Statistics prove that Conor will beat Floyd Mayweather and Woodley

[The Great Macsby]

Every fight they say he's got no chance but they've been wrong every damn time. Let's break that down:

Eddie - They said Conor will get taken down by the bigger man and get pounded out: WRONG
Nate 1 - They said Conor will win easy: WRONG (they were right for all but 20 seconds of the fight)
Nate 2 - They said Conor will get choked out again: WRONG
Aldo - They said he would get his lead leg kicked off and lose: WRONG...VERY WRONG!!!
Mendes - They said the wrestler will take him down and stifle him: WRONG
Siver - They said Siver's experience would lead him to victory: WRONG
Dustin - They said Conor doesn't stand a chance: WRONG

Floyd - They said he can't be beat by a "club-level" boxer
Woodley - They say he's too big and too strong for Conor

Well I ran the correlation in SPSS and found a perfect negative correlation between what they say and what happens. But we know correlation doesn't prove causation so I ran a regression analysis and that was P < 0.01 so people are statistically significantly wrong every time. The stats don't lie

 

[Chomsky Honk]

Only a retard would have picked Siver against Conor

 

[Apollo33]

I'm actually impressed at this level of effort put into shitposting.

 

[SimonNova]

Get out.

 

[Les Vejtibals]

90% of the time statistics are wrong 75% of the time.

 

[Benoitthegr8]

 

[The Great Macsby]

I'm actually impressed at this level of effort put into FACTposting.

Thank you.

 

[The Great Macsby]

Only a retard would have picked Siver against Conor

I just looked up your posting history and not only did you pick Siver but you also picked Brimage.

 

[Chomsky Honk]

I just looked up your posting history and not only did you pick Siver but you also picked Brimage.

u caught me

 

[Lay N Pray 101]

This coming from THE GREAT MACSBY, it must be unbiased and legit.

 

[The Great Macsby]

u caught me

 

[basementdweller]

oh it's that guy who lives through mcgregor

 

[Oooxente]

I'm actually impressed at this level of effort put into shitposting.

Yep
Probably have a busy schedule...

 

[MayhemMonkey]

View attachment 231349


Every fight they say he's got no chance but they've been wrong every damn time. Let's break that down:

Eddie - They said Conor will get taken down by the bigger man and get pounded out: WRONG
Nate 1 - They said Conor will win easy: WRONG (they were right for all but 20 seconds of the fight)
Nate 2 - They said Conor will get choked out again: WRONG
Aldo - They said he would get his lead leg kicked off and lose: WRONG...VERY WRONG!!!
Mendes - They said the wrestler will take him down and stifle him: WRONG
Siver - They said Siver's experience would lead him to victory: WRONG
Dustin - They said Conor doesn't stand a chance: WRONG

Floyd - They said he can't be beat by a "club-level" boxer
Woodley - They say he's too big and too strong for Conor

Well I ran the correlation in SPSS and found a perfect negative correlation between what they say and what happens. But we know correlation doesn't prove causation so I ran a regression analysis and that was P < 0.01 so people are statistically significantly wrong every time. The stats don't lie

 

[lefthighkick01]

favourable matchups, skipped the TOP 5 killers at FW, instant TS at LW. Mendes on 1 week notice. second chance to redeem Diaz lose.

guys been helped heaps by the UFC.
not impressed

 

[NotoriousMillions]

View attachment 231349


Every fight they say he's got no chance but they've been wrong every damn time. Let's break that down:

Eddie - They said Conor will get taken down by the bigger man and get pounded out: WRONG
Nate 1 - They said Conor will win easy: WRONG (they were right for all but 20 seconds of the fight)
Nate 2 - They said Conor will get choked out again: WRONG
Aldo - They said he would get his lead leg kicked off and lose: WRONG...VERY WRONG!!!
Mendes - They said the wrestler will take him down and stifle him: WRONG
Siver - They said Siver's experience would lead him to victory: WRONG
Dustin - They said Conor doesn't stand a chance: WRONG

Floyd - They said he can't be beat by a "club-level" boxer
Woodley - They say he's too big and too strong for Conor

Well I ran the correlation in SPSS and found a perfect negative correlation between what they say and what happens. But we know correlation doesn't prove causation so I ran a regression analysis and that was P < 0.01 so people are statistically significantly wrong every time. The stats don't lie

Wonderful charts and statistical analysis. However, these dorks can't count so I'm afraid it will have been in vain.

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

Nate 1 - They said Conor will win easy: WRONG (they were right for all but 20 seconds of the fight)
Mendes - They said the wrestler will take him down and stifle him: WRONG

^They were right for all but 20 seconds of the fight

 

[The Great Macsby]

Wonderful charts and statistical analysis. However, these dorks can't count so I'm afraid it will have been in vain.

True. I thought i'd stick to basics and go with 1 of 2 choices. RIGHT or WRONG. But they've all made the wrong choices in life and failed miserably and yet think they've succeeded so the stats prove you are correct.

 

[UPAZWITTS]

"They" should get kicked right in the vag!

 

[LordMayorMuffSniff]