They’d have fought with injuries, and it didn’t do their overall health any good. But they were better conditioned throughout the year, as they were always in shape to fight.
No. If 20k fighters fought 30k fights in one year, that’s an average of 1.5 fights per fighter. If they fought 3 times on average, that would be 60k fights. That is obvious just on first glance, no calculator needed. As I stated earlier, that gives us an indication of your ability to analyze data logically. So a mistake like that would obviously throw off whatever you had calculated as fact in the argument you initially put forth. A new calculation is needed, which may change your initial argument.
That's not how it works unless boxers are not limited by things like human biology. Your mistaking being in shape all year round to fight as the same as being at the peak of physical condition to fight. I'd say modern fighters can reach a level of fitness fighters of the past couldn't but they of course don't sustain a base level of fitness all year round like fighters of the past because it would be detrimental to them in the modern era where you fight less often. It's two different things and they both trained in the manner that benefited their eras.
A slight slip up maybe, but it takes 2fighters to have 1 fight. So if 20k fighters fought once, there would be 10k fights.
If you’ve followed the debate, I’ve said that there’s 2 different debates. At peak fitness, I don’t think there’s a difference between any fighters of any era. But again, due to their circumstances, even if they carried niggles, the older fighters were better conditioned throughout the year, as they had to be.
Yes. You are absolutely correct and I am completely off base with my calculations. Which indicates I’m stoned or stupid. Or both.
WOW... I hadn't expected that response! I explained it very carefully - and yet you don't understand. How about the 2 boxers engaging in a single fight - are you saying, that on average they took part in ½ fight? It's not exactly rocket science, but apparently too difficult for you to understand! Maybe someone else who reads this, can better explain it to our dyscalculia friend?
The obviousness of the mistake stunned me. Then made me laugh, given my previous posts. Although I am spending the day with Mary Jane, I shouldn’t miss such obvious variables in the equation. I’ll chalk it up to the little cloud I’m floating on, but will have to see if it happens again. Anyway, I don’t take much personal. Reality is reality, the rest is ego.