Trilogy fights (1-1) favor the person who won the second fight.

Talon81 said:
You do raise some good points, and made a reasonable analysis overall of trilogies. However, you made two mistakes in analyzing this fight as I see it.



Frankly, DC was sonning Stipe in that fight, he was not "holding his own". Until the body shots that changed the course of that fight, DC was CLEARLY winning and landing almost at will. The fact that Stipe had not already been KO'd after all the shots he took was always surprising to me.
Then there is the matter of your own point: 3. Making the adjustment
Why would this only apply to Stipe? Is it impossible for DC to make an adjustment against Stipe's body shots, which are the only reason they are not 2-0 right now? I see these odds as being very accurate, with DC the very slightest of favorites, but pretty much a pickem. I'm not saying DC wins this by any means, but you have to look at the second fight truthfully. DC was pretty clearly going to win before those body shots changed it up. Now the question is whether DC can properly defend them or does Stipe make this a continuation of their last round?
Click to expand...
Wrong. Even with those eyepokes that DC did in every rounds, DC lost the 3rd round. Even if Stipe couldn't KO DC in 4th, Stipe was likely to win the DEC.
 
bunt said:
Chuck vs Tito. Chuck brutalised Tito in their primes twice then waited for chuck to be washed up to take his revenge.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that was 2-0 going into the trilogy, so it didn't fit my criteria.
 
Blayt7hh said:
He’s showing data that suggests a correlation and speculating on possible causes.
Click to expand...
The thread title posits his speculation as fact. It's literally the thread title. I'm not trying to be a semantic asshole, but I didn't even make it past the faulty title. It may appear slight on the surface, but it matters. I just glanced at the thread itself and he uses the word, theory, wrong in the first sentence.

That's not how this works. I've worked on peer reviewed research. I guarantee you, he is not presenting his thoughts correctly.

And I'm bored with this. Probably won't respond further.... Sorry if that sounds rude. I'm just over it.
 
DeeDubb said:
Penn vs. Hughes: Penn, Hughes, Penn
Click to expand...

The reason this one doesn't fall into the normal pattern is because if we judge that second fight, it was clear Penn was winning easily and Hughes was saved by the bell in the end of the second round.

When Penn came out in the third round ... he looked like a zombie all the sudden.

Zero movement, looked tired. He claims he broke a rib. Not sure if that was confirmed but basically nearly anyone could have beaten Penn at that point.

Rounds 1 and 2 showed that Penn was light years ahead of Hughes in skill.

That is why GSP said his famous line ... "I am not impressed with your performance".

Hughes didn't beat Penn ... Penn beat Penn.
 
It's actually about prime and age.
Which would mean, that Stipe has a higher chance of winning this time. It does not mean he automatically wins.

Stipe lost every round in their fights. He adjusted to body shots and DC didn't adjust.
If DC comes with cardio he wins, because he was a lot better. If he comes without cardio, he has knockout chance, but gets drowned.
 
DC won the first, was winning the 2nd one, if he isnt washed up and fights smart he has this one too, he took Stipe's boxing too lightly, he wasnt ready for the body work, but never really tried to wrestle with him.
 
BBMN said:
The thread title posits his speculation as fact. It's literally the thread title. I'm not trying to be a semantic asshole, but I didn't even make it past the faulty title. It may appear slight on the surface, but it matters. I just glanced at the thread itself and he uses the word, theory, wrong in the first sentence.

That's not how this works. I've worked on peer reviewed research. I guarantee you, he is not presenting his thoughts correctly.

And I'm bored with this. Probably won't respond further.... Sorry if that sounds rude. I'm just over it.
Click to expand...
Well it’s a message board. Do you think he was going to put in all of that effort into it to make it looks like a peer reviewed paper? And to an extent yes your at arguing semantics

but I do get your issue with the title. He should have posted it as a question.
 
thehighking said:
Never believe a fighter when they say they were injured to explain a loss. The only thing injured in that case was Cain's pride.
Click to expand...

well given his injury background I'm inclined to believe it even more now .. <Lmaoo>
 
Wand, Wand, Rampage
Chuck, Chuck, Tito
I could go on and on too

Oh wait, you mean Rubber Matches, not just Trilogy Fights. Maybe write Rubber Match in title then.
 
BBMN said:
The thread title posits his speculation as fact. It's literally the thread title. I'm not trying to be a semantic asshole, but I didn't even make it past the faulty title. It may appear slight on the surface, but it matters. I just glanced at the thread itself and he uses the word, theory, wrong in the first sentence.

That's not how this works. I've worked on peer reviewed research. I guarantee you, he is not presenting his thoughts correctly.

And I'm bored with this. Probably won't respond further.... Sorry if that sounds rude. I'm just over it.
Click to expand...

If my title were on an academic paper, it would get rejected. If it were the title of a news article, it would pass (news gives much more faulty headlines based on much looser correlations than this). As a post on an unfiltered mma opinion forum, this is about the closest thing to actual research you’ll find. Titles don’t need “in my opinion” because opinion is implied. Imagine if every poster had to put “in my opinion” in there titles. What a ridiculous and pedantic expectation.
 
Repsac said:
Wand, Wand, Rampage
Chuck, Chuck, Tito
I could go on and on too

Oh wait, you mean Rubber Matches, not just Trilogy Fights. Maybe write Rubber Match in title then.
Click to expand...

I put (1-1) in the title. I didn’t want to use the term “rubber match”, because some people define it differently, and even include 2-0 trilogies in that definition.
 
Blayt7hh said:
Well it’s a message board. Do you think he was going to put in all of that effort into it to make it looks like a peer reviewed paper? And to an extent yes your at arguing semantics.
Click to expand...

I just wish people would learn how basic data science works. Positing speculation as fact is not a good way to start a thread about statistics. And I will correct people when they use theory wrong in conversation. I corrected myself the other day...

DeeDubb said:
Imagine if every poster had to put “in my opinion” in there titles. What a ridiculous and pedantic expectation.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry for taking math and stats seriously. I guess. To be fair, it's generally the threads here that state opinion as fact that are bad. "Fedor Sucks" or "Conor is GOAT" is just the type of thread we need less of.

(And I didn't even get to sample size....)

giphy.webp


Honestly, I appreciate people taking a deep look into a topic, it's just that there is no valid conclusion to your hypothesis. The whole thing is neither here nor there... Sorry I'm a dick.
 
Pakman said:
how do you have a HW trilogy fight as the focal point of this thread and then fail to bring up Arlovski vs Sylvia
Click to expand...

Give the guy credit and stop being a cunt. This was a great thread.
 
Add Bas Rutten vs Frank Shamrock

(Frank, Bas, Bas)
 
BBMN said:
I just wish people would learn how basic data science works. Positing speculation as fact is not a good way to start a thread about statistics. And I will correct people when they use theory wrong in conversation. I corrected myself the other day...



I'm sorry for taking math and stats seriously. I guess. To be fair, it's generally the threads here that state opinion as fact that are bad. "Fedor Sucks" or "Conor is GOAT" is just the type of thread we need less of.

(And I didn't even get to sample size....)

giphy.webp


Honestly, I appreciate people taking a deep look into a topic, it's just that there is no valid conclusion to your hypothesis. The whole thing is neither here nor there... Sorry I'm a dick.
Click to expand...
He didn’t necessarily use the word theory wrong. There are more definitions to the word than the scientific one. Of course now I’m guessing at his intention when he wrote, but it didn’t sound to me in that sentence that he meant it could/has been repeatedly tested with the scientific method.

I will admit that when I first saw the bold statement in the thread title I was annoyed and wanted to come in here and say something similar. However, it was mostly a well thought out and reasonable op and I agreed with most of his explanations. I’m not going to dissuade someone who makes a decent thread in this cesspool
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,042
Messages
55,463,470
Members
174,786
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top