Ten Times MMA Math Was Proven Totally Wrong In The UFC

Spath said:
I know damn well what it is, sorry if I wasn’t clear enough. TS clearly doesn’t!
Click to expand...

What is incorrect about...


Better Every Day said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Cormier vs Stipe?
Who did Stipe beat that Cormier lost to?
I'm pretty sure Stipe hasn't fought Roid Jones.
 
Only thing proven here is that the maker's understanding of what "MMA Math" means is totally wrong.
 
g*r*b said:
Only thing proven here is that the maker's understanding of what "MMA Math" means is totally wrong.
Click to expand...

"Totally wrong"?

Joanna beat Carla and Karolina
Carla and Karolina beat Rose
Rose beat Joanna.

Was that not in the video?
 
Rvd Slmr said:
It's simply not MMAths. MMaths is not about odds, the whole point is to stick to official records.
Click to expand...

You missed the point. The point was not about odds. The point was about transitivity and non-transitivity.

Transitive: a>b>c
Non-transitive: a>b>c>a
 
AimedWithV said:
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
Click to expand...
You went overboard with that analogy. lol
giphy.gif
 
Better Every Day said:
"Totally wrong"?

Joanna beat Carla and Karolina
Carla and Karolina beat Rose
Rose beat Joanna.

Was that not in the video?
Click to expand...

Better Every Day said:
You missed the point. The point was not about odds. The point was about transitivity and non-transitivity.

Transitive: a>b>c
Non-transitive: a>b>c>a
Click to expand...

And how does that work with Stipe/Cormier and Diaz/Lawler? Not sure about Couture/Liddell 1 and Williams/Coleman either.
 
n.diazismylife1999 said:
Yes, totally wrong, since it includes examples like Cormier vs Stipe, and Diaz vs Lawler.
Click to expand...
In other words: partially wrong.
Partially wrong =/= totally wrong.

And that serves the purpose too. Many more Sherdoggers will read quarrels in a thread than watch a video. Thereby they learn...
 
Better Every Day said:
In other words: partially wrong.
Partially wrong =/= totally wrong.

And that serves the purpose too. Many more Sherdoggers will read quarrels in a thread than watch a video. Thereby they learn...
Click to expand...

Partially wrong? As far as I'm concerned, at least 4 out 10 examples are wrong, it's enormous. Did you even do the MMaths before making that video?

The whole starting point is flawed anyway, nobody ever did MMaths do decide that CroCop was the favorite over Randleman or that a last minute Bisping was an underdog to Rockhold.
 
Better Every Day said:
In other words: partially wrong.
Partially wrong =/= totally wrong.

And that serves the purpose too. Many more Sherdoggers will read quarrels in a thread than watch a video. Thereby they learn...
Click to expand...

I admit I betrayed the cause of accuracy for the sake of mimicking the thread title. Damn my fondness for rhetorical devices!
 
Wand tore though rampage 2x. Rampage tore through chuck 2x.

Mma math says wand should’ve killed chuck.

Chuck beats the shit out of wand.

The presentation reminded me of whatculture
 
Last edited:
Rvd Slmr said:
Partially wrong? As far as I'm concerned, at least 4 out 10 examples are wrong, it's enormous. Did you even do the MMaths before making that video?
Click to expand...

<36>
If you don't even understand the difference between "totally" and "partially", you should stop talking about math altogether until you learn the difference.
 
Better Every Day said:
<36>
If you don't even understand the difference between "totally" and "partially", you should stop talking about math altogether until you learn the difference.
Click to expand...

So, when you are 99% wrong you still act like a jackass instead because you are not "totally" wrong? Next time, spend more time getting your facts straight instead of arguing once you already spent hours editing a video that nobody liked and most people told you is wrong.
 
g*r*b said:
I admit I betrayed the cause of accuracy for the sake of mimicking the thread title. Damn my fondness for rhetorical devices!
Click to expand...
A good excuse! I'm sure I've done similarly at times for a rhetorical flare.
 
Rvd Slmr said:
So, when you are 99% wrong you still act like a jackass instead because you are not "totally" wrong?
Rvd Slmr said:
Partially wrong? As far as I'm concerned, at least 4 out 10 examples are wrong, it's enormous.
Click to expand...

LOL... 4 out of 10 is not even close to 99%. You should have heeded my warning to stop trying to discuss math. You seem to be abysmal at it.



Rvd Slmr said:
Next time, spend more time getting your facts straight instead of arguing once you already spent hours editing a video that nobody liked and most people told you is wrong.
Click to expand...

You certainly didn't bother to get your facts straight when you spoke of me spending hours editing the video. I only posted another person's video and provided a list of fights discussed in it. For you to make such an error of fact in the very same sentence in which you tell me to get my facts straight makes it far to easy for me to mock you effectively. You are your own worst enemy in an argument.
Click to expand...
 

I'm still waiting for you to detail and explain the MMAths in all those examples. It seems that at least 40% is false, making the whole video stupid and wrong for not even understanding it's own subject. I assumed you made it because I don't get why you'd defend such a stupid and obviously wrong video.

Seriously, nobody liked that shit and ten people agreed with my early points, without even counting the other sherdogers that also said it's wrong.
 
I dont understand the mma math between cormier vs miocic..from who did DC lost, and miocic win against??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,662
Messages
55,432,763
Members
174,775
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top