cheapshot Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 I've sent JR a tweet about this hot button topic to demand answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 I've sent JR a tweet about this hot button topic to demand answers. There is nothing to ask him. He just doesn't understand probability and instead of saying what he thinks, he would rather just make up a bullshit number. He's either an idiot or is misinformed. Either way, it doesn't matter it just annoys me when people talk like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBadMick Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Â He may feel it's easier to quantify 35% rather than some chance. Â I didn't take it as he looks like a moron, just someone who uses Oklanomics. Then he doesn't understand anything about probability at all. Some chance is WAY MORE ACCURATE than making up some number that can never be known. Â Oklanomics makes someone sound as stupid as someone who uses astrology. Â Does this really mean that much to you Steven? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Â Â He may feel it's easier to quantify 35% rather than some chance. Â I didn't take it as he looks like a moron, just someone who uses Oklanomics. Then he doesn't understand anything about probability at all. Some chance is WAY MORE ACCURATE than making up some number that can never be known. Â Oklanomics makes someone sound as stupid as someone who uses astrology. Â Does this really mean that much to you Steven? Â To an extent. People making stuff up and then using mathematics/science or facts to try to sound good actually does. Not to get political, but what Jim Ross did hear is the same thing some politicians do. In that case it is used to mislead the public, in this case it is just used. It's a slipper slope of why to allow it in one context and not another? Â The world would be a much better place if people didn't make shit up and just say what they actually mean. Jim Ross does not mean there is a 35% chance Austin will wrestle at WrestleMania, what he means is there is a chance, but is not likely. Saying 35% means he did some type of calculation and I would love to see what that is. It is harmless when Jim Ross does it, but when a politician does the same thing to mislead the public for re-election it is harmful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBadMick Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Ok, I can see the broader issue that bothers you. Fair enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 There's a possibility. But there's no probability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoo Enthusiast Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 What is the probability of a Divas match headlining a Mania that also includes Brock/Austin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 0% and I'm right on the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheapshot Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoo Enthusiast Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 0% and I'm right on the money. Sounds like goclanomics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheapshot Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Jr responded: "My gut. Plus I talk to Steve regularly. Why do you ask?" https://t.co/h7vRFRWy6b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Jr responded: "My gut. Plus I talk to Steve regularly. Why do you ask?" https://t.co/h7vRFRWy6b So he is a moron and doesn't understand probability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 If Austin-Brock had even a slight chance of happening, they wouldn't have turned Brock babyface. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Nobody in the office turned Brock babyface. It was the fans who turned him. Doesn't mean they have to comply for the sake of the storyline they want to tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Well, they did sort of have Seth screw him out of the title and he was at odds with The Authority the next night. Brock-Rollins has also been plan all along for Summerslam. So the fans turned him, but they did follow up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 If Austin-Brock had even a slight chance of happening, they wouldn't have turned Brock babyface. Â Agree with this 100%, but if somehow someway Austin says he wants to work with Brock they'll figure out a way to get there. But no chance it was expected or planned for when they turned him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Well, they did sort of have Seth screw him out of the title and he was at odds with The Authority the next night. Brock-Rollins has also been plan all along for Summerslam. So the fans turned him, but they did follow up. Brock has always been a guy who never went along with the Authority. He was booked to be at odds with them last year too when he was destroying guys and demanding a world title shot before the Undertaker took his attention away from that issue. Also although the WWE knows Michael Cole isn't a guy the fans liked, booking Brock to destroy him on his way out after Mania this year wasn't supposed to be a babyface move. The reality is Brock is, in their eyes, a tweener with heelish tendencies. The only reason he gets cheers is because the fans respect him as a megastar part time attraction. So if they wanted Austin vs Brock, they don't have to do a single thing differently with him to make the program make sense. That doesn't scream "babyface" to me but that is just my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Brock is sort of the definition of tweener. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dexstar Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 If the goal (of this incredibly unlikely match) is simply to help sell out an approx. 100,000 seat stadium one time and make one single huge event, does it even matter if Brock is a babyface or heel? I think they'd just be banking on the general wow factor of Austin-Brock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted June 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Â I've sent JR a tweet about this hot button topic to demand answers. There is nothing to ask him. He just doesn't understand probability and instead of saying what he thinks, he would rather just make up a bullshit number. He's either an idiot or is misinformed. Either way, it doesn't matter it just annoys me when people talk like that. Â Â Fucking math nerds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted June 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Actually, lets say Ross talks to Austin 20 times about wrestling at Mania. Out of 20 conversations on coming out of retirement, he expresses interest 7 out of 20 times, that would be 35% and be pretty accurate from the gut. Hells yeah JR BBQ@!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strummer Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Seth's promo last night on SD was fantastic. He's come a long way on the mic even since the beginning of the year. He finally seems to have found his voice. Strange this segment wasn't saved for Raw. It was great  And the Rusev Lana stuff is gold. I know people are mad Rusev isn't a serious top guy but these two are great together in this angle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricR Posted June 6, 2015 Report Share Posted June 6, 2015 Actually, lets say Ross talks to Austin 20 times about wrestling at Mania. Out of 20 conversations on coming out of retirement, he expresses interest 7 out of 20 times, that would be 35% and be pretty accurate from the gut. Hells yeah JR BBQ@!!! Â This assumes that Brock is 100% interested though. If Brock were only 80% interested in working that match, then Austin would have to express interest to JR 9 out of 20 times. We can safely assume that WWE is 100% interested as that would be a big $$ match. But maybe Brock has reasons of his own for not wanting to work it. Maybe he won't want the pressure of potentially injuring Austin in his return. Maybe he doesn't think he could work a good match with a 50 year old. Shoot, maybe Brock is only 2/3 interested in that specific match. That means that Austin would have to express interest 11 out of 20 times to JR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted June 6, 2015 Report Share Posted June 6, 2015 Â Â I've sent JR a tweet about this hot button topic to demand answers. There is nothing to ask him. He just doesn't understand probability and instead of saying what he thinks, he would rather just make up a bullshit number. He's either an idiot or is misinformed. Either way, it doesn't matter it just annoys me when people talk like that. Â Â Fucking math nerds. Â Â I'm a math nerd too and I actually disagree with Grimmas! If JR genuinely believes, based on all the information at his disposal, that there is a 35% chance that the match will happen, there's nothing mathematically wrong with his statement. Â Statistics is a funny subject where a good proportion of academics believe that standard textbook techniques like hypothesis testing and confidence intervals are fundamentally wrong and that the standard interpretation of probability is limited, but they don't tell you that until you do a third year course in Bayesian statistics (at least when I was first studying at university). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted June 6, 2015 Report Share Posted June 6, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.