Not to take away from Kevin Lee win but out of last 12 fighters who missed

gspfedkobe24 said:
fighters who miss weight seem to have an advantage of some sort. Out of the last 12 UFC fighters who came in overweight, eleven went on to win their respective bouts now.
Click to expand...
Sweet sample size. Shit post.

Expand it to a larger sample size and it quickly becomes 50-50.

F1nBxnN.png


http://www.betmma.tips/ufc_fighters_who_missed_weight.php
 
LockardTheGOAT said:
Your numbers mean nothing. Correlation doesn't imply causation. Could just be that those eleven fighters were better fighters regardless of the weight issue. Eleven is a pretty small number overall anyway.
Click to expand...
correlation absolutely implies causation. Correlation doesn't prove causation, but it definitely implies it. 99.99% of the time correlation is because the effect caused the outcome.
 
kingskot said:
No, the numbers do mean something. They show that it's an unlikely random outcome. Having every fighter who didn't make weight be "the better fighter" amounts to the same calculation, and is also statistically unlikely.
Click to expand...

Eleven is a small number nowhere near big or gargantuan enough to suggest that it's extremely unlikely. And again, correlation does not prove causation. Try using some basic logic instead of these shallow and simplistic arguments and assumptions.
 
Oj21 said:
Lol obviously it does. Why is it 11-1 then dude?
Click to expand...

Because for what feels like the hundredth time by now, those eleven fighters could have simply been the better fighters regardless of them missing weight or not. Jesus, this stuff isn't rocket science.
 
LockardTheGOAT said:
That is such an impossible thing to quantify, and thus, irrelevant.
Click to expand...

You might just have difficulty recognizing a pattern or trend.

And you're highly emotional about something so innocuous.
 
LockardTheGOAT said:
lol Lord, you're dumb.
Click to expand...
you think if there is correlation between two things it's not almost always because one is causing the other? You're literally the dumbest person in the history of the world if you don't know that.

Everyone who drinks poison dies etc.

Correlation doesn't PROVE causality. Correlation absolutely implies causality, if correlation between two events occurs one most likely caused the other; but it can very rarely be unrelated.
 
Jarvan said:
You might just have difficulty recognizing a pattern or trend.

And you're highly emotional about something so innocuous.
Click to expand...

The "pattern" here is weak as shit.

Someone has to win and someone has to lose; Just because the fighters who miss weight are usually the ones who win (out of the whole twelve examples that people have given) doesn't automatically mean it was because of the missed weight. It's an extremely weak correlation.
 
campbecc said:
you think if there is correlation between two things it's not almost always because one is causing the other? You're literally the dumbest person in the history of the world if you don't know that.

Everyone who drinks poison dies etc.

Correlation doesn't PROVE causality. Correlation absolutely implies causality, if correlation between two events occurs one most likely caused the other; but it can very rarely be unrelated.
Click to expand...

Depends on the specific correlation, and how strong and frequent it is. But in general, just because two or more things happen at or around the same time doesn't mean one is caused by the other. Common f'n sense, my boy. Shame you have the IQ of a child and can't see this.

lol @ your poison example as well. We have 100% proof that poison is extremely fatal for you, so that one speaks for itself.
 
LockardTheGOAT said:
Depends on the specific correlation, and how strong and frequent it is. But in general, just because two or more things happen at or around the same time doesn't mean one is caused by the other. Common f'n sense, my boy. Shame you have the IQ of a child and can't see this.

lol @ your poison example as well. We have 100% proof that poison is extremely fatal for you, so that one speaks for itself.
Click to expand...
Correlation is almost always because one caused the other to happen.
 
LockardTheGOAT said:
Eleven is a small number nowhere near big or gargantuan enough to suggest that it's extremely unlikely. And again, correlation does not prove causation. Try using some basic logic instead of these shallow and simplistic arguments and assumptions.
Click to expand...
Again, the probability of this happeing randomly is about 0.5%. The fact that you say 11 isn't "big or gargantuan enough" shows that you don't understand math (and that you really aren't that good at English either).

Do you have an alternative hypothesis to explain this *provably unlikely* statistical outcome? Or can you only hurl insults, the favorite refuge of those who don't understand things?
 
LockardTheGOAT said:
Because for what feels like the hundredth time by now, those eleven fighters could have simply been the better fighters regardless of them missing weight or not. Jesus, this stuff isn't rocket science.
Click to expand...
The chance of the better fighter happeing to be the one who misses weight 11/12 times is also unlikely, about 0.5% (the calculation is the same).
 
Franc Mittelo said:
What did both fighters weigh before stepping into the cage?
Click to expand...

This is the question I have wanted to know for years.

HBO Boxing lists "fight night weight" for their boxers on the screen during introductions.

I have no idea why the UFC (or Bellator) doesn't do the same.
 
LockardTheGOAT said:
You are completely fucking ignorant. Go educate yourself, peasant.
Click to expand...
No one is more educated than me. You have no idea what you are talking about. Almost every time if something happens with the same circumstances it's repeatable.

Einstein said the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result.
 
kingskot said:
Again, the probability of this happeing randomly is about 0.5%. The fact that you say 11 isn't "big or gargantuan enough" shows that you don't understand math (and that you really aren't that good at English either).

Do you have an alternative hypothesis to explain this *provably unlikely* statistical outcome? Or can you only hurl insults, the favorite refuge of those who don't understand things?
Click to expand...

Yeah... Two guys fight, one comes out the better man, and it just so happens by chance that it's usually the guy that missed weight. Out of a sample size as small as twelve.

Literally no intelligent person finds anything fantastical about that. And there is so much more evidence you'd have to account for to say that it's "provably unlikely" - Who the specific fighters are and how they match up, what the betting odds were, etc. Also show some expertise into the human body and how each fighter's specific weight cut affects their performance, and how what they eat and drink the next day during the rehydration process affects it, too. Just way too many variables to possibly account for, and you honestly think just looking at a small sample size is enough evidence to go on.
 
Fluffernutter said:
This is the question I have wanted to know for years.

HBO Boxing lists "fight night weight" for their boxers on the screen during introductions.

I have no idea why the UFC (or Bellator) doesn't do the same.
Click to expand...

I'd like to know this as well. But perhaps they don't want everyone knowing how much fighters cut? It's the most dangerous thing about fighting imo, more dangerous than ground and pound elbows probably.
 
kingskot said:
The chance of the better fighter happeing to be the one who misses weight 11/12 times is also unlikely, about 0.5% (the calculation is the same).
Click to expand...

Not unlikely at all, you have twelve examples for which there are only two possible outcomes for each (or three, if you account for a draw, although those rarely happen.) It doesn't matter what your little odds say, a sample size that small doesn't lend itself to any kind of huge improbability, no matter what the outcomes are (every fighter who missed weight wins, every fighter who missed w eight loses, or literally any other kind of variation.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,040
Messages
55,463,393
Members
174,786
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top