Jackson mma's ACTUAL finishing rate in 2012

So you do count getting finished?

no because you didnt win in a finishing fashion

wins via tko/sub vs losses/decisions. no contests get thrown out.

that should be how its done.

at least thats what i think.
 
First off nice work TS.

Second it is actually retarded and indefensible to calculate finishes without counting losses.

Every single fight entered has a range of outcomes. You can finish or not. If you do not finish that fight that counts against you.

Here is how absurd your statistic gets and why it is worthless.

Tony WildCard Ferguson is the most successful finisher in the history of the sport of MMA by your stat as he finished 100% of his wins. While others can tie him, no one can be a better finisher.

So according to your stat what is this amazing Anthony WildCard Fergusons record?

He is 2 wins and 16 losses with both wins via finish for a 100% finish rate.


Now to demonstrate how retarded your view is if you had another fighter who fought the same 18 opponents winning all 18 fights, 9 via finish and 9 via decision he would have a 50% finish rate. Worse then WildCard. WTF?

When fighters say "I finish fights" they mean just that. Give them a fight and they are likely to finish it. To calculate how good a fighter is at finishing fights you need to calculate it as a percent of ALL fights.

Thus Wildcards finish rate is 2 of 18 fights or 11%. He is a low end finisher. ANd fighter B is a 50% finisher and substantially better then Anthony. Done the correct way the stats tell you that. Done your way, the wrong way, we have no choice but to accept WIldcard as a far better finisher then Anderson SIlva and maybe Anderson should go train with him to learn how to finish at a higher rate.

No. A bad fighter might be an exciting fighter, if when he does win, he wins by finish.
If he is a better finisher or not is a matter of semantics, and if "finisher" implies the quality of his skills.
Which is why looking at a finishing, winning, rate is interesting.
Now, looking at losses by finish is also interesting (and this is apparently what the author did I have found out, and am thus updating the data), since that tells us how often the fighter is willing to take risks.
But looking at only win-finishes divided by total fights, muddies the water and becomes a mixture of how exciting a fighter is and what his skill is, which really only is confusing.
 
no because you didnt win in a finishing fashion

wins via tko/sub vs losses/decisions. no contests get thrown out.

that should be how its done.

at least thats what i think.


The table does count ko/sub losses.

I disagree with using losses for finish rate but I agree if you are...getting ko'd should not be counted and it is for this table.
 
This statistic is kind of useless because losses aren't taken into account. It's only the finish rate of the total wins. Let's say every Jackson fighter lost all their fights... except one which was a finish win, then they have a 100% 'finish rate' which is very misleading. But back to the original post, there is a winning rate of 52% and a 'finishing rate' of 62%. 62% of those 52% of the fights is ~33% finish wins of all the fights.
 
Two fighters enter the ring, both have a chance to finish but neither do. Why penalize the winner and not the loser? The loser had the same amount of time to end the fight as the winner did.
 
The table does count ko/sub losses.

I disagree with using losses for finish rate but I agree if you are...getting ko'd should not be counted and it is for this table.

does this mean we have a mutual acceptance of each others ideas.

did we just kinda hug it out.

might be a first on sherdog bwhahahaa

:)
 
No. A bad fighter might be an exciting fighter, if when he does win, he wins by finish.
If he is a better finisher or not is a matter of semantics, and if "finisher" implies the quality of his skills.
Which is why looking at a finishing, winning, rate is interesting.
Now, looking at losses by finish is also interesting (and this is apparently what the author did I have found out, and am thus updating the data), since that tells us how often the fighter is willing to take risks.
But looking at only win-finishes divided by total fights, muddies the water and becomes a mixture of how exciting a fighter is and what his skill is, which really only is confusing.

It does not muddy water. What muddy's the water is saying a fighter or camp has a 100% finish rate (or 80%) and another fighter or camp has a 40% finish rate and because your stat is so useless people assume the higher number equates to more finishes from that camp when in fact, the way you present it, the lower number could be finishing twice as many fights.

Lets say for instance that the way you calculate it Jackson camp finishes at a 30% rate and XYZ camp finishes at a 60% rate. Do you agree the way people will interpret and use the stat is to assume camp XYZ finishes more fights? They are better and more aggressive finishers?


Now lets look at a situation where Jackson camp won 70 of 100 fightes and finished 40 of those fights. By your method they have a finish rate of 57%.

Now lets assume camp XYZ fought the exact same 100 fights and their fighters won 10 of 100 fights finishing 6 of them. By your method they have a 60% finish rate.

If you put that in your info graph should even one person see camp XYZ as superior in anything including finishing? I guess if they are fools they should..

Fact is a Jackson camp guy will finish more then an XYZ camp guy despite your skewed stat.
 
A finishing rate is predicated upon WINNING by tko/sub. Do you factor in losses when determining a fighter's finishing rate?

the statistic is about how many fights they attend they win by finish. that's what this
data is about. if you are looking for other data ( neither will be that meaningful ),
look or search for it yourself.
 
^^^
If you want to know how bad the finished over Wins stat gets, all a fighter has to do, under that warped stat to become a better finisher is lose more fights. LOL that is correct. You do not have to win more or even finish more, just lose more.

If you simply had GSP lose every fight he won by decision and never win another fight by decision we could proclaim him a better finisher then Anderson as his rate would be 100%.

When the best way to improve your stat has nothing to do with actually earning more finishes and losing more improves it to the top then you know for fact you are using the wrong way to calculate the stat. If you calculate it by using it as a percent of all fights non of these problems exist.

When Kenny Florian yelled out "I finish fights' he meant 'fights'.

the idea is to figure out, when lined up with a new opponent what the chance of you finishing him is. If you are a 40% finisher you will finish him 4 out of every 10 fights done the right way. Done the wrong (as a percent of wins) we know nothing about your chance of finishing your opponent as you might be Houston Alexander who will lose almost 100% of fights he does not get a quick ko in.
 
does this mean we have a mutual acceptance of each others ideas.

did we just kinda hug it out.

might be a first on sherdog bwhahahaa

:)

images_zpsf363fca2.jpg
 
It does not muddy water. What muddy's the water is saying a fighter or camp has a 100% finish rate (or 80%) and another fighter or camp has a 40% finish rate and because your stat is so useless people assume the higher number equates to more finishes from that camp when in fact, the way you present it, the lower number could be finishing twice as many fights.

Lets say for instance that the way you calculate it Jackson camp finishes at a 30% rate and XYZ camp finishes at a 60% rate. Do you agree the way people will interpret and use the stat is to assume camp XYZ finishes more fights? They are better and more aggressive finishers?


Now lets look at a situation where Jackson camp won 70 of 100 fightes and finished 40 of those fights. By your method they have a finish rate of 57%.

Now lets assume camp XYZ fought the exact same 100 fights and their fighters won 10 of 100 fights finishing 6 of them. By your method they have a 60% finish rate.

If you put that in your info graph should even one person see camp XYZ as superior in anything including finishing? I guess if they are fools they should..

Fact is a Jackson camp guy will finish more then an XYZ camp guy despite your skewed stat.

I've already adressed this: Finishing rate does not imply a better fighter, it implies a more exciting fighter. Winning rate speaks to the skill of a fighter. Number of finishes divided by number of fights, is a mix of both. End of discussion.
 
The people you are trying to convince are practically retarded. Good luck.

unfortunately I would have to agree.

But nice job anyway for the effort OP'er.
 
gonna disagree with everyone here....both stats tell an important story and they are both useful if the intent is given on the graph (which I believe it was on the original graph, but the original poster was obviously a little disingenuous). Overall (including loses) gives you information about how good they are, but just finishing rate in wins tells you additional info about how they fight imo.
 
I've already adressed this: Finishing rate does not imply a better fighter, it implies a more exciting fighter. Winning rate speaks to the skill of a fighter. Number of finishes divided by number of fights, is a mix of both. End of discussion.

But you are factually wrong as it does not imply that. Open discussion.

Here are two guys under your warped stat.

Fighter 1 : 10 career fights. Wins 1 by finish. Loses 9 by boring decision.

Your stat says he has a 100% finish rate and is exciting. You would argue guys should buy tickets to see this exciting fighter fight.

Fighter 2 : 10 career fights. Wins 8 by finish. Wins 2 by decision.

Your stat says fighter one is the more exciting fighter to watch.

Do you not see how stupid your stat is when simply calculating it as a total of fights tells the real story?
 
I've already adressed this: Finishing rate does not imply a better fighter, it implies a more exciting fighter. Winning rate speaks to the skill of a fighter. Number of finishes divided by number of fights, is a mix of both. End of discussion.

this is exactly what I was trying to say, but this is a much better explanation...thank you.
 
But you are factually wrong as it does not imply that. Open discussion.

Here are two guys under your warped stat.

Fighter 1 : 10 career fights. Wins 1 by finish. Loses 9 by boring decision.

Your stat says he has a 100% finish rate and is exciting. You would argue guys should buy tickets to see this exciting fighter fight.

Fighter 2 : 10 career fights. Wins 8 by finish. Wins 2 by decision.

Your stat says fighter one is the more exciting fighter to watch.

Do you not see how stupid your stat is when simply calculating it as a total of fights tells the real story?

How about if the fighter lost 9 by being finished?
I have now also updated the data to include losses by finishes, which the author of the infograph apparently did.
 
Fail, you're only counting wins, not total fights. If you're counting total fights vs wins by finish the % is in fact somewhere around 30%.
 
How about if the fighter lost 9 by being finished?
I have now also updated the data to include losses by finishes, which the author of the infograph apparently did.

The problem is the stat, the way you calculate it tells you none of that.

If you see Camp finish rates of

100%

80%

40%

10%

and you goal is to tell you which camp is more exciting and finishes at a higher rate then your stat tells you nothing.

in fact the camp with the 10% rate could be finishing way more fights and be far more exciting as I proved above.
 
Back
Top