The Top 100 Greatest Boxers Pound per Pound of All-Time

[elmersalsa]

Would love to know how many grades he got through in school. Someone shows him his stupid math mistake, and he still goes on and says this is how he does it.

His sheer stupidity is unbelievable. He doesn't understand logic at all. He has no ability to comprehend simple points that other people make. He doesn't understand math at all. Not only that, he doesn't even try. Just babbles on with his constant nonsense.

I know more math than most people, including you. Are we going to talk about me or Mike McCallum? Don't start something that you will regret, now.

[elmersalsa]

Well, out of his 48 knockout wins, Hearns had only 8 fights that he won by knockout after the 7th round. I just divide 8 into 48 and gives me 16.7%.

Lmao, it's the number of fights dimwit not that your point means.anything.

You stupid fuuck! What is that you can't comprehend? Are you a retard or an asshole? Choose one.

[Ambling Alp II]

Are you talking to yourself?

You can't understand a simple math problem even after two people have shown you how. Then you just say you are going to figure it the way you want to. That isn't how math works.

[oogiebe]

Elmer: What % of fights over 7 rounds did he get a KO?

[elmersalsa]

Are you talking to yourself?

You can't understand a simple math problem even after two people have shown you how. Then you just say you are going to figure it the way you want to. That isn't how math works.

Like I said. We could talk about me or Mike McCallum. Don't come in here trying to act what you really want to say to me and when I respond in a way you don't want to, then you want to play the victim.

The math is 48 KNOCKOUT WINS. Hearns had only 8 of them after the 7th round. What's the percentage of the knockout wins? If we divide by the other fights that the opponents last the distance or he lost (Leonard LTKO14), then his KO pct after 7 rounds would be lower. Ain't it?

Don't play dumb on me if you believe that you are smarter than me. I don't think you are. No matter what you believe.

[oogiebe]

Are you talking to yourself?

You can't understand a simple math problem even after two people have shown you how. Then you just say you are going to figure it the way you want to. That isn't how math works.

Like I said. We could talk about me or Mike McCallum. Don't come in here trying to act what you really want to say to me and when I respond in a way you don't want to, then you want to play the victim.

The math is 48 KNOCKOUT WINS. Hearns had only 8 of them after the 7th round. What's the percentage of the knockout wins? If we divide by the other fights that the opponents last the distance or he lost (Leonard LTKO14), then his KO pct after 7 rounds would be lower. Ain't it?

Don't play dumb on me if you believe that you are smarter than me. I don't think you are. No matter what you believe.

Dude...that's not how it works.

[Ambling Alp II]

I will try again to explain it to him. Let's see if he is smart enough to to really try to understand it.

First, you don't use the 48 KOs. What you need to do is count the % of KO's that he had that were after 7 rounds. That is not the same thing as what you have been doing . Get that 48 out of your head.

Here is what you should do:
Count how many fights he had that went past 7 rounds. (He had 9 not 8 kos after 7 rounds. Count them again if you don't believe me)
Add those 9 ko wins to that to 13 decision wins after 7 rounds, 4 decision losses, and one draw, and you get 27. That is the number that you work with; 27 not 48.
He had 27 fights that went past 7 rounds. That is what counts.

Then take the 9 ko's divided by 27 and you get 33%.

[elmersalsa]

I will try again to explain it to him. Let's see if he is smart enough to to really try to understand it.

First, you don't use the 48 KOs. What you need to do is count the % of KO's that he had that were after 7 rounds. That is not the same thing as what you have been doing . Get that 48 out of your head.

Here is what you should do:
Count how many fights he had that went past 7 rounds. (He had 9 not 8 kos after 7 rounds. Count them again if you don't believe me)
Add those 9 ko wins to that to 13 decision wins after 7 rounds, 4 decision losses, and one draw, and you get 27. That is the number that you work with; 27 not 48.
He had 27 fights that went past 7 rounds. That is what counts.

Then take the 9 ko's divided by 27 and you get 33%.

Well, that's your criteria. Not mine. I am talking about KO wins. Out of his 48 wins by knockout, he only had 9 after round 7.

I divided 9 into 48. I don't count the losses, decision wins , draws nor any fights that went over 7 rounds. I just count the knockout wins.

[oogiebe]

I will try again to explain it to him. Let's see if he is smart enough to to really try to understand it.

First, you don't use the 48 KOs. What you need to do is count the % of KO's that he had that were after 7 rounds. That is not the same thing as what you have been doing . Get that 48 out of your head.

Here is what you should do:
Count how many fights he had that went past 7 rounds. (He had 9 not 8 kos after 7 rounds. Count them again if you don't believe me)
Add those 9 ko wins to that to 13 decision wins after 7 rounds, 4 decision losses, and one draw, and you get 27. That is the number that you work with; 27 not 48.
He had 27 fights that went past 7 rounds. That is what counts.

Then take the 9 ko's divided by 27 and you get 33%.

Well, that's your criteria. Not mine. I am talking about KO wins. Out of his 48 wins by knockout, he only had 9 after round 7.

I divided 9 into 48. I don't count the losses, decision wins , draws nor any fights that went over 7 rounds. I just count the knockout wins.

wow. just wow.

[elmersalsa]

Well, that's your criteria. Not mine. I am talking about KO wins. Out of his 48 wins by knockout, he only had 9 after round 7.

I divided 9 into 48. I don't count the losses, decision wins , draws nor any fights that went over 7 rounds. I just count the knockout wins.

wow. just wow.

And what would be your criteria?

[oogiebe]

wow. just wow.

And what would be your criteria?

I've already posted it more than twice. You won't understand it anyway.

[Onetimeonly]

Lmao, it's the number of fights dimwit not that your point means.anything.

You stupid fuuck! What is that you can't comprehend? Are you a retard or an asshole? Choose one.

Just a guy that knows how to compute ko% talking to one who does not.

[Ambling Alp II]

Oogiebie, Onetime, this is unbelievable isn't it? Even for elmer.
He calls it "criteria" as if it's an opinion. He doesn't get that it just the correct way to do it. Does he even read what we have explained to him?

We see this with him regarding discussions all the time. Someone makes a point that undermines his narrative, and he just ignores it and says the same dumba$$ thing over and over.

This math thing takes it to another level. He acts like you can just pick numbers and use them however you want to and call it "criteria". Wow is right.

[oogiebe]

Oogiebie, Onetime, this is unbelievable isn't it? Even for elmer.
He calls it "criteria" as if it's an opinion. He doesn't get that it just the correct way to do it. Does he even read what we have explained to him?

We see this with him regarding discussions all the time. Someone makes a point that undermines his narrative, and he just ignores it and says the same dumba$$ thing over and over.

This math thing takes it to another level. He acts like you can just pick numbers and use them however you want to and call it "criteria". Wow is right.

He must be a kid.

[Onetimeonly]

Hey alp, just because 2 +2 = 4 is your criteria that doesn't make it right.

[elmersalsa]

You stupid fuuck! What is that you can't comprehend? Are you a retard or an asshole? Choose one.

Just a guy that knows how to compute ko% talking to one who does not.

You don't even know what you talk about sometimes, so what you are saying?

[elmersalsa]

Oogiebie, Onetime, this is unbelievable isn't it? Even for elmer.
He calls it "criteria" as if it's an opinion. He doesn't get that it just the correct way to do it. Does he even read what we have explained to him?

We see this with him regarding discussions all the time. Someone makes a point that undermines his narrative, and he just ignores it and says the same dumba$$ thing over and over.

This math thing takes it to another level. He acts like you can just pick numbers and use them however you want to and call it "criteria". Wow is right.

He must be a kid.

One thing that I am going to tell you and I hope that you get my advice, seriously. Don't follow Onetimeonly and Ambling Alp. Be your own man, bro.

If you think by following two clowns, (that's what they are to me), is cool, then I don't know what else to tell you. You want to jump up 3 on 1, go ahead. Just remember that you're following two wicked fools according to their folly.

[oogiebe]

He must be a kid.

One thing that I am going to tell you and I hope that you get my advice, seriously. Don't follow Onetimeonly and Ambling Alp. Be your own man, bro.

If you think by following two clowns, (that's what they are to me), is cool, then I don't know what else to tell you. You want to jump up 3 on 1, go ahead. Just remember that you're following two wicked fools according to their folly.

I'm my own man, and I can tell you with 100% certainty. You're math is off. I just can't fathom how you don't see it.

[Onetimeonly]

One thing that I am going to tell you and I hope that you get my advice, seriously. Don't follow Onetimeonly and Ambling Alp. Be your own man, bro.

If you think by following two clowns, (that's what they are to me), is cool, then I don't know what else to tell you. You want to jump up 3 on 1, go ahead. Just remember that you're following two wicked fools according to their folly.

I'm my own man, and I can tell you with 100% certainty. You're math is off. I just can't fathom how you don't see it.

He's very stubborn and very stupid. A lethal combo. Math mistakes are one thing, using a completely wrong formula is willful ignorance. Then again, he could realize he's wrong and just be desperate for attention and looks for his masterpiece Bible length thread.

[elmersalsa]

I'm my own man, and I can tell you with 100% certainty. You're math is off. I just can't fathom how you don't see it.

He's very stubborn and very stupid. A lethal combo. Math mistakes are one thing, using a completely wrong formula is willful ignorance. Then again, he could realize he's wrong and just be desperate for attention and looks for his masterpiece Bible length thread.

You're the most stubborn and most hateful poster in here. You don't bring nothing to the forum but insults. Like if writing behind the keyboard makes you smart. So, you're saying that that's the only criteria? Your way? Please, get the fornicate out of here!

Just because someone doesn't agree with you, you come always with all these wicked negativity. Yo, man! Grow up, bro. Grow up. Everybody got their different points of view. What makes yours better?

You are not smarter than me. I know what I am talking about. Those are my opinions. Or you want to have a post between you and me. Why we don't call it "the insult post"?

Since I have ever remember being here, you have been THE ASSHOLE. The other goody-goody, Ambling Alp wants to portray as the decent church choir boy by wanting to jump the next man, just because he thinks that his opinion is superior, which isn't. Nobody in here got the absolute truth.

Now you and the CHOIR CHURCH BOY want to tag team against me? Are you fornicating him? Are you his bitch? Or is he your bitch? Which one of the two? I don't care.

Simple math that you fuckwiths can't understand.

[elmersalsa]

One thing that I am going to tell you and I hope that you get my advice, seriously. Don't follow Onetimeonly and Ambling Alp. Be your own man, bro.

If you think by following two clowns, (that's what they are to me), is cool, then I don't know what else to tell you. You want to jump up 3 on 1, go ahead. Just remember that you're following two wicked fools according to their folly.

I'm my own man, and I can tell you with 100% certainty. You're math is off. I just can't fathom how you don't see it.

No, it's not off. It's simple and clear as water. It is just a difference of opinion. And again, you want to play tag team with the RETARDED ASSHOLE and THE CHURCH CHOIR BOY against me, go ahead. It doesn't seem like being your own man to me.

[Onetimeonly]

He's very stubborn and very stupid. A lethal combo. Math mistakes are one thing, using a completely wrong formula is willful ignorance. Then again, he could realize he's wrong and just be desperate for attention and looks for his masterpiece Bible length thread.

You're the most stubborn and most hateful poster in here. You don't bring nothing to the forum but insults. Like if writing behind the keyboard makes you smart. So, you're saying that that's the only criteria? Your way? Please, get the fornicate out of here!

Just because someone doesn't agree with you, you come always with all these wicked negativity. Yo, man! Grow up, bro. Grow up. Everybody got their different points of view. What makes yours better?

You are not smarter than me. I know what I am talking about. Those are my opinions. Or you want to have a post between you and me. Why we don't call it "the insult post"?

Since I have ever remember being here, you have been THE ASSHOLE. The other goody-goody, Ambling Alp wants to portray as the decent church choir boy by wanting to jump the next man, just because he thinks that his opinion is superior, which isn't. Nobody in here got the absolute truth.

Now you and the CHOIR CHURCH BOY want to tag team against me? Are you fornicating him? Are you his bitch? Or is he your bitch? Which one of the two? I don't care.

Simple math that you fuckwiths can't understand.

[Ambling Alp II]

Oogiebie, Onetime, this is unbelievable isn't it? Even for elmer.
He calls it "criteria" as if it's an opinion. He doesn't get that it just the correct way to do it. Does he even read what we have explained to him?

We see this with him regarding discussions all the time. Someone makes a point that undermines his narrative, and he just ignores it and says the same dumba$$ thing over and over.

This math thing takes it to another level. He acts like you can just pick numbers and use them however you want to and call it "criteria". Wow is right.

He must be a kid.

He isn't a kid. He about One time and my age; early 50s. He is unbelievable.

[Ambling Alp II]

To figure out the % of ko wins in fights that went over 7 rounds, you must use the number of ko wins( in this case 9 even though you keep saying 8) and the amount of fights over 7 rounds. (In this case 27). It comes to 33%, rounding off.


elmer you are using 48, which is the number of Hearn's KOs. That is incorrect. What you are figuring out is what % of Hearns knockouts came came after 7 rounds. That is not the same thing.

In fights that went over 7 rounds, Hearns scored a ko 9 of 27 times. Whcih means he scored a KO about 33% of the time in fights that went over 7 rounds. That is a fact.

This isn't criteria. This isn't an opinion. This is a fact. If you would actually think about this for a few minutes, you might actually realize this. Don't be so stubborn. Man up and admit your mistake.

[elmersalsa]

To figure out the % of ko wins in fights that went over 7 rounds, you must use the number of ko wins( in this case 9 even though you keep saying 8) and the amount of fights over 7 rounds. (In this case 27). It comes to 33%, rounding off.


elmer you are using 48, which is the number of Hearn's KOs. That is incorrect. What you are figuring out is what % of Hearns knockouts came came after 7 rounds. That is not the same thing.

In fights that went over 7 rounds, Hearns scored a ko 9 of 27 times. Whcih means he scored a KO about 33% of the time in fights that went over 7 rounds. That is a fact.

This isn't criteria. This isn't an opinion. This is a fact. If you would actually think about this for a few minutes, you might actually realize this. Don't be so stubborn. Man up and admit your mistake.

No, I didn't do anything wrong nor a mistake. It's a matter of opinion. What makes your criteria THE CORRECT ONE and mine not? And what makes my criteria the correct one and yours don't.? It's different strokes for different folks. That's what you and I are not getting it.