That's the problem. Statistical inferences drawn from the data you limited this to does not actually tell the full story, thus analyzing such data in very a one dimensional manner is barking up the wrong tree..circular reasoning.
I agree that the computational method exposed above may be incomplete, hence, defective, but not ilogical. For example, one of the thing missing in that computation is the quality of opponents faced by either Floyd and SRR. Just let me say here that this can be properly quantized as well, and in a future post, I’ll publish this methodology in its full-fledge version.
I also believe that it is incongruent to say that a one-dimensional analysis leads to circular reasoning, for the circle is a 2-dimensional object (or it is a point, defined as a dimensionless circle of zero radius).
If we chose to negate stitistical data/analysis as the starting point of our analysis, then, our methods could only be subjective at best, and likely to produce results completely disossiated with the reality we’re trying to describe. In this day an age, negating the contribution of statistical analysis to human objective knowledge, science, and technology is simply an anachronism. Machine learning, artificial intelligence, network science, etc., are based on statistical analysis; and if its contributions affect all aspect of our modern experience, we could imagine what it can bring to the sport of boxing (among others). Again, this is already outside the scope of this thread; we’ll continue ...
