Ten Times MMA Math Was Proven Totally Wrong In The UFC

[Blayt7hh]

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...

Lmao. Ts is a noob

 

[kuka45]

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

MMA math and Heavyweight division , when I look at other examples

 

[Wes-Sic]

Kinda always..

 

[IamStryker]

Where is Tate vs. Holm??

 

[youllneverwalkalone]

This is not a "common denominator". The relation of fights' outcomes in MMAth is false. Just like a relation by religion.

And also, you lack an understanding of a common logic.
You can use a rule only if it ALWAYS works, and proven as working. You cannot use a rule if it works SOMETIMES, in any case. Because ANYTHING can work SOMETIMES.

I think it is you who lack an understanding of logic. Nobody is talking about a definite rule here. Whenever you want to predict something, you are always going to have a margin of error. The point is whether your prediction is improved by taking into consideration a certain predictor.

If you seriously think looking at how two fighters did against a common opponent is as informative as their race (as per your previous analogy) then you are a moron.

 

[Better Every Day]

Where is Tate vs. Holm??

It is discussed in the video, but it isn't part of the numbering chosen for listing ten examples.

 

[AimedWithV]

I think it is you who lack an understanding of logic. Nobody is talking about a definite rule here. Whenever you want to predict something, you are always going to have a margin of error. The point is whether your prediction is improved by taking into consideration a certain predictor.

That's ridiculous and absolutely NOT the way the margin of error is applied.
It's like saying : I'm not wrong, I'm right with a margin of error.

You're not making a statistical research regarding the certain population of fighters, so do not use statistical terminology for granted - especially the terminology you're clueless about.

If you seriously think looking at how two fighters did against a common opponent is as informative as their race (as per your previous analogy) then you are a moron.

You'e not "looking at how two fighters did against a common opponent".
This is not what MMAth is about.
MMAth looks at the OUTCOME of their fight. That's it. A record. That does not indicate anything. The analysis of the records in MMA is NEVER the right analysis.
Because records in MMA mean absolutely NOTHING in the first place.

 

[GrantB13]

I watched this video a couple days ago. This is not what MMAth is. They even made an allusion to "this video could easily be an underdog vs favorite" type of video so I thought it would be good. Instead, the completely went in the direction they were saying they weren't going. I didn't watch all of it because there was no mentioned lineage of wins between the fighters they were showcasing. I know this sounds like I'm super critiquing them like I'm an expert, but that's not how I'm trying to be. Point being, this video about MMAth had no MMAth

 

[Emjay]

Try all the time

 

[Better Every Day]

I didn't watch all of it because there was no mentioned lineage of wins between the fighters they were showcasing. I know this sounds like I'm super critiquing them like I'm an expert, but that's not how I'm trying to be. Point being, this video about MMAth had no MMAth

It is always a bad idea to say that there is no X in a video if you haven't watched all of it.

The common opponents aspect was neglected far too often in the video, and so I regret posting the video for it being hugely flawed in that way, but the common opponents angle wasn't entirely neglected in the video: Rose Namajunas and Joanna Jedrzejczyk were pointed out in the video to have had fought some common opponents: Joanna beat Carla Esparza and Joanna beat Karolina Kowalkiewicz, whereas Rose had lost to both of those two fighters. By that MMA Math comparison Rose should have been expected to lose to Joanna. But it worked out very differently.

MMA Math was also discussed correctly in the video with respect to Rousey-Holm-Tate, for example, although that wasn't on the numbered list.

 

[GrantB13]

It is always a bad idea to say that there is no X in a video if you haven't watched all of it.

The common opponents aspect was neglected far too often in the video, and so I regret posting the video for it being hugely flawed in that way, but the common opponents angle wasn't entirely neglected in the video: Rose Namajunas and Joanna Jedrzejczyk were pointed out in the video to have had fought some common opponents: Joanna beat Carla Esparza and Joanna beat Karolina Kowalkiewicz, whereas Rose had lost to both of those two fighters. By that MMA Math comparison Rose should have been expected to lose to Joanna. But it worked out very differently.

MMA Math was also discussed correctly in the video with respect to Rousey-Holm-Tate, for example, although that wasn't on the numbered list.

I didn't watch the Rose/JJ part, but for there to be almost no actual common opponent comparisons beforehand is what led me to stop watching it since it was supposed to be the whole idea behind the video in the first place.

 

[youllneverwalkalone]

That's ridiculous and absolutely NOT the way the margin of error is applied.
It's like saying : I'm not wrong, I'm right with a margin of error.

You're not making a statistical research regarding the certain population of fighters, so do not use statistical terminology for granted - especially the terminology you're clueless about.

Dude, you know literally nothing about me or my education, keep the snarky BS to yourself.

I wasn't talking about a statistical model in strict sense. My point was that it is generally better to base one's prediction on some past events rather than on nothing. You think it's better to flip a coin? Suit yourself.

You'e not "looking at how two fighters did against a common opponent".
This is not what MMAth is about.
MMAth looks at the OUTCOME of their fight. That's it. A record. That does not indicate anything. The analysis of the records in MMA is NEVER the right analysis.
Because records in MMA mean absolutely NOTHING in the first place.

I am considering the definition of MMAath used in the video by the TS. I am not suggesting that uncritically looking at records is a good idea (though it would still be better than "NOTHING").

 

[AimedWithV]

I am considering the definition of MMAath used in the video by the TS. I am not suggesting that uncritically looking at records is a good idea (though it would still be better than "NOTHING").

There was no coferent and well-defined explanation of MMAth in this video.

I wasn't talking about a statistical model in strict sense. My point was that it is generally better to base one's prediction on some past events rather than on nothing. You think it's better to flip a coin? Suit yourself.

Actually flipping a coin gets better results than hanging on a false theory. Coin flipping will actually provide better chance of correct results.
However, I'm sure that you apply to both coin flipping and MMAth - since none of these "methods" requires any brain activiy for a predictor.

Dude, you know literally nothing about me or my education, keep the snarky BS to yourself.

Even if you went to the whackiest college on Earth, it would have still improved your analitical skills, and they wouldn't have been as atrocious as they are today.
You probably haven't finished high school yet.

 

[youllneverwalkalone]

There was no coferent and well-defined explanation of MMAth in this video.



Actually flipping a coin gets better results than hanging on a false theory. Coin flipping will actually provide better chance of correct results.
However, I'm sure that you apply to both coin flipping and MMAth - since none of these "methods" requires any brain activiy for a predictor.




Even if you went to the whackiest college on Earth, it would have still improved your analitical skills, and they wouldn't have been as atrocious as they are today.
You probably haven't finished high school yet.

All right, you are clearly a fool. Joke's on me for arguing with a fool.

 

[vandymeer13]

Serra vs Gsp not being in the top 10 makes this lists shit.

 

[AimedWithV]

All right, you are clearly a fool. Joke's on me for arguing with a fool.

Thank you for admitting that I'm absolutely right.
I'm sorry that I embarrassed you for trying to find pseudo-logical excuses for faulty MMAth theory, proven wrong numerous times.

Now go away, you probably have some homework to do.