Ten Times MMA Math Was Proven Totally Wrong In The UFC

Better Every Day

Zhang finishing Andrade avatar
Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2013
Messages
23,801
Reaction score
10,345
Seems like I've been lecturing Sherdoggers a lot about the perils of "MMA Math" lately. Hopefully, those Sherdoggers that need to watch a video like this one will educate themselves by doing so.



10. Chan Sung Jun "Korean Zombie" vs Mark Hominick
9. Michael Bisping vs Luke Rockhold 2
8. Tito Ortiz vs Ryan Bader
7. Pete Williams vs Mark Coleman
6. Nick Diaz vs Robbie Lawler
5. Daniel Cormier vs Stipe Miocic
4. Randy Couture vs Chuck Liddell 1
3. Cain Velasquez vs Fabricio Werdum
2. Rose Namajunas vs Joanna Jedrzejczyk 1
1. Kevin Randleman vs Mirko "Cro Cop" Filipovic 1

Was a favorite example of yours left out of the video?

Would you have ranked these ten differently (assuming the numbering used was also a ranking)?

Do you disagree with any?
 
People should realize that "MMA math does not always work" =/= "MMA math never works".

Odds favorite win more often then underdogs in MMA like in all sports. This doesn't mean it happens all the time.
 
Most have nothing to do with pure MMaths (Ortiz/Bader, Bisping/Rockhold, really? You needed MMaths to believe Bader and Rockhold were the favorite?) and it forgets the most important anti MMaths case : Hughes finished Trigg twice, who finished Hallman twice, who finished Hughes twice.

Edit: the video doesn't even always name the MMAths reasoning, WTF? Do they even know what it means?

Edit 2 : there wasn't even a MMaths link possible between Diaz and Lawler, as neither had beat anyone that beat the other. WTF is this shit?

Edit 3 : It doesn't work for Diaz and Lawler, Williams and Coleman, Couture Liddell 1, Cain Werdum (as Cain > JDS isn't true since they were 2-1), Bader Tito doesn't work either because Tito hadn't lost to lil Nog yet...
 
Last edited:
Didn’t watch video but I guess you are referring to big dogs winning?

Where is Holm Vs Rousy?
 
People should realize that "MMA math does not always work" =/= "MMA math never works".

It doesn't work as a rule.
It's like making a statistics of white fighters SOMETIMES have wins over black ones and give it a name "MMAWhite Supremacy". It's pointless
 
Seeing how two fighters did against a common opponent can be used as valuable data in comparison to ignoring it.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't work as a rule.
It's like making a statistics of white fighters SOMETIMES have wins over black ones and give it a name "MMAWhite Supremacy". It's pointless

It's pointless only if applied blindly. If it is used to support a reasoned argument, it can make sense.
 
Didn’t watch video but I guess you are referring to big dogs winning?

Where is Holm Vs Rousy?

(edit: I address the faulty MMA Math of Ronda vs. Holly vs Miesha, as brought up in the video, later in the thread)

Holm vs. Rousey was mentioned in the video, but it wasn't surprising how Holm won... even Ronda predicted the method (head kick). The video author wants more than to make a video about upsets (underdogs winning), he wants the method of victory to be unexpected as well.
 
Last edited:
It's pointless only if applied blindly. If it is used to support a reasoned argument, it can make sense.

You cannot use it to support a reasoned argument, because it happens only SOMETIMES.

It's like support "MMABlack Supremacy" in an argument about Woodley-Colby fight: You give examples of Jones beating Bader, Rampage beating Maldonado, Mighty Mouse beating Cejudo, Bobby Lashley beating James Thompson.
How does it sound? Makes sense?
 
Most have nothing to do with pure MMaths (Ortiz/Bader, Bisping/Rockhold, really? You needed MMaths to believe Bader and Rockhold were the favorite?) and it forgets the most important anti MMaths case : Hughes finished Trigg twice, who finished Hallman twice, who finished Hughes twice.

Edit: the video doesn't even always name the MMAths reasoning, WTF? Do they even know what it means?

Edit 2 : there wasn't even a MMaths link possible between Diaz and Lawler, as neither had beat anyone that beat the other. WTF is this shit?
Didn’t know what MMAth means and thought it was when the underdog wins.

<LikeReally5>
 
Most have nothing to do with pure MMaths (Ortiz/Bader, Bisping/Rockhold, really? You needed MMaths to believe Bader and Rockhold were the favorite?) and it forgets the most important anti MMaths case : Hughes finished Trigg twice, who finished Hallman twice, who finished Hughes twice.

Edit: the video doesn't even always name the MMAths reasoning, WTF? Do they even know what it means?

Edit 2 : there wasn't even a MMaths link possible between Diaz and Lawler, as neither had beat anyone that beat the other. WTF is this shit?

This. It appears that most people don’t even know what MMAth is.
 
Conor vs Nate
Saki vs Round 3

Your examples are not MMAths, since neither Conor, Nate, Saki and Roundthree had previous opponents in common to make such a chain.

MMaths is : fighter A beat fighter B and fighter C beat fighter A, so fighter C must beat fighter B. Usually it's written C>A>B

For instance, MMaths that makes sense : Conor beat Mendes and Mendes by Cody MacKenzie, so you can expect Conor to beat Mackenzie. Conor > Mendes > Mackenzie

MMaths that is correct but is most likely completely wrong : Ryo Chonan > Anderson > Hendo > Fedor

Takase > Anderson > Côté > Almeida > Minowa > Sokoudjou > Hamill > Jones
 
Last edited:
More informative than the term "MMA Math" might be some term that uses the word "non-transitive", but I expect that any such term would not become popular.

I first heard the term when I learned about non-transitive dice. These are dice, numbered differently from regular dice, with which no matter which die you chose, I can choose one that can be the odds favorite against yours (as long as you choose first) because die A is odds favorite over die B, die B is odds favorite over die C, and die C is odds favorite over die A. There are actually a number of ways of numbering by which non-transitive dice can be made.
 
MMaths is : fighter A beat fighter B and fighter C beat fighter A, so fighter C must beat fighter B. Usually it's written C>A>B

For instance, MMaths that makes sense : Conor beat Mendes and Mendes by Cody MacKenzie, so you can expect Conor to beat Mackenzie. Conor > Mendes > Mackenzie

MMaths that is correct but is most likely completely wrong : Ryo Chonan > Anderson > Hendo > Fedor
I know damn well what it is, sorry if I wasn’t clear enough. TS clearly doesn’t!
 
what-year-is-it-robin-williams.jpg
 
Back
Top