Part 2 laughing at our "logical" conclusions

[them_apples]

check this video out:

https://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/fe...vs-jesse-owens

If we made logical conclusions before this video was made, Many would say a sport like sprinting - has had a magnifying glass put on it and should be considered one of the athletic endeavors that would improve over time and give De Grasse the nod. Especially considering Owens was competing in all sorts of events and wasn't even a solo sprinter.

However, the rules change - from a dirt track to tarmac (whatever it is, composite) and all of that falls out the back window.

Then presumably Bolt should be able to win, because he was more naturally built for running it would seem. However, we literally don't know this, Bolt could really really struggle on dirt being a taller man - as de grasse pointed out running on dirt takes a lot of strength.

Even still the video mentions this test is still void of psychological factors.

The point is we don't know, speculation sure - opinion sure - but its an unfortunate struggle we as people have. We don't want to believe our prediction of events past and present are extremely limited.

I've been making these posts lately because I have been diving deep into machine learning in my free time, fascinating stuff - really exposes the limitation of our minds and also where the future is heading fast.

[markusmod]

check this video out:

https://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/fe...vs-jesse-owens

If we made logical conclusions before this video was made, Many would say a sport like sprinting - has had a magnifying glass put on it and should be considered one of the athletic endeavors that would improve over time and give De Grasse the nod. Especially considering Owens was competing in all sorts of events and wasn't even a solo sprinter.

However, the rules change - from a dirt track to tarmac (whatever it is, composite) and all of that falls out the back window.

Then presumably Bolt should be able to win, because he was more naturally built for running it would seem. However, we literally don't know this, Bolt could really really struggle on dirt being a taller man - as de grasse pointed out running on dirt takes a lot of strength.

Even still the video mentions this test is still void of psychological factors.

The point is we don't know, speculation sure - opinion sure - but its an unfortunate struggle we as people have. We don't want to believe our prediction of events past and present are extremely limited.

I've been making these posts lately because I have been diving deep into machine learning in my free time, fascinating stuff - really exposes the limitation of our minds and also where the future is heading fast.

Nostradamus knew the way...

[QueensburyRules]

check this video out:

https://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/fe...vs-jesse-owens

If we made logical conclusions before this video was made, Many would say a sport like sprinting - has had a magnifying glass put on it and should be considered one of the athletic endeavors that would improve over time and give De Grasse the nod. Especially considering Owens was competing in all sorts of events and wasn't even a solo sprinter.

However, the rules change - from a dirt track to tarmac (whatever it is, composite) and all of that falls out the back window.

Then presumably Bolt should be able to win, because he was more naturally built for running it would seem. However, we literally don't know this, Bolt could really really struggle on dirt being a taller man - as de grasse pointed out running on dirt takes a lot of strength.

Even still the video mentions this test is still void of psychological factors.

The point is we don't know, speculation sure - opinion sure - but its an unfortunate struggle we as people have. We don't want to believe our prediction of events past and present are extremely limited.

I've been making these posts lately because I have been diving deep into machine learning in my free time, fascinating stuff - really exposes the limitation of our minds and also where the future is heading fast.

- - Not sure what you're getting at as none of the data points are a revelation save the age of deGrasse in his Olympic bronze and machine learning has no definition.

[Marchegiano]

That's interesting, somewhat relative to bringing up Sugar Ray was a drunk in a SRR vs Money debate.

prime-vs-prime assumes much more for one man than it does another. Floyd has never once shown up to any fight in any way unprepared, Sugar has. Not saying that means Floyd beats him or even has an edge, in any prime-prime debate it'd be a non-factor because prime assumes stuff like, you know, not drunk. All I am saying is prime Sugar assumes more in favor of Sugar's preparation than it does Floyd because Floyd has no history of not being ready or taking a fight seriously.

It's interesting to think about.

[QueensburyRules]

That's interesting, somewhat relative to bringing up Sugar Ray was a drunk in a SRR vs Money debate.

prime-vs-prime assumes much more for one man than it does another. Floyd has never once shown up to any fight in any way unprepared, Sugar has. Not saying that means Floyd beats him or even has an edge, in any prime-prime debate it'd be a non-factor because prime assumes stuff like, you know, not drunk. All I am saying is prime Sugar assumes more in favor of Sugar's preparation than it does Floyd because Floyd has no history of not being ready or taking a fight seriously.

It's interesting to think about.

- - 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.

[them_apples]

- - Not sure what you're getting at as none of the data points are a revelation save the age of deGrasse in his Olympic bronze and machine learning has no definition.

lmao why do you respond

[QueensburyRules]

lmao why do you respond

- - I want you to be a legit contributor, not a bag of popcorn.

[DeeMoney]

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.

[Willie Pep 229]

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.

IDK - 538 does 10,000 simulations every 48 hours (or something like that).

In the 2008 Pres Elect 538 pick 49 of the 50 States correct, understandabley it didn't see Indiana going to ***** (The computer had the State light blue all the way up to election morning when it looked like it got cold feet (lol) and switched Indiana to light pink that morning.)

In 2016 all those simulations couldn't see Trump coming.

[DeeMoney]

IDK - 538 does 10,000 simulations every 48 hours (or something like that).

In the 2008 Pres Elect 538 pick 49 of the 50 States correct, understandabley it didn't see Indiana going to ***** (The computer had the State light blue all the way up to election morning when it looked like it got cold feet (lol) and switched Indiana to light pink that morning.)

In 2016 all those simulations couldn't see Trump coming.

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.