering with your laughable lists is a failure.


DLH is not an ATG. top 100 but not top 50. ATG list cuts off at 50. he's the most well known loser.


-so you've agreed that this in fact is a theory.
-you've agreed astrology is supported by overwhelming statistical facts.


check. mate. game.

i'm out. tired of discussing concepts with a 12 yr old. finish HS first.

Yes it is. This guy beat this guy and performed like this is absolutely anecdotal. "Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion." From wikipedia. If you'd like a more reputable source, Meriam Webster says "based on or consisting or reports or observations from usually unscientific observers." You match both criterion. You're trying to outword yourself and sound too clever. Stick with **** you know because most of it is unnecessarily verbose garbage. And, this is really childish, but I'm in college.

[Rassclot]

Yes it is. This guy beat this guy and performed like this is absolutely anecdotal. "Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion." From wikipedia. If you'd like a more reputable source, Meriam Webster says "based on or consisting or reports or observations from usually unscientific observers." You match both criterion. You're trying to outword yourself and sound too clever. Stick with **** you know because most of it is unnecessarily verbose garbage. And, this is really childish, but I'm in college.

i'll come back for 1 more post. the irony of this post is you are the idiot that chimes in with the anecdotal evidence... then you call me out on it. sweet jesus.


the astrological theory in this thread revolves around boxing history and its greatest competitors out of a pool of millions. that is not anectodal. a pool of millions makes a valid sample pool to summarize a theory. most theories are formed from far smaller pools. conclusion of astrological study, "Aquarians are not well represented in boxing history." you are the one that comes back with "OH! I KNOW 1 GOOD AQUARIAN BOXER! ODLH HYUK HYUK HYUK! that proves Aquarians are just as good as the rest. therefore this theory is invalid."


same as, OH I KNOW MY GRANPA THAT LIVED LONG AND SMOKED! LOLZ



do you see your idiocy?

[BigStereotype]

i'll come back for 1 more post. the irony of this post is you are the idiot that chimes in with the anecdotal evidence.


the astrological theory in this thread revolves around boxing history and its greatest competitors out of a pool of millions. that is not anectodal. you are the one that comes back with "OH! I KNOW 1 GOOD AQUARIAN BOXER! ODLH HYUK HYUK HYUK!" that proves Aquarians are just as good as the rest. therefore this theory is invalid.


same as, OH I KNOW MY GRANPA THAT LIVED LONG AND SMOKED! LOLZ



do you see your idiocy?

I don't really. I listed several truly great boxers from each sign you posted. I also listed a bunch of good boxers from each sign you posted. The grandpa example wasn't about your argument, it was part of the definition of anecdotal evidence. You know why I came back with anecdotal evidence of my own? Because it is literally impossible to get empirical data on this. Try to get me real statistics on it. I won't hold my breath. You keep trying to strawman me into looking like some goof ball yet you're the one who can't actually prove anything.

[BigStereotype]

And I welcome you to bring your claim that 2 or 3 ATG's from a certain sign in a pool of 50 is enough evidence to note a trend to any statistician. See what a real mathematician tells you.

[Rassclot]

I don't really. I listed several truly great boxers from each sign you posted. I also listed a bunch of good boxers from each sign you posted. The grandpa example wasn't about your argument, it was part of the definition of anecdotal evidence. You know why I came back with anecdotal evidence of my own? Because it is literally impossible to get empirical data on this. Try to get me real statistics on it. I won't hold my breath. You keep trying to strawman me into looking like some goof ball yet you're the one who can't actually prove anything.

you listed 3-4 arguable ATG's out of the 4 signs i listed in total-which is approximately correct-. the rest of your lists are not ATG's. jermain taylor, paul williams, steve forbes etc.... you're douche for even listin those.

so the actual ATG's break down to 1-2 for each of aquarius, pisces and leo. that still shows poor representation. do you understand that?

the data i used is about as empirical as it gets. and the statistics are as real as your ******ation. i'm not making #'s up. you can research them yourself if you can get over your intellectual hurdles.

[BigStereotype]

you listed 2-3 arguable ATG's out of the 3 signs i listed in total... which is approximately correct. 1-2 for each of aquarius, pisces and leo. that still shows poor representation. do you understand that?

the data i used is about as empirical as it gets. and the statistics are as real as your ******ation. i'm not making #'s up. you can research them yourself if you can get over your intellectual hurdles.

I don't get why you keep calling me a ******. How exactly am I showing this? A difference of 1 per sign out of a pool of 50 is just absolutely laughable evidence. It's like a baseball player hitting .333 or .330 over a week. The sample size just isn't big enough to determine a real relationship, especially not when you have 12 categories. You need to include more data to have any statistical validity, which you seem to desperately want.

[Rassclot]

And I welcome you to bring your claim that 2 or 3 ATG's from a certain sign in a pool of 50 is enough evidence to note a trend to any statistician. See what a real mathematician tells you.

you have to look at the top only. the top 50 is not a randomly selected 50. it is funnelled through a pool of millions. do you grasp this? you have to understand this before we move on.

for instance, we can say black people are better at basketball based on the over-representation of them atop the NBA. the over-representation in the HOF.

you can't look at the entire pool of participants. if you did you'd have way more white and asian participants than blacks. are asians and whites better than blacks in general in basketball? you have to focus at the top to arrive at inclination conclusions.


do you understand that?

**** i'm tired of talking to your dumbass. but i can't help it. it's like watching a train wreck.