Really Bad Logic 101: Bringing up ****** fight predictions....

[bsrizpac]

Okay, I'm getting tired of seeing this because it indicates that the majority of people on this site seem to have failed basic logic, debating and structure of argument in your schoolwork.

Example 1:

Ricky Hatton vs. JLC

Tons of people on this site hated Ricky Hatton. They want to see Ricky Hatton lose, for whatever reason. Could be because he's British, could be because his style sucks for them, could be because they don't like his spamming fanbase, could be cause they don't give him enough credit...whatever.

A fight prediction thread is made. The majority picks Castillo by beatdown. This despite the fact that Castillo failed to make weight HOW MANY times and struggled against some journeyman assclown before the Hatton fight. Anyone with a clue who saw that fight should and would have said that yes, Castillo was shot, in fact very shot (couldn't have been the first Corrales vs. Castillo fight that did it, could it?)

Fight occurs, Castillo shows up with the look of man who is beyond shot and done. He does not want to be there and quits at the first sign of adversity, something he's never done before.

Hatton wins.

Here's what you can say about this:

Hatton's detractors need to re-examine what they think about him. If they were that obtuse about his skills before maybe they are biased about him and will never give him enough credit. Above all they should admit they were wrong and man up about the incorrect prediction.

What you can NOT say about this (the point of this thread):

Oh well because a ton of ******s said Hatton would lose, JL Castillo was not shot and was still a good fighter.

Listen up ******s: just because the majority opinion says something DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE. It just means the majority is ******ed, ignorant or biased.

This is like saying well "the majority of people after 9/11 wanted to go to war in Iraq because they were told there were WMD. So therefore there WERE WMD in Iraq".

Do you idiots even begin to realize how bad this type of logic is? I mean seriously. Think about that last statement I just wrote and just stop. Stop being fanboys and try to analyze thing a bit more objectively.

End rant.

You make some good points there, Pisspac. I still have to chuckle at the Fat Yankery of "get a clue", which is up there with "I could care less", but agree with the rest.

What really gets me is how many people will use betting odds as some form of justification of a win. ("They must have really got OWNED badly, because they were supposed to be the 3-1 underdog fore the fite took place. lamo.") Like bookmakers knowing jack **** about boxing and getting it totally wrong legitimises a win.

As an example of this I calculated an underrated (power/heart) and motivated Danny Williams's chance of beating an old, washed-up Tyson as around 2.5 to 1 against. When I saw the betting odds were 10-1 I put some cash down. Which doesn't really relate to my point exactly, but I just wanted to talk about Danny Williams.

[nathan_nall]

Most people base their preditions as such:

20% The actual skills and abilities of the fighters involved.

80% Their personal affinity or dislike of one or both involved.


You have to force yourself to be unbiased. Thats no easy thing.

[bsrizpac]

You make some good points there, Pisspac. I still have to chuckle at the Fat Yankery of "get a clue", which is up there with "I could care less", but agree with the rest.

What really gets me is how many people will use betting odds as some form of justification of a win. ("They must have really got OWNED badly, because they were supposed to be the 3-1 underdog fore the fite took place. lamo.") Like bookmakers knowing jack **** about boxing and getting it totally wrong legitimises a win.

As an example of this I calculated an underrated (power/heart) and motivated Danny Williams's chance of beating an old, washed-up Tyson as around 2.5 to 1 against. When I saw the betting odds were 10-1 I put some cash down. Which doesn't really relate to my point exactly, but I just wanted to talk about Danny Williams.

What's "fat yankery"? I didn't know and adjective combined with a noun into a singular participle like that. Very creative.

And yes, but as you know Tyson went through not 1 but at least 58 knee surgeries after the Danny fight. I'm pretty sure the sight of Williams just made Tysons knee explode. Did your betting odds account for tendon explosions caused by horrific fear?

I never did get to the bottom of Tyson's knee stuff... you read so much bull**** in NSB that some of it kind of filters through and you start to almost believe some of it and think "wait, DID that happen...?"


Actually, the biggest betting odds justification that always gets brought up is Hopkins vs. Tito, but we won't go there...

[bsrizpac]

I never did get to the bottom of Tyson's knee stuff... you read so much bull**** in NSB that some of it kind of filters through and you start to almost believe some of it and think "wait, DID that happen...?"


Actually, the biggest betting odds justification that always gets brought up is Hopkins vs. Tito, but we won't go there...

Calzaghe vs. Lacy for the win.



Hey, I'm not saying we aren't guilty of doing this bad logic once in a while. But seriously I see some ******s doing it all the time and very loudly. And it's the same ******s over and over.

Sure we can all slip into this line of thinking, no one is perfect. But I've seen an explosion of this terrible logic recently and it hurts my brain.

The OTHER thing I forgot to say is: You can make ad hominem attacks against a poster for a bad prediction. That's fine. You can call THEM worthless and make fun of them. That's all in good fun. Just don't twist reality around while doing it.

Calzaghe vs. Lacy was one of the funniest times ever on here (like Moby - though I rate Moby more - he was a man waiting to be counterpunched, but when I brought it up I was just a "bias brit").

Back in those days of 2006 70% of UK members had something between their ears. Now it's more like 20%, sadly.

[bsrizpac]

Calzaghe vs. Lacy was one of the funniest times ever on here (like Moby - though I rate Moby more - he was a man waiting to be counterpunched, but when I brought it up I was just a "bias brit").

Back in those days of 2006 70% of UK members had something between their ears. Now it's more like 20%, sadly.

Eh, I agreed with you about Pavlik. The only factor I had was how much does Bernie have left at all.

Luckily Pavlik folded like a lawn chair around round 3 from my ringside vantage point. At that point Bernie didn't really have to test his stamina.

You were actually there?

Great fight... if Hopkins had beat Eastman like that I'd have enjoyed it. But instead I stayed up to 4am to watch him stopping a fight from breaking out and just nicking rounds.

[Fox McCloud]

Great thread.

I thought Castillo was going to show up with more than he did. I was wrong.

He couldn't even ****ing stand up because his balance was so bad. How many times did he go down in that fight without getting hit? The answer: way too many.