MMA STATISTICS ARE COMPLETELY USELESS

K

Kertol

Black Belt
@Black
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
5,026
Reaction score
1,336
mma statistics are completely useless. Extremely skewed and subjective even though if not deliberately so.

I often here fans citing statistics to prove their point which is irrational.

For example, who is to say what counts as a significant strike and a non-significant strike lol. These statistics are made up by people who watch the fight and everyone bases their opinion on what these people think. Do people actually believe these guys zoom in to see if strikes actually land or not? What counts as an actually TD attempt? So many different ways to look at things.

Don't be a sheep and stop using these useless stats.
 
Last edited:
So we should just be sheep who listen to some idiot who doesn’t even bother to offer an alternative—or a solution to the problem?

Thanks, dude. You’re a real visionary.
 
Some of the statistics are problematic sure, but I wouldn't say they are all useless.
 
I agree. There’s no reason to think that’s the accurate representation of the fight.
It’s like when people argue who won based on what their faces look like after the fight. If these are good indicators of the winner, then we would not watch the fight and just judge based on pictures of the fighters after
 
So we should just use our feelings or something?

<Dana05><{Joewithit}>{<doc}
 
Always funny to watch speds think they can use algorithms and graphs to objectively prove how good a fighter is. <45>
 
Breaking said:
So we should just be sheep who listen to some idiot who doesn’t even bother to offer an alternative—or a solution to the problem?

Thanks, dude. You’re a real visionary.
Click to expand...

You should use your brain and judge fighters on performances rather than other peoples POV
 
"Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.' "
— Mark Twain
 
Kertol said:
mma statistics are completely useless. Extremely skewed and subjective even though if not deliberately so.

I often here fans citing statistics to prove their point which is irrational.

For example, who is to say what counts as a significant strike and a non-significant strike lol. These statistics are made up by people who watch the fight and everyone bases their opinion on what these people think. Do people actually believe these guys zoom in to see if strikes actually land or not? What counts as an actually TD attempt? So many different ways to look at things.

Don't be a sheep and stop using these useless stats.
Click to expand...
Agreed 1000x over. There is no actual definition of a takedown attempt (let alone a takedown) or a "significant" strike. These are all nonsense statistics invented by idiots for the consumption of idiots.
 
Kertol said:
mma statistics are completely useless. Extremely skewed and subjective even though if not deliberately so.

I often here fans citing statistics to prove their point which is irrational.

For example, who is to say what counts as a significant strike and a non-significant strike lol. These statistics are made up by people who watch the fight and everyone bases their opinion on what these people think. Do people actually believe these guys zoom in to see if strikes actually land or not? What counts as an actually TD attempt? So many different ways to look at things.

Don't be a sheep and stop using these useless stats.
Click to expand...

Stats are good from a fighters perspective. They know how the pace will go, what their opponent likes to do, etc.

It's a relative tool to use when analyzing who won a fight. Just like a weight scale is relative in terms of fitness and appearance. The scale is still a starting point.

One area stats are very important would be takedowns and control. If it's close then its obviously the judges discretion.

General strikes vs significant strikes are a relative tool as well. I think a significant strike is obviously a strike that lands and causes a fighter to wobble, retreat, or get knocked down. If it's a sole strike with seemingly little impact, then it's not significant. I don't think it's as hard to tell as you make it sound.
 
They are doing the best that they can by getting multiple skilled and experienced people watching the fights in slow motion - and averaging that data together. No it's not perfect but what is the alternative?

To simply not even try is to just quit. Which if you are a fan of this sport, like me, you probably hate quitting and quitters in general.

So deal with it.
 
I've never really understood the # of takedowns stat.

Like all-time and in each division or whatever, if you can't keep your opponent down but can get a takedown you're going to be considered better at takedowns than a guy who only averages 1 TD per round cuz he can keep his opponent down?
 
4/5 posters completely disagree. So you're 80% incorrect and therefore total only 7 significant strikes.

It's science bro, deal with it.
 
Post 2 Decision said:
I've never really understood the # of takedowns stat.

Like all-time and in each division or whatever, if you can't keep your opponent down but can get a takedown you're going to be considered better at takedowns than a guy who only averages 1 TD per round cuz he can keep his opponent down?
Click to expand...

The number of takedowns is pretty easy to understand. It's an indicator of how many takedowns a fighter has successfully completed. However, it is not an indicator of how good your top control is. Amount of time spent in top position is a different statistic. If you think number of takedowns means how good are your wrestling skills, than that's your problem.
 
*hear
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,254,505
Messages
56,651,181
Members
175,334
Latest member
dubhlinn

Share this page

Back
Top