That isn't very scientific because averages don't work like that~
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Pacquiao more accurate puncher than Mayweather
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by The Gambler1981 View PostThat isn't very scientific because averages don't work like that~
I used the mean average for their past six fights. That is adding up their connect percentage for each fight and dividing it by 6.
And the proof was in the pudding last night, it is clear who is the more accurate puncher now.
Comment
-
Originally posted by D4thincarnation View PostThats is exactly how they work.
I used the mean average for their past six fights. That is adding up their connect percentage for each fight and dividing it by 6.
And the proof was in the pudding last night, it is clear who is the more accurate puncher now.
That is not their actual average for punches landed, it is a flawed statistic.
For example not looking at the real numbers just using some basic ones
Say a guy lands 70%, 30% and 50%
He land 70% out of 200 (like in an early knock out)
30% out of 1200 (like in a fight where he outworked another guy)
And then land 50% out of 750 (like in a fight where he landed well but had his output limited)
You are saying that guy lands 50%
140+360+375=875
200+1200+750=2150
Now I should not have to go on because even a simpleton should realize 875 isn't half of 2150 but I will go on~
875/2150= .407 or 41% if you want to be nice with rounding~Last edited by The Gambler1981; 05-06-2012, 03:20 PM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by The Gambler1981 View PostYou really want a math lesson don't you~
That is not their actual average for punches landed, it is a flawed statistic.
For example not looking at the real numbers just using some basic ones
Say a guy lands 70%, 30% and 50%
He land 70% out of 200 (like in an early knock out)
30% out of 1200 (like in a fight where he outworked another guy)
And then land 50% out of 750 (like in a fight where he landed well but had his output limited)
You are saying that guy lands 50%
140+360+375=875
200+1200+750=2150
Now I should not have to go on because even a simpleton should realize 875 isn't half of 2150 but I will go on~
875/2150= .407 or 41% if you want to be nice with rounding~
So you would penalise I guy for KOing someone, and reward someone for picking some off in the latter round when their opponent can hardly hold their guard up.
Let me guess you never made this point for that statisic about Floyd' +/- connects numbers.
I wonder why?
Pacquiao is much the more accurate puncher. Cotto agrees
Comment
-
Originally posted by stilltharow View Postand your point is? do you want a medal ? who cares
Dispelling the myths.
Comment
-
Originally posted by D4thincarnation View PostSo you would penalise I guy for KOing someone, and reward someone for picking some off in the latter round when their opponent can hardly hold their guard up.
Let me guess you never made this point for that statisic about Floyd' +/- connects numbers.
I wonder why?
Pacquiao is much the more accurate puncher. Cotto agrees
This is about accuracy overall, total numbers matter because the larger the sample the more telling the numbers~
I like my stats to be based on reality, not wishful thinking.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Antagonist View PostTalk about your own thread backfiring on you.
I don't blame them, these hardcore fanboys don't know any better.
It didn't backfire, I knew that "the myth" of Floyd's accuracy compared to Pacquiao's existed and I knew people heard it many time without actually looking at the figures or even taking not how each fighter fights.
I knew most people would find it difficult to shift their beliefs especially when I'm telling them the opposite of what they have been told.
But I knew that Mayweather would accuracy would come down a lot las night and maybe then some more people could see the truth.
Comment
Comment