I should clarify, the 94-6% Tyson to Waldo pick rate isn't 'wrong' because it favours one side or another, or because it contradicts my own expectations; its 'wrong' (or perhaps I should say it presents a skewed outcome) because of its excessive favoritism of Tyson. I know the mechanics of how / why that occurs (individual picks collected into a poll) but usually an informed crowd gets it right. Ask ten thousand people how many jellybeans are in a jar and the averaged answer across that group will usually be nail on correct. So when I read that peak Tyson crushes peak Wlad with about 94% to 6% certainty, yet read riders, caveats and qualifications to these picks over the past 20 pages (eg. 'Tyson by quick kayo if Wlad's not allowed to hold') then it seems that many of these picks aren't as certain as the 94-6% rate suggests. My own view is qualified (Tyson has a 'live' punchers chance early) but I'm on the b-side of the poll result. So, my issue is there is an unsettling tension between many posters comments and the poll result...and I've seen it before here. Its a pet peeve I guess. I completely understand that, and as someone who watched boxing through both the 80's and 00/10's, and can tell you I was much more interested in watching Tyson than Wlad. But Tyson's limitations cannot be denied, and my belief is that play directly into such strengths that Wlad possess. Its a shame, but most sports (soccer, afl, cricket) found that playing / competing with flair, instinctive-ness and creativity was an unreliable fuel, and that 'playing the percentages' was a much safer way to obtain the 'W'. Hence, across many sports the rise defensive tactics and strategies, often requiring rule changes to 'free up' the sport for fans / audiences benefit. Its a common tendency. Wlad was taught this principal and, boringly, fought this way. Its just more successful more often. Boxing isn't immune to development. That however, is an argument that goes to the merits of people's choice (Tyson-Wlad) and my is no more valid than another and not what motivated my post. In sum, I think the poll is a blunt instrument and fails to reflect the amount of riders and qualifications people have with this hypothetical.