Average Age of Heavyweight Champ Opponents

So this "formula" presupposes that a 25-year-old Leon Spinks is better than a 40-year-old George Foreman.

GIGO

 

I get it. If you want an accurate gauge of the average age of opponent of a fighter, you start at Fght 1 and go to the last fight. You take all their ages, you add them up and you divide by number of fights.

That's how you do it.

You don't say "I'll put this one in and leave that one off." That skews the data. YOU and YOU ALONE are deciding which fights count.

I'm sorry you wasted so much time to make a point that you failed to make. But either have a solid, stated criteria (all fights starting with Fight 11, or all fights in general, or all title challengers, etc.) or admit that you're selectivity results in data that is garbage.

 

no. because they are different people.

not sure how u couldnt see that. kinda like thinking a 25 year old steve davis (snooker) can ko 40 year old foreman.

 

The thesis is that fighters are not different -- that someone who fights opponents of an average age of 28 is fighting better opposition than someone who faced an average opponent age of 33. Yet it comes down to WHO they fought at WHAT STAGE they were at and WHAT SHAPE they in ... I'm a Larry Holmes guy, but I know that him fighting a younger Tim Witherspoon (and edging him) is actually an easier fight than if he had gotten him a couple years later as ar as Tim's development.

 

hang on, who has said the fighters are not different. hes talking average. therefore is from a group of data, not directly comparing any two boxers resumes. hes talking based on a large amount of data.

U MUST know this.

 

But he's picking the data. "This fight counts, this one doesn't. I consider this guy a journeyman, but this one is a fringe contender."

You either take the whole or you have a SET CRITERIA -- not "I choose this one and not that one because I say so" -- for data to have meaning.

And this data has no meaning.

 

Seeing as he fought 69 times, yeah, a lot of people are misisng. If you want to know the average age of his opponents, don't hand-pick the ones you want to count.

You mentioned the fights that earned them a title shot. Some of these didn't. Some he was already champion so he had a title shot. Some of those fights you dismiss he probably learned a lot from, which you'd know if you knew anything about boxing -- journeymen have experience and younger fighters absorb it when they fight them so they can use what they've learned to win those later fights.

Basically you want to be the arbiter of which fights count, and then say "From the fights that I have decided matter, I have produced unimpeachable data which tells us something." But it tells us nothing.

But hey, you spent a lot of time on it. You think it's groundbreaking research. Have fun with it. Write a paper and get a degree, whatever.

We're going round and round. Nothing more really to say. We can agree to disagree.

 

I can't judge Dempsey's resume by an average age of certain fighters he fought, off the age of every fighter he ever fought or even every person he ever met.

It's completely immaterial what their averages ages are. Doesn't make his opposition any different in any way -- they were as good as they were whe he fought them, and their average age doesn't play into it in any way.

But your methodology is flawed.

I'm done on this thread.