Big Nog out of Kongo fight.

He's sooo darn smart but not smart enough to realise this is a message board. Where fans post OPINIONS. Some of which are speculative. Which is naturally the nature of discussion amongst fans. Next thing he'll be telling us is hormone use isn't rife in Zuffa.

 

The math should be pretty clear to anyone who has advanced beyond basic algebra.

But I guess when something clearly refutes your nonsense your only resort is to downplay what is said by a complete non-sequitur or just plain ad hominem. (Not that you did the latter here, just that seems to be your M.O. when this happens)

 

There's nothing illogical about what i said. I asked a simple question. You obviously do not have the answer. You'd be better off admitting that, instead of trying to rankle a point that you're clearly not privy too. But instead you're adding vacuous inconsequential and trivial statements to bolster an already empty argument.
If that is your example of refutation then its clear you have the reasoning capability of someone who flunked basic algebra. Oops ad hominem..

 

the correlation between these injuries and drug use is pretty damn high imo, it cant be that the same time the drug testing seems to have caught up a little that fighters are literally dropping like flys

 

No its not. Thats conspiracy bull****.

 

You do realize that you just minimized and/or dismissed the entire field of probability and statistics, yes?

What I said was one the simpler and easier explanations of understanding basic probability and stastitical theory as it applies to seemingly random events and how we can better understand what we would intuitively think as a rare or unnatural occurrance. What I said could not have been more evidently self-explanatory.

However, you are free to take relevant data and valid points and dismiss them as not relevant and invalid (because you simply said so) if you have no other means of side-stepping available to you. Although I'm sure you'll impress yet again by doing it in one of your ingenious ways, using your vast experience of dodging. William Lane Craig would be very proud.

 

Hoi fannybaws - shut it

 

Another vacuous post. I asked YOU a question. So keep up, as iv not dodged anything as you're the one who made the claim that the rest of us plebs were encouraging a conspiracy theory, whilst you're clearly in the know with your apparent statistics.
When you're capable of actually saying something informational that can explain this current crop of PED abusers, injury's et al please do let me know. We'll all be waiting with baited breath for another one of your specious anecdotes.

 

You seemed to have not read what I've said because that's exactly what the statistical model I presented is supposed to illustrate. A far more plausable explanation.

 

Except that correlation does not equal causation. It's possible that less use of steroids causes accidents to go up, but it's entirely possible that it's some other type of confound. You'll never know unless you do some type of reversal.

e.g. It could be that top fighters training together, get injured more. Could be chance. It could be that UFC insurance allows fighters to get the surgeries they needed to fight healthy. Before insurance was given by the UFC, fighters could only get surgery for nagging injuries after they had competed. It could be a combination of a lot of things.

 

Fixed :thumbsup

 

All you did was throw out a hypothetical number.

You come out swinging about statistics, criticize posters for not having a grasp for them, and then offer no real statistics.

At least they are commenting on what appears to be a trend. What statistics do you have to dispute them? Doesn't it seem like more fighters are pulling out of fights post Overeem's testosterone level?

Why don't you just throw out some stats proving otherwise?

Oh, and this is for you James23. In case you forgot:

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

A prime example of a Non-sequitur ;-)

 

:good

 

Not really. The UFC has held exactly 206 events to date.

The number I gave wasn't purely speculative and I also didn't claim it was, in fact, the average over time but rather a number that seemed more than fair to those arguing that this (injuries for this card) isn't just a random series of events. So I even skewed the number so it wasn't even in favor of the argument I was making. I could have said something like 1 injury per event which would probably be pretty reasonable.

Pretty sure I did. I could go into sigmas if you'd like...

(Reference: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+a+Sigma?)

But that would seem to unnecessarily complicate things when the idea is pretty simple and moreso what I was trying to get at as opposed to trying to type out a lesson in statistics and probability.

Yet... here I am.

It doesn't seem that you have understood the point of what I said. The entire basis was to show that this could be just a random stastitical event that was bound to happen.

(Also, see the part about imposing a theory on the data... (i.e., making a connection between the data and the "timing" of the event. "Why this card?!" Well, pick a card, any card and you can ask the same question had it happened then and find some detail that would make it suspicious.)

I believe I did but I'm not quite sure you know exactly what the point of statistics is (given your post).

....thanks? Uh, I enjoy random gifs, too? :huh