EWR 2012 Stats Update: August ***PLEASE USE SPOILER TAGS***

[KrisClassic]

It's not a year's worth of work. So many wrestlers would have higher stats if they only had to worry about one match a year.

It IS a year's worth of work for him. He only wrestles one match a year now, so that one match is everything from him 2012. That stats say nothing about frequency of working (that is what the non-wrestler slot is for), it is just about the stats for when they do work.

Edited September 3, 2012 by KrisClassic

[arwrestling]

Change mine to a 100 so the average comes out closer to correct, because it's obvious the guys saying 61 are trying to bring down the average.

That's the problem with doing those. Some people are going to abuse the mean and state something 10 or 20 points lower than what they actually feel it should be so the average will come out closer to what they want.

The fact is, Undertaker is still a great brawler. By EWR terms, he should still at least be an 81.

But the same can be said about those voting higher, they're just trying to bring the average up... Point invalid, sorry guy.

And I do not think he should be in the 60s at all... Not 80s either though. Honnestly, 74-77 would be more than enough for Taker at this stage in his career.

[Mancuerda]

Change mine to a 100 so the average comes out closer to correct, because it's obvious the guys saying 61 are trying to bring down the average.

That's the problem with doing those. Some people are going to abuse the mean and state something 10 or 20 points lower than what they actually feel it should be so the average will come out closer to what they want.

The fact is, Undertaker is still a great brawler. By EWR terms, he should still at least be an 81.

But the same can be said about those voting higher, they're just trying to bring the average up... Point invalid, sorry guy.

And I do not think he should be in the 60s at all... Not 80s either though. Honnestly, 74-77 would be more than enough for Taker at this stage in his career.

As someone else pointed out, though, there's a lot more variance from 0 than there is from 100. Someone could be a jerk and say he deserves 30 just to throw the average off.

But anyway, I digress. I'm not really interested in arguing about it anymore. There's more important shit to worry about than one guy's rating.

[Owen]

We just had the Taker argument within the last few months. It makes no sense to work out something, then start banging at it to be changed again.

It does when what the outcome was didn't represent the overall opinion. More people argued for a brawl in the 80s than one in the 70s or lower.

It was exactly even last I recall. It was pretty much split down the middle, and a couple of people were calling for his numbers in the 60s so Bill compromised.

The majority of people called for it in the mid 80s. One person called for it in the sixties. A better compromise would be 81 IMO.

Here's what was in the July thread:

I said low 70s.

You have 86.

Mister Potato Head said 61

Lineker agreed with MPH.

jupiterhill said 78-81

Owned by Quickquid said 61 was a decent compromise

Conker had him at 86

Mancuerda has him mid upper 80s

720 didn't state specifically, but indicated that 86 was way too high. I know he's not here anymore, but he had a very informed opinion, and I think including as many good eyes as possible is a good idea.

I'm not going through the posts again for selling, but it was mostly the same.

So you have a 70s, 61, 61, 61, 86, 86, 86, and 80 not including Red. That averages to about the low 70's, and doesn't include a 61 as a compromise. And that's 5 for lower and 4 for higher, drop Red it's even. I'm not sure if it's just the way you recall things or do it on purpose pulling a Fox News since it's popped up in other arguments, but the data's there, and you're flat wrong on this one. Feel free to double check my work.

forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't Owned by Quickquid and mr. potato head, t'was just a name change? and that's only two 61s?