Part 2 laughing at our "logical" conclusions

[Willie Pep 229]

You are right, they are wrong sometimes, sometimes my light doesn't turn on when I flip the switch. But they are accurate more often than not. We can cherry pick examples for lots of things, but as a whole they are more often right.

As with mythical matchups, nobody is writing that they are 100% sure that Muhammad Ali would beat Rocky Marciano 100% of the time. But even if you were to say he's a 70/30 favorite, that has him losing 30% of the time. Cripes, the '96 Bulls lost to an awful Raptors team, it happens. Sometimes the best doesnt always perform at their best. Sometimes the fighter who was consistently better loses who has been consistently worse. Nobody is claiming to be 100% with mythical matchups, especially since most involve closesly ranked fighters.

But that doesnt mean we can't make logical evaluations about hypothetical events.

I understand your point, even 538 said there was a 16 percent chance Trump would win.

But taking the argument from your second paragraph begs the question why?

Why do it if we know that multiple intangibles must go unacessed; the logical conclusion loses gravity.

But I guess it is fun . . . I wonder if Bill's magic machine (Quantum based AI) will actually be able to a certainty predict the future.

[Marchegiano]

- - Drunk or not, Ray ran up a record beyond compare compared to l'l Floydy who needed hometown officiating, bought and paid for drug testing results, and umpteen retirements to repair injuries and bump the PEDs.

That's **** people point out every single time the subject comes up and by default of familiarity it is inherently less interesting regardless of where truth lies.

I was just saying other aspects people don't talk about may be less important to the fantasy match up, hence the lack of focus, but are much more interesting because of the lack of focus.

To which, I am very confident you have some good anecdote to share loads of folks don't know about dudes. Be a lot more interesting than, oh, look, Bury doesn't like Floyd very much....again. You get me?

[The Old LefHook]

Which halfwit keeps reviving old useless threads? I think I know. The same halfwit as usual.

[The Old LefHook]

Truly a halfwitted post looking to salvage any scrap of meaning, at which it horribly fails. What he is trying to do here is imply that you cannot judge men from different eras together.

I tried to explain to him that we use exactly the same criteria to evaluate modern matches that we use for mythical match-ups, but it strectched his brain too far and he could not understand the connection. We do this all the time in our fantasies, because it is natural, and we employ exactly the same techniques in our analyses, whether the match is mythical or real. Precisely the same.

[QueensburyRules]

That's **** people point out every single time the subject comes up and by default of familiarity it is inherently less interesting regardless of where truth lies.

I was just saying other aspects people don't talk about may be less important to the fantasy match up, hence the lack of focus, but are much more interesting because of the lack of focus.

To which, I am very confident you have some good anecdote to share loads of folks don't know about dudes. Be a lot more interesting than, oh, look, Bury doesn't like Floyd very much....again. You get me?

- - Ringing IN Echoes of Ginsberg, Kerouac, and Salinger U FOR us now is it?

Stick to boxing 101, ie the TOPIC...

[them_apples]

Truly a halfwitted post looking to salvage any scrap of meaning, at which it horribly fails. What he is trying to do here is imply that you cannot judge men from different eras together.

I tried to explain to him that we use exactly the same criteria to evaluate modern matches that we use for mythical match-ups, but it strectched his brain too far and he could not understand the connection. We do this all the time in our fantasies, because it is natural, and we employ exactly the same techniques in our analyses, whether the match is mythical or real. Precisely the same.

this post wasn’t a stab at you by the way. Just letting you know.

I understand I am making a point with a pretty aggressive bias, but sometimes this is the easiest way to explain a point.

[them_apples]

Just because we don't know with 'certainty' what will happen, that doesn't mean we can't have a logical assumption of what probably will happen. I go into my house and flip the switch, I have a logical assumption the light will turn on. It may not, there are variables at play here, but it most likely will.

Now, as you have implied here there are a lot of variables at play, but that doesnt mean we cant measure many of the most pertinent ones to make a logical conclusion. Is it certainty, no. But thats why I also have stated mythical matchups, and things of that ilk, should be looked at through the lens of 1,000 simulations (if not more); to not evaluate with certainty but rather have a logical conclusion of how likely an outcome is.

Look at the success rates of people like Pomeroy, Sagarin, Massey, etc in the predictive models theyve created. When they predict Team A has a 65% chance of beating Team B thats not saying they will certainly win- its just a logical assumption. Similar with mythical matchups in all sports.

The light switch idea doesn't work because you have switched it on and off many times before giving you a very high probability of out come.

you make a good point though, some matchups have glaring differences that can be weighted so heavily I think it would give a pretty accurate outcome. Honestly only in certain scenarios though.

[them_apples]

Truly a halfwitted post looking to salvage any scrap of meaning, at which it horribly fails. What he is trying to do here is imply that you cannot judge men from different eras together.

I tried to explain to him that we use exactly the same criteria to evaluate modern matches that we use for mythical match-ups, but it strectched his brain too far and he could not understand the connection. We do this all the time in our fantasies, because it is natural, and we employ exactly the same techniques in our analyses, whether the match is mythical or real. Precisely the same.

this isnt my point at all, my point is to expose the idea that our mythical matchup debates should be seriously taken with a grain of salt. There are so many tangents to consider you actually can’t come to any type of accurate conclusion, especially when you go very far back. In certain cases with very lopsided matches you could, but anything that requires debating you cant really.

and how are you calling me a half wit, evaluating modern matches means you are generally evaluating them on a much more even playing field, they are sort of all playing by the same rules because its the same era, and we can see whats going on, whos the favorite, whos coming off a win etc. And we still arent that accurate. I don’t see the confusion here when I am claiming you go back 50 years where many many things change that it would dissolve any type of reliability. The fact alone that you are name calling makes me think this is more of a personal issue you have with me.

[The Old LefHook]

There is no difference between a mythical match-up and a real one, as far as betting analysis goes. We evaluate them precisely the same way, not similarly but precisely. That is an idea you have never heard on these forums before, no matter how long you have been here. The last time this new of an idea occurred here was when Bill tied fencing and boxing together historically. Every five or six years someone says something new on here.

[The Old LefHook]

I postulate: Any of us would do exactly as well predicting the outcomes of mythical match-ups as we would predicting the outcomes of real bouts before they happen. There is no difference in application.