~~~ABCDEs - Ranking puzzle...~~~

[Decebal]

1) How would you rank fighters A, B, C, D and E if:

A could beat B, D and E but not C
B could beat C and D, but not A or E
C could beat A and E, but not B or D
D could beat C and E, but not A or B
E could beat B, but not A or C or D?


2) should fighters be ranked according to the names they have beaten on their resume in the past or just according to their likely present form, based on showings in recent fights and effects of recent fights on their likely present state?

[ron u.k.]

obviously these musst be alphabet titles?

[Decebal]

obviously these musst be alphabet titles?

:lol: :good

(serious question!)

[Decebal]

A beat 3 out of 4, everyone else 2 out of 4 at best, so he should be numero uno
B beat 2 out of 4. While he lost to the best and the worst of the bunch, he beat his direct opponents for the second place
D lost to the two best guys but beat the other two so he deserves to rank above them
C beat the best and the worst of the group but lost to his direct opponents in the rankings
E just beat 1 out of 4 and though is the worst of the bunch

Basically it would be a mix of resume, the rankings of A and E, and h2h, the rankings of B, C and D.

tobkhan, mate, you'd better get used to thinking for yourself ALONE from now on and not even RELYING on a hint from any other ranking list out there - you're on the :happy :happy :happy ESB Rankings Committee:happy :happy :happy !:good

[Decebal]

I've added another crucial question...would love to see your answer.:good

[China_hand_Joe]

1) How would you rank fighters A, B, C, D and E if:

A could beat B, D and E but not C
B could beat C and D, but not A or E
C could beat A and E, but not B or D
D could beat C and E, but not A or B
E could beat B, but not A or C or D?


2) should fighters be ranked according to the names they have beaten on their resume in the past or just according to their likely present form, based on showings in recent fights and effects of recent fights on their likely present state?

This is an example of how American's rate fighters...

There are 3 fighters...A B and C.

A beat B and lost to C twice.

B lost to A and drew with C.

C beat A twice and drew with B

So...

A - 1-0-2
B - 2-1-0
C - 0-1-1

Americans rate A (Hopkins) the highest by far.

[Decebal]

This is an example of how American's rate fighters...

There are 3 fighters...A B and C.

A beat B and lost to C twice.

B lost to A and drew with C.

C beat A twice and drew with B

So...

A - 1-0-2
B - 2-1-0
C - 0-1-1

Americans rate A (Hopkins) the highest by far.

Please give me YOUR answers to my questions. Thank you!:good

[China_hand_Joe]

A
C
B
D
E

Going purely on the wins and losses.



And always rate fighters on recent form - making concessions for injuries etc. How much ability they have at the present time.

[ChuckYoungblood]

It will never be like a math exercise to rate fighters. Maybe C's win was very convincing and A fought B 6 years ago and still living off that win? I think this discussion is worthless without naming the fighters...

[DanePugilist]

Another one on the same topic?

[Decebal]

It will never be like a math exercise to rate fighters. Maybe C's win was very convincing and A fought B 6 years ago and still living off that win? I think this discussion is worthless without naming the fighters...

Given the info you are given, you should have some clue as to the right order...of course, the more info you were given, the more valid your answer.

[Decebal]

Another one on the same topic?

Yes, but harder...think carefully!:good

[DanePugilist]

1. A
2. B
3. D.
4. C.
5. E.

2. Present state holds most value, but past shouldn't be disregarded.

[China_hand_Joe]

1. A
2. B
3. D.
4. C.
5. E.

2. Present state holds most value, but past shouldn't be disregarded.

C should be second for beating the excellent A.

[DanePugilist]

C should be second for beating the excellent A.Yeah, he could be, but then he just screwed up...

[bigeddie27]

1) How would you rank fighters A, B, C, D and E if:

A could beat B, D and E but not C
B could beat C and D, but not A or E
C could beat A and E, but not B or D
D could beat C and E, but not A or B
E could beat B, but not A or C or D?


2) should fighters be ranked according to the names they have beaten on their resume in the past or just according to their likely present form, based on showings in recent fights and effects of recent fights on their likely present state?

after reading the first line, i just got completely confused and it gave me a headache. I am sure the committie will make fine pound for pound rankings. As long as they get a even pool of different perspectives, it should be a good system. Woulndt be surprsied if the list looked like the ring rankings honestly.

[China_hand_Joe]

C was just unmotivated for B and D. He raised his game as needed against A.

[DanePugilist]

C was just unmotivated for B and D. He raised his game as needed against A.Lack of motivation, doesn't come into consideration, when giving rankings. This isn't at Jungs office...:lol:

[Fab2333]

after reading the first line, i just got completely confused and it gave me a headache. I am sure the committie will make fine pound for pound rankings. As long as they get a even pool of different perspectives, it should be a good system. Woulndt be surprsied if the list looked like the ring rankings honestly.:thumbsup

[Decebal]

I will pm what I consider the right answer, including the reasoning behind to whoever wants it...please pm me...:good

[sues2nd]

I failed algebra.........LOL!

[Decebal]

I failed algebra.........LOL!

Yeah, well, as long as you haven't failed logic, you should be fine!:D

[sues2nd]

Yeah, well, as long as you haven't failed logic, you should be fine!:D

:lol:

[Decebal]

Why don´t you post it in here?

Because many haven't had a crack at it yet and some who have might want to reconsider their answer first.

[Decebal]

I think these are important questions...thank you to those who have already replied!:D

[Decebal]

I have added a poll, to allow us to keep track of things!:good

[Decebal]

Thank you, Brickhaus and tobkhan!:good

[kg0208]

Sorry Decebal, but you haven't given me enough information. I am a stickler for details and one small thing makes this impossible for me to rank and tosses a ton of other variables into the mix.

You said COULD BEAT not DID BEAT in all of those scenarios. While I am going to take skill level into account, I will also take resume into account. Usually 50/50 and I go by actual results unless there is a blatant blatant robbery.

I cannot place any value on what COULD happen in those scenarios because some of those fighters may be better than the ones they would lose to but are bad style matchups, etc and have better resumes, etc. Sure I can quantify skill within reason, but that won't tell me who will win.

As to your second question, current form should be taken into account, but you must have reliable information on their current skill level. Therefore recent wins must also be taken into account as looking good against second rate fighters is not an accurate representation. And it's not about names, but about how good that fighter actually is and the circumstances of the fight. As in, I don't have Hopkins on my P4P list because he dropped off after retiring, and beating Wright at 170 isn't going to get him back on. And he didn't look good doing it, neither did.

[Decebal]

Sorry Decebal, but you haven't given me enough information. I am a stickler for details and one small thing makes this impossible for me to rank and tosses a ton of other variables into the mix.

You said COULD BEAT not DID BEAT in all of those scenarios. While I am going to take skill level into account, I will also take resume into account. Usually 50/50 and I go by actual results unless there is a blatant blatant robbery.

I cannot place any value on what COULD happen in those scenarios because some of those fighters may be better than the ones they would lose to but are bad style matchups, etc and have better resumes, etc. Sure I can quantify skill within reason, but that won't tell me who will win.

.

I am not sure what the confusion is here! Assume that could beat=did beat, if you think you could answer it then!

[sean]

Proof of (i) . The equality ck = c1+(k-1)a just proven with k = m+1 implies cm+1 = c1+(m+1-1)a = c1+ma.

We will prove
k
å
j = 1 cj = kc1+ 1 2 k(k-1)a
by induction on k ³ 1.

If k = 1 then Sm = åj = 1m cj = c1 and
kc1+ 1 2 k(k-1)a = 1c1+ 1 2 1(0)a = c1
Therefore the assertion is true for k = 1.

Now we want to show if the assertion
k
å
j = 1 cj = kc1+ 1 2 k(k-1)a
is true for k = m ³ 1 then it must be true when k = m+1. To this end, suppose
m
å
j = 1 cj = mc1+ 1 2 m(m-1)a
This and the equality
m+1
å
j = 1 cj = cm+1+ m
å
j = 1 cj
imply
m+1
å
j = 1 cj

=

cm+1+ é
ê
ë mc1+ 1 2 m(m-1)a ù
ú
û

=

[c1+ma]+ é
ê
ë mc1+ 1 2
m(m-1)a ù
ú
û

=

c1+mc1+ 1 2 m(m-1)a+ma

=

(1+m)c1+[ 1 2 m(m-1)+m]a

=

(1+m)c1+ 1 2 [m(m-1)+2m]a

=

(m+1)c1+ 1 2 [m(m-1+2)]a

=

(m+1)c1+ 1 2 [m(m+1)]a

=

(m+1)c1+ 1 2 [m(m+1)]a
This says that
k
å
j = 1 cj = kc1+ 1 2 k(k-1)a
when k = m+1. The principle of mathematical induction now applies. It gives the desired conclusion.

Proof of (ii) . We wish to show
k
å
j = 1 cj = 1 2 k(c1+ck)
Observe
1 2 k(c1+ck) = 1 2 k(c1+[c1+(k-1)a]) = kc1+ 1 2 k(k-1)a
Therefore the assertion
k
å
j = 1 cj = 1 2 k(c1+ck)
follows from
k
å
j = 1 cj = kc1+ 1 2 k(k-1)a

really its as simple as that.

[kg0208]

I am not sure what the confusion is here! Assume that could beat=did beat, if you think you could answer it then!

Well that changes the equation entirely for me. It's like adding parentheses to an algebra equation.

Either way, obviously and A is best and E is worst of the 5. B and C would depend on your criteria. I would have B slighly ahead of C, but not by a ton. B has 2 good wins, but the worst loss. C has the best win, but his losses in between means that could simply be a style matchup. D has the same problem as C, but his best win isn't as good as C's best win and his losses prove that he most likely doesn't deserve to be in the upper echlon. But his win is AGAINST C....

So the answer for me is A, B, then C and D are interchangeable depending on who beat whom when , and the E is last.

Either way, more information is needed to make this an accurate representation of how I would do my rankings.

[Fab2333]

Proof of (i) . The equality ck = c1+(k-1)a just proven with k = m+1 implies cm+1 = c1+(m+1-1)a = c1+ma.

We will prove
k
å
j = 1 cj = kc1+ 1 2 k(k-1)a
by induction on k ³ 1.

If k = 1 then Sm = åj = 1m cj = c1 and
kc1+ 1 2 k(k-1)a = 1c1+ 1 2 1(0)a = c1
Therefore the assertion is true for k = 1.

Now we want to show if the assertion
k
å
j = 1 cj = kc1+ 1 2 k(k-1)a
is true for k = m ³ 1 then it must be true when k = m+1. To this end, suppose
m
å
j = 1 cj = mc1+ 1 2 m(m-1)a
This and the equality
m+1
å
j = 1 cj = cm+1+ m
å
j = 1 cj
imply
m+1
å
j = 1 cj

=

cm+1+ é
ê
ë mc1+ 1 2 m(m-1)a ù
ú
û

=

[c1+ma]+ é
ê
ë mc1+ 1 2
m(m-1)a ù
ú
û

=

c1+mc1+ 1 2 m(m-1)a+ma

=

(1+m)c1+[ 1 2 m(m-1)+m]a

=

(1+m)c1+ 1 2 [m(m-1)+2m]a

=

(m+1)c1+ 1 2 [m(m-1+2)]a

=

(m+1)c1+ 1 2 [m(m+1)]a

=

(m+1)c1+ 1 2 [m(m+1)]a
This says that
k
å
j = 1 cj = kc1+ 1 2 k(k-1)a
when k = m+1. The principle of mathematical induction now applies. It gives the desired conclusion.

Proof of (ii) . We wish to show
k
å
j = 1 cj = 1 2 k(c1+ck)
Observe
1 2 k(c1+ck) = 1 2 k(c1+[c1+(k-1)a]) = kc1+ 1 2 k(k-1)a
Therefore the assertion
k
å
j = 1 cj = 1 2 k(c1+ck)
follows from
k
å
j = 1 cj = kc1+ 1 2 k(k-1)a

really its as simple as that.

there ya go, you got it:rofl:rofl:deal

[chliJs]

1. A
2. B
3. D.
4. C.
5. E.

2. Present state holds most value, but past shouldn't be disregarded.

agree on both.

[Decebal]

Some correct answers; some - clearly wrong!:deal

[Decebal]

Any more takers? Too difficult for you?

[Stinky gloves]

This is an example of how American's rate fighters...

There are 3 fighters...A B and C.

A beat B and lost to C twice.

B lost to A and drew with C.

C beat A twice and drew with B

So...

A - 1-0-2
B - 2-1-0
C - 0-1-1

Americans rate A (Hopkins) the highest by far.

That cause A beat D (who would beat both B and C) and who beat F 2x (F beat already A 10 years ago).

[Decebal]

5 people with the courage of their convictions! Nice!

[Brickhaus]

Not on the committee, but I went A, C, B, D, E. A is clearly tops and E is clearly the worst. D only had the ability to beat the other two worst fighters, which puts him second to last. C had the ability to beat the best, which no other fighter had, which puts him second, ahead of the two fighters who could beat him. B sits in the middle. However, all of this could be subject to change if they actually fought each other, based on how convincingly they could beat the other ones.

As for ranking, I'd only look at the past 10 fights, unless the fighter has an especially high fight rate. Anything earlier than that is pretty much irrelevant in determining how good they are now. I'd also consider the quality of opposition of their opponents, and of course, their actual skill level.

[kg0208]

Some correct answers; some - clearly wrong!:deal
No such thing as clearly wrong unless A is not at the top and E is not at the bottom..those are the only OBVIOUS choices. You can say that they don't agree with YOUR way or ranking, but certainly not wrong.

Lets look at the case of Cintron....do you have him ahead or behind Margarito? He is ahead of Margarito in my current rankings, but Margarito beat him in his past 5 fights. However, Cintron doesn't look at all like the same fighter, has since won a title.

Clearly B, C, and D have 2 wins and 2 losses. Depending on what you value more is where you would rank them. Some will factor in best win and worst loss, some will factor in some kind of overall average. It also depends on HOW they lost.

[Decebal]

Not on the committee, but I went A, C, B, D, E. A is clearly tops and E is clearly the worst. D only had the ability to beat the other two worst fighters, which puts him second to last. C had the ability to beat the best, which no other fighter had, which puts him second, ahead of the two fighters who could beat him. B sits in the middle. However, all of this could be subject to change if they actually fought each other, based on how convincingly they could beat the other ones.



You should be able to rank them by the info given...for all practical purposes...

10 fights! That is a lot! Heck, Morales would be a contender if you go back that far!

[Stinky gloves]

ABDCE

re2, both, previous names and current fights.
Without considering previous names you pick at the top all prospects who KO bums in first round.
With only good names you favor old and inactive fighters

[Decebal]

No such thing as clearly wrong unless A is not at the top and E is not at the bottom. You can say that they don't agree with YOUR way or ranking, but certainly not wrong.

Lets look at the case of Cintron....do you have him ahead or behind Margarito? He is ahead of Margarito in my current rankings, but Margarito beat him in his past 5 fights. However, Cintron doesn't look at all like the same fighter, has since won a title.

There is a right answer, I think...and there is an answer that is wrong, that includes A first and E last!

[kg0208]

There is a right answer, I think...and there is an answer that is wrong, that includes A first and E last!

And that is what you think. It is not what everyone will think.

The committee isn't set to form a concensus opinion where everyone agrees. Not everyone ranks the same.

As I said, some people value certain things more than others.

The only clear thing in that scenario are first and last. The other 3 fighters are all 2 and 2 with mixtures of good wins and bad losses. Look at C, he has no BAD losses, he didn't lose to the worst fighter like B did. He has one HUGE win over A who is clearly the best.

There are too many variables in these situations for a formula like that to work in real life.

[Decebal]

And that is what you think. It is not what everyone will think.

The committee isn't set to form a concensus opinion where everyone agrees. Not everyone ranks the same.

As I said, some people value certain things more than others.

The only clear thing in that scenario are first and last. The other 3 fighters are all 2 and 2 with mixtures of good wins and bad losses. Look at C, he has no BAD losses, he didn't lose to the worst fighter like B did. He has one HUGE win over A who is clearly the best.

There are too many variables in these situations for a formula like that to work in real life.

I am not suggesting here that a very good case could not be made for more than one answer...but as far as I am concerned, there is one answer that to me at least makes more sense than any other.

This exercise has nothing to do with the Committee! It was just a bit of fun! Take it easy, bro! I am not questioning anyone's ability to rank real life fighters!:good

I'll pm you my answer, including detailed argument!;)

[kg0208]

I am not suggesting here that a very good case could not be made for more than one answer...but as far as I am concerned, there is one answer that to me at least makes more sense than any other.

This exercise has nothing to do with the Committee! It was just a bit of fun! Take it easy, bro! I am not questioning anyone's ability to rank real life fighters!:good

I'll pm you my answer, including detailed argument!;)
I'm not upset at all....I am answering the thread in the same manner I answer everything. Probably my detailed answers seem a little serious, and for that I apologize. It is however, the way that I have always posted. (Probably why some here hate talking to me, but too each their own I guess)

However, your thread title led me to believe this was about the committee.

[Decebal]

I'm not upset at all....I am answering the thread in the same manner I answer everything. Probably my detailed answers seem a little serious, and for that I apologize. It is however, the way that I have always posted. (Probably why some here hate talking to me, but too each their own I guess)

However, your thread title led me to believe this was about the committee.

It was a tongue in cheek provocation! Just a bit of a laugh! That does not mean that there isn't a right answer! Of course there is! The questions themselves have a logical answer!:good

[Decebal]

I will post my answer in 24 hours!:D

[Decebal]

It comes as no surprise to me that those who have proved themselves best at predicting fights have got this right!:yep

[Decebal]

Hint: use logic and a systematic approach to find the right answer...don't simply use your gut instinct!:good

[Brickhaus]

It was a tongue in cheek provocation! Just a bit of a laugh! That does not mean that there isn't a right answer! Of course there is! The questions themselves have a logical answer!:good

The questions themselves have several logical answers, not only one. There are wrong answers, but no single right answer. I, for instance, have C ahead of both people who could beat him. I'm just more impressed by the ability to beat the best and not lose to scrubs, which neither B nor D could do.

In any case, there would be a flaw in any logical proof you could possibly try to use to get a "right" answer in this one, which is why I have to qualify this as to subjectivity.

[kg0208]

The questions themselves have several logical answers, not only one. There are wrong answers, but no single right answer. I, for instance, have C ahead of both people who could beat him. I'm just more impressed by the ability to beat the best and not lose to scrubs, which neither B nor D could do.

In any case, there would be a flaw in any logical proof you could possibly try to use to get a "right" answer in this one, which is why I have to qualify this as to subjectivity.

Which is what I said, and I have seen his answer. Some may value C having the best win and NOT having lost to E more than they do D or B. Also, if C lost to B and D first, then got better and beat E then stunned everyone by beating A, while B beat C and D, then lost A and then E, I wouild move C ahead of him because he seems to be the better fighter NOW.

[sues2nd]

1) How would you rank fighters A, B, C, D and E if:

A could beat B, D and E but not C
B could beat C and D, but not A or E
C could beat A and E, but not B or D
D could beat C and E, but not A or B
E could beat B, but not A or C or D?


2) should fighters be ranked according to the names they have beaten on their resume in the past or just according to their likely present form, based on showings in recent fights and effects of recent fights on their likely present state?

Seriously tho....gotta agree with some of the others here. There are too many variables in rating fighters other than who would win or not.

Are these fighters all in the same weight class?
How impressive were their wins...or how close were their losses?
Were their losses by KO or decision...and were any SD or debatable decisions?
Are any on the decline?

I could go on and on....like I said, when its mythical, and there isnt much to go on in terms of variables. You could speculate, but in real life, the answer may be different.

[Knucklez]

A,C,B,D,E

A Beat 3 out of 4 (with exception of C) 1st Place
C Beat 2 out of 4 (but beat the best "A") 2nd Place
B & D beat 2 out of 4 (but B beat higher ranks)
B= 3rd Place
D= 4th Place
E Beat 1 out of 4 (which makes him the worst) 5th Place

[Decebal]

A,C,B,D,E

A Beat 3 out of 4 (with exception of C) 1st Place
C Beat 2 out of 4 (but beat the best "A") 2nd Place
B & D beat 2 out of 4 (but B beat higher ranks)
B= 3rd Place
D= 4th Place
E Beat 1 out of 4 (which makes him the worst) 5th Place

Too simplistic!:good

[Decebal]

Any other answers?

[DanePugilist]

Any other answers?I pretty much have to agree with kg and others.

There are too many unknowns to have one right answer. Time of fights. Was C's win over A a lucky win, or was it a complete dismantlement. Same goes for each of the fights. At whose backyard were the fights? Which of them are fighting at their natural weight, and if not, then how long have they been there.

All those factors are the ones I consider, when contemplating on a ranking. Shuffling the bones of wisdom is something I also do:spliff

[DanePugilist]

24 hours has long past - post the decision, Decebal...

[Decebal]

Allright, allright! Here is my answer to this puzzle!

Let me first say that this has little to do with practical world ranking of fighters...it's just a bit of fun and a tribute to our very own :happy :happy :happy ESB Rankings Committee!:happy :happy :happy

[Decebal]

1) How would you rank fighters A, B, C, D and E if:
A could beat B, D and E but not C
B could beat C and D, but not A or E
C could beat A and E, but not B or D
D could beat C and E, but not A or B
E could beat B, but not A or C or D?

Ok...this is how this thing works...Firstly, we use Occam's principle...keeping the number of awkward styles for the 5 fighters to a minimum.

First, you have to work out why C cannot be first...If he were, he would still be beaten by B and D...but these fighters were themselves beaten by A...clearly, if C gets beaten by such fighters, he cannot be the best...the only reason he beat A was styles!

Secondly, you work out that A has to be first...this is obvious...he was only beaten by C, because of styles.

Thirdly, you have to work out why B cannot be last...B beats both C and D so he cannot be that bad...why argue that B has an awkard style for C and D, but not A? There's no point in complicating matters unncessarily (Occam's principle)

Fourthly, you work out that E has to be last...the only reason why E beats B is because he is awkward for the style of B...he loses to everyone else, though...

So you have:

1.A
2.
3.
4
5.E

Next, you have to work out that C cannot be second...C beats A because he is awkward for A! If he weren't awkward, but in fact very good he would beat at least one of B or D too! And then, he would no longer be second, but first. But we have already established that C cannot be first. A is first!

We use the same argument to establish that B comes before D...the reason B gets beaten by E is that E is awkward for B...if E were in fact better than B, E would beat either C or D as well. But he doesn't, so he is not better than B. But B beats D! Sure, because he's better!

If C cannot be second, and B is better than D, then B has to come second!

1.A
2.B
3.
4.
5.E


Next, you establish that C has to come after D...not the other way around...it checks out! D beats C! Not the other way around! Also, fewer awkward style complications this way! C is not that good...he beats A only on styles...

So we have:

1.A
2.B
3.D
4.C
5.E


A - better than anyone, but gets beaten only by his styles nemesis - C...
B - wins/loses to form, but only gets beaten by his styles nemesis - E
D - wins/loses entirely to form! Kingpin of the system!
C - wins/loses to form, except he beats the Champ, A on styles.
E - wins/loses to form, except he beats B on styles...


This is the best I can do...maybe you can do better! :good

[DanePugilist]

Good explanation and analysis from the facts you represented.

[Decebal]

How about this for a legend?:D

A) Calzaghe
B) Kessler
D) Inkin
C) Bute
E) Mundine.

Or is it:

A) Kessler
B) Calzaghe
D) Inkin
C) Bute
E) Mundine.??

Hang on! Bute cannot be C, even though he would have a higher chance against Calzaghe than against Kessler! Dow! All my hard work - in vain! :(

[LeonMcS]

As the ratings commitee, I would've ranked whoever paid me the most first at the top of my rankings. A,B,C,D,E could've beaten F, but hey, guess who my number one contender is?

Or am I just too cynical?

[Decebal]

As the ratings commitee, I would've ranked whoever paid me the most first at the top of my rankings. A,B,C,D,E could've beaten F, but hey, guess who my number one contender is?

Or am I just too cynical?

:D

[Decebal]

:bump

[DanePugilist]

How about this for a legend?:D

A) Calzaghe
B) Kessler
D) Inkin
C) Bute
E) Mundine.

Or is it:

A) Kessler
B) Calzaghe
D) Inkin
C) Bute
E) Mundine.??

Hang on! Bute cannot be C, even though he would have a higher chance against Calzaghe than against Kessler! Dow! All my hard work - in vain! :(SMW is impossible for your thesis. As it is, none of the others are even remotely a threat to the 2 top dogs.

1) Kessler(Will not lose to anyone).
2) JC(Will lose to Kessler, and maybe Mundine in the future).
3) Mundine.(Might lose to Inkin. Might make a threat to JC).
4) Bute. (Might beat Inkin, but will lose to the 3 above.)
5) Inkin. (life and death fight with Bute, which he will lose, and he might even pull an upset against Mundine).

But who knows:yep

[Decebal]

SMW is impossible for your thesis. As it is, none of the others are even remotely a threat to the 2 top dogs.

1) Kessler(Will not lose to anyone).
2) JC(Will lose to Kessler, and maybe Mundine in the future).
3) Mundine.(Might lose to Inkin. Might make a threat to JC).
4) Bute. (Might beat Inkin, but will lose to the 3 above.)
5) Inkin. (life and death fight with Bute, which he will lose, and he might even pull an upset against Mundine).

But who knows:yep

:lol:

You think Mundine would beat Bute?:think

[kg0208]

You're explanation works for you. Yet you introduced a variable (Whomever's law) and didn't let anyone else know it was in play.

[Decebal]

You're explanation works for you. Yet you introduced a variable (Whomever's law) and didn't let anyone else know it was in play.

Occam's razor?

Well, doesn't that make perfect sense though? Why complicate matters unnecessarily?

[kg0208]

Occam's razor?

Well, doesn't that make perfect sense though? Why complicate matters unnecessarily?

Because matters get complicated. But it was your exercise.

[DanePugilist]

:lol:

You think Mundine would beat Bute?:thinkDepends on who keeps evolving the most. TBH none of what I wrote should be taken serious, though.

[Decebal]

Because matters get complicated. But it was your exercise.

I am not sure what you mean, mate!

Anyway, if someone can provide a more sensible, reasoned solution to the problem I set out, I will be pleased to see it! Let's have it!

[Decebal]

Depends on who keeps evolving the most. TBH none of what I wrote should be taken serious, though.

I think Mundine is over the hill, whereas Bute is up and coming.

Also, I take everything YOU say VERY seriously!:bart


(especially about Bute!)

[DanePugilist]

I am not sure what you mean, mate!

Anyway, if someone can provide a more sensible, reasoned solution to the problem I set out, I will be pleased to see it! Let's have it!He means that reality is more complicated than a mathematical thesis such as yours.

As I have stated, alot of parameters come into play other than who beats who.

[Decebal]

He means that reality is more complicated than a mathematical thesis such as yours.

As I have stated, alot of parameters come into play other than who beats who.

Of course! Obviously!:good

It's funny, people get on my back for not making it complicated enough, after complaining it was too complicated in the first place!:yep

[kg0208]

He means that reality is more complicated than a mathematical thesis such as yours.

As I have stated, alot of parameters come into play other than who beats who.

:good

[DanePugilist]

I think Mundine is over the hill, whereas Bute is up and coming.

Also, I take everything YOU say VERY seriously!:bart


(especially about Bute!):rofl - sorry mate... Mundine is on the incline, not decline - he keeps evolving, just like Bute is. Bute-Bika gave me some insight of Bute. He struggled abit due to his "new" more defensive adequade style, but he adapted very well to Bika's offence(I think Bika boxed very well till 6th round). From then on, Bute wiped the floor with Bika. I was both impressed with Bute, and put off a bit - but mostly impressed.

[Decebal]

:rofl - sorry mate... Mundine is on the incline, not decline - he keeps evolving, just like Bute is. Bute-Bika gave me some insight of Bute. He struggled abit due to his "new" more defensive adequade style, but he adapted very well to Bika's offence(I think Bika boxed very well till 6th round). From then on, Bute wiped the floor with Bika. I was both impressed with Bute, and put off a bit - but mostly impressed.

You think Mundine will be better the next time he fights than he was against Kessler?:shock:

[DanePugilist]

Of course! Obviously!:good

It's funny, people get on my back for not making it complicated enough, after complaining it was too complicated in the first place!:yepThose who thought it was too complicated, did not participate - even when simplified.

Some find it easier, when letters have names attached to them.

[kg0208]

Of course! Obviously!:good

It's funny, people get on my back for not making it complicated enough, after complaining it was too complicated in the first place!:yep

I never complained it was too complicated. Quite the opposite actually. But I can see where you're coming from.

[DanePugilist]

You think Mundine will be better the next time he fights than he was against Kessler?:shock:Yes, Mundine is alot better since then, imho.

[Decebal]

I never complained it was too complicated. Quite the opposite actually. But I can see where you're coming from.

Let's make up, then! Friends?:D

[Decebal]

Yes, Mundine is alot better since then, imho.

:admin

[DanePugilist]

Let's make up, then! Friends?:DYou should receive kudos for making this thread, and the other one. It was a good excersize.

[DanePugilist]

:adminYou disagree?

[Decebal]

You disagree?

Who am I to disagree! I am just worried, for Bute!:|

[DanePugilist]

Who am I to disagree! I am just worried, for Bute!:|Bute evolves as well... He has alot of talent, maybe limitless, but he has some work to do.

If he keeps his head straight, he could very well beat Mundine and beyond that. But I have seen alot of improvement in Mundine, since he lost to Siaca.

I think that Butes' next fight will prove alot more than Mundines next.

[Decebal]

Bute has a lot of talent, definitely limitless!

:happy :happy :happy :happy :happy

[DanePugilist]

:happy :happy :happy :happy :happy:rofl :rofl Dont edit my post - I hailed Bute more than sufficiently:cool:

[Decebal]

I hailed Bute more than sufficiently:cool:

:yep

[miamite]

1) How would you rank fighters A, B, C, D and E if:
A could beat B, D and E but not C
B could beat C and D, but not A or E
C could beat A and E, but not B or D
D could beat C and E, but not A or B
E could beat B, but not A or C or D?

Ok...this is how this thing works...Firstly, we use Occam's principle...keeping the number of awkward styles for the 5 fighters to a minimum.

First, you have to work out why C cannot be first...If he were, he would still be beaten by B and D...but these fighters were themselves beaten by A...clearly, if C gets beaten by such fighters, he cannot be the best...the only reason he beat A was styles!

Secondly, you work out that A has to be first...this is obvious...he was only beaten by C, because of styles.

Thirdly, you have to work out why B cannot be last...B beats both C and D so he cannot be that bad...why argue that B has an awkard style for C and D, but not A? There's no point in complicating matters unncessarily (Occam's principle)

Fourthly, you work out that E has to be last...the only reason why E beats B is because he is awkward for the style of B...he loses to everyone else, though...

So you have:

1.A
2.
3.
4
5.E
There are a great number of flaws in your arguement after this point. I will state my opinion after this point:

I think the vast majority of people would agree with A being ranked 1, and E being ranked last.

Then we are left with
B (beat C, D)
C (beat A, E)
D (beat C, E)

I find it is impossible for you to rank D above C without being hypocritical in your arguement. D and C both share a win over E. But C has a second win over the number 1 postion, while D's win is over someone rated below that. So C should clearly be ranked over D. This is hard to argue in my opinion.

When it comes to B and D, they both share a victory over C. Because we know that E is last, we come to the conclusion that B's win over D is greater than D's win over E, so B must be ranked higher than D.

So in my opinion it is very hard to argue the fact that D should be second to last.

So we are left with
1. A
2.
3.
4. D
5. E

At this point we are left with B(wins over C,D) and C(wins over A,E). B has wins over number 2(or 3) and number 4. C has wins over number 1 and 5.

It is up to the person to decide what they feel is greater. If we were to award 5 points for a win over 1st place, 4 over 2nd, ect, and if you were to rank B over C, C would have 1 more point than B. If you were to rank C over B, they would have an equal amount of points. So technically the best choice would probably have them tied for the number 2 spot. But in my opinion, a win over the top dog is worth slightly more than two wins over average to above average opponents. This is why I rank C over B.

My final ranking:

1. A
2. C
3. B
4. D
5. E

[DanePugilist]

C lost to D... You chose to disregard that fact, despite you pointed it out.

[miamite]

C lost to D... C's win over A is greater than D's win over C. They both share a victory over E. Thus C is clearly ranked over D. Not that hard to figure out in my opinion.

[DanePugilist]

C's win over A is greater than D's win over C. They both share a victory over E. Thus C is clearly ranked over D. Not that hard to figure out in my opinion.D only lost to the top dogs. C was very inconsistant.

[Decebal]

C's win over A is greater than D's win over C. They both share a victory over E. Thus C is clearly ranked over D. Not that hard to figure out in my opinion.

B beats C as well...

[miamite]

D only lost to the top dogs. C was very inconsistant. I'm sorry but mathematically analyzing data must not be your strong point.
You are saying that a win over number 4 and 5 is better than a win over number 1 and 5. Do you realize this?

[miamite]

B beats C as well... If you choose to read my post you will see that I answer every question you may have in it.

[kg0208]

It also depends on how much you value the H2H win though.

[kg0208]

I'm sorry but mathematically analyzing data must not be your strong point.
You are saying that a win over number 4 and 5 is better than a win over number 1 and 5. Do you realize this?

You are jumping the gun.

By his calculations, your #4 is his #2. You would need to have already figured out and agreed on your math to make your statement.

As I said, there are a ton of variables.

[miamite]

It also depends on how much you value the H2H win though. All we were provided with is head to head wins! This is mathematically easy to figure out.

[Decebal]

So in my opinion it is very hard to argue the fact that D should be second to last.

So we are left with
1. A
2.
3.
4. D
5. E



Huh?:huh

[kg0208]

All we were provided with is head to head wins! This is mathematically easy to figure out.

I never said we were provided with anything more than Head to head. I am saying how much VALUE you place on one fighter beating another when doing your rankings seems to be different than his.

[DanePugilist]

I'm sorry but mathematically analyzing data must not be your strong point.
You are saying that a win over number 4 and 5 is better than a win over number 1 and 5. Do you realize this?To you he was no .2. You can't disregard the fact that he beats the very fighter you praise.

[miamite]

You are jumping the gun.

By his calculations, your #4 is his #2. You would need to have already figured out and agreed on your math to make your statement.

As I said, there are a ton of variables. He is stating D should be rated above C. What that means is that in his ratings C is rated 4 and E is rated 5. Thus, they both share a win over #5 while D has a second win over his #4 and C has a win over his #1. Not jumping the gun at all. I don't understand the confusion.

edited to put the correct letter in.

[Decebal]

At this point we are left with B(wins over C,D) and C(wins over A,E). B has wins over number 2(or 3) and number 4. C has wins over number 1 and 5.

It is up to the person to decide what they feel is greater. If we were to award 5 points for a win over 1st place, 4 over 2nd, ect, and if you were to rank B over C, C would have 1 more point than B. If you were to rank C over B, they would have an equal amount of points. So technically the best choice would probably have them tied for the number 2 spot. But in my opinion, a win over the top dog is worth slightly more than two wins over average to above average opponents. This is why I rank C over B.

My final ranking:

1. A
2. C
3. B
4. D
5. E

Sorry, mate, but this is gibberish!

[miamite]

Huh?:huh Huh what? The open spaces or how I came the conclusion D is number 4?

[miamite]

To you he was no .2. You can't disregard the fact that he beats the very fighter you praise. I'm not disregarding it! D hold's a win over my number 5 and my number 2. C holds a win over my number 5 and my number 1! Again, this is very simple in my opinion.

[Decebal]

Huh what? The open spaces or how I came the conclusion D is number 4?

"So in my opinion it is very hard to argue the fact that D should be second to last.

So we are left with
1. A
2.
3.
4. D
5. E"

[miamite]

Sorry, mate, but this is gibberish! What is gibberish?! Why don't you point out a specific flaw so I can confirm my contention.

[DanePugilist]

He is stating D should be rated above B. What that means is that in his ratings B is rated 4 and E is rated 5. Thus, they both share a win over #5 while D has a second win over his #4 and C has a win over his #1. Not jumping the gun at all. I don't understand the confusion.I have never stated D was above B.

As you will find earlier, I had the same as Decebal.

A, B, D, C, E.

[miamite]

"So in my opinion it is very hard to argue the fact that D should be second to last.

So we are left with
1. A
2.
3.
4. D
5. E" ............Second to last is fourth in this case.

[kg0208]

He is stating D should be rated above B. What that means is that in his ratings B is rated 4 and E is rated 5. Thus, they both share a win over #5 while D has a second win over his #4 and C has a win over his #1. Not jumping the gun at all. I don't understand the confusion.

You're wrong. He has B rated as #2 and D as #3.

[miamite]

I have never stated D was above B.

As you will find earlier, I had the same as Decebal.

A, B, D, C, E.

I apologize I meant C in the instances where I stated B. I corrected it now.

[miamite]

You're wrong. He has B rated as #2 and D as #3. Read above, I meant to put C in place of B. In context you can clearly see that.

[Decebal]

What is gibberish?! Why don't you point out a specific flaw so I can confirm my contention.

You arbitrarily choose the number of points you want to give for a win over a certain fighter...

You disregard that B would actually beat C head to head...

You make an arbitrary assumption about which wins are more important...

...after having contradicted yourself...and you STILL hope to come to a logical conclusion...tough ask!

[DanePugilist]

I'm not disregarding it! D hold's a win over my number 5 and my number 2. C holds a win over my number 5 and my number 1! Again, this is very simple in my opinion.You should also regard the loses. C lost to those of lesser rank. You can't just look at one side of the facts.

[Decebal]

Miamite, mate, you had a good first stab - but this takes a while! Give it another go! It's not easy - took me 30 minutes...:good

[miamite]

You arbitrarily choose the number of points you want to give for a win over a certain fighter...

You disregard that B would actually beat C head to head...

You make an arbitrary assumption about which wins are more important...

...after having contradicted yourself...and you STILL hope to come to a logical conclusion...tough ask! :patsch No I haven't at all! Again, why don't you point out a specific flaw in my arguement?

[kg0208]

Read above, I meant to put C in place of B. In context you can clearly see that.
No in context I can see that you placed the wrong letter in the wrong place and it messed up your argument.

Either way, NO ONE here can answer this question definitively. They can using their OWN ratings and values. You value certain things, others value different things.

Some value Head to Head wins over another fighter more than others, especially when other things are relatively equal.

[miamite]

Miamite, mate, you had a good first stab - but this takes a while! Give it another go! It's not easy - took me 30 minutes...:good You haven't even pointed out a specific flaw in my arguement yet, mate.

[miamite]

No in context I can see that you placed the wrong letter in the wrong place and it messed up your argument.
:patsch B wasn't even in the discussion at the time of the mistake! We were talking about C and D.

[Decebal]

:patsch No I haven't at all! Again, why don't you point out a specific flaw in my arguement?

The only thing you got right is that A comes first and E comes last, but you haven't even proved that as well as I did...

[LeonMcS]

Gentleman, gentleman...F's manager is outside the door and he has a nice brown paper bag for all of you.

[Decebal]

Gentleman, gentleman...F's manager is outside the door and he has a nice brown paper bag for all of you.

:D

[miamite]

1) How would you rank fighters A, B, C, D and E if:
A could beat B, D and E but not C
B could beat C and D, but not A or E
C could beat A and E, but not B or D
D could beat C and E, but not A or B
E could beat B, but not A or C or D?

1.A
2.B
3.D
4.C
5.E B has win's over your number 3 and 4. D has wins over number 4, 5. C has wins over number 1 and 5.

Lets start with C and D. The both share a win with your number 5, while C has a win over #1, and D has a second win over #4. Mate, can you not see the flaw in your arguement?

[kg0208]

:patsch B wasn't even in the discussion at the time of the mistake! We were talking about C and D.

Who cares if you were discussing B? You said B....don't blame me for taking something you mention 2 times in your post out of context. You placed it in the wrong context. Take responsibility for it and stop trying to say someone else took it wrong. You placed "B" in that post 2 times and "C" was only mentioned in the end. Considering the context of the conversation and the fact that we are discussing a difference in rankings, I assumed you meant what you said. That's your issue not mine.

[Decebal]

B has win's over your number 3 and 4. D has wins over number 4, 5. C has wins over number 1 and 5.

Lets start with C and D. The both share a win with your number 5, while C has a win over #1, and D has a second win over #4. Mate, can you not see the flaw in your arguement?

If C is second, but he can beat A, then why isn't C above A...ie FIRST?

[miamite]

The only thing you got right is that A comes first and E comes last, but you haven't even proved that as well as I did... I know exactly what you are saying in your arguement and the steps you have taken to come to that conclusion. However, I feel I have taken a more mathematical approach to reaching my conclusion. I can see where you are coming from though, and why you reached the final rankings you did.

[Decebal]

I know exactly what you are saying in your arguement and the steps you have taken to come to that conclusion. However, I feel I have taken a more mathematical approach to reaching my conclusion. I can see where you are coming from though, and why you reached the final rankings you did.

I am glad you finally see what I mean...I cannot see what you mean...sorry, mate!

[miamite]

If C is second, but he can beat A, then why isn't C above A...ie FIRST? Ask yourself that! That is the approach you took to come to the conclusion that C should be rated so lowly!

[miamite]

I am glad you finally see what I mean...I cannot see what you mean...sorry, mate! I could see what you meant, and the approach you took the second I read your arguement. I felt it was flawed which is why I countered with mine. I still haven't seen a specific counter of yours that I could not answer.

[Decebal]

Ask yourself that! That is the approach you took to come to the conclusion that C should be rated so lowly!

You think your approach is mathematical, but it isn't. If you were to look at the displacements from form according to your ranking, and then compared them to the displacements according to my ranking, you would realise that your ranking required MORE strange things to happen than mine...that is maths, mate!:deal

[miamite]

Who cares if you were discussing B? You said B....don't blame me for taking something you mention 2 times in your post out of context. You placed it in the wrong context. Take responsibility for it and stop trying to say someone else took it wrong. You placed "B" in that post 2 times and "C" was only mentioned in the end. Considering the context of the conversation and the fact that we are discussing a difference in rankings, I assumed you meant what you said. That's your issue not mine. I never said it was not my fault! It was clearly my fault. But the point is that you insinuated that I meant to use B in that situation, when it was clearly an honest mistake.

[miamite]

You think your approach is mathematical, but it isn't. If you were to look at the displacements from form according to your ranking, and then compared them to the displacements according to my ranking, you would realise that your ranking required MORE strange things to happen than mine...that is maths, mate!:deal Again, mate, please point these things that you keep talking about out.

[kg0208]

I never said it was not my fault! It was clearly my fault. But the point is that you insinuated that I meant to use B in that situation, when it was clearly an honest mistake.
:good

[Decebal]

Again, mate, please point these things that you keep talking about out.

The reason why it took me 30 minutes is because I actually calculated the displacements and came to the conclusion that my ranking causes least disturbance...you haven't. Give it a try and you will convince yourself. I cannot explain the case more clearly than I have already, in the various posts, including my initial explanation. Sorry. Take it easy, bro!:good

[LeonMcS]

But surely I would be before E, except after C?

[miamite]

The reason why it took me 30 minutes is because I actually calculated the displacements and came to the conclusion that my ranking causes least disturbance...you haven't. Give it a try and you will convince yourself. I cannot explain the case more clearly than I have already, in the various posts, including my initial explanation. Sorry. Take it easy, bro!:good :twisted::twisted::fire You little twat! :twisted: :fire

Just kidding bud.

Well, I have tried explaining, have become bored with it, and it seems as though you're extremely solidified on your ranking. I doubt God himself could change your opinion. I'm curious to see what other ESB'ers have to say.

[Decebal]

:twisted::twisted::fire You little twat! :twisted: :fire

Just kidding bud.

Well, I have tried explaining, have become bored with it, and it seems as though you're extremely solidified on your ranking. I doubt God himself could change your opinion. I'm curious to see what other ESB'ers have to say.

Instead of getting bored trying to explain your false reasoning...calculate the displacement from form using both our rankings...and then get back to me, allright, bud!:good

[miamite]

Instead of getting bored trying to explain your false reasoning...calculate the displacement from form using both our rankings...and then get back to me, allright, bud!:good You do the same, mate. I have already pointed out flaws in your arguement which you have failed to respond to.

[Decebal]

You do the same, mate. I have already pointed out flaws in your arguement which you have failed to respond to.

:rofl I have to give you props for not letting logic interfere with your plans!:good

[miamite]

:rofl I have to give you props for not letting logic interfere with your plans!:good Why don't you look at the poll before acting as if my opinion is so incredibly senseless. :good

[sues2nd]

Again this whole practice is too vague. Too many variables (that I and others brought up) would come into play to make this decision too hard to narrow it down completely.

Like, what if fighter A's loss to C was a 1st round KO. Yet B KO'd C in the first round.....who do we rank higher?

What if the loss of A's to C was early in his career and hasnt lost since, clearing out the rest of the alphabet (no way fighter Q beats fighter A....He's been ducking him for YEARS!!!! :lol: ). Yet fighter C has since deteriorated and his skills have faded....so B's win over him is alot like is alot like if Sultan beats Evander (which ISNT GOING TO HAPPEN :hey ).

Like I said, its too simple to just display something in black and white and choose, when too many other things can come into play.

But I like what you were doing with the whole thing....keep us on our toes!

:good

[Vockerman]

I just noticed that the rating puzzle was posted in the general forum also.

I wanted to explain my position on the matter and offer a mathematical model that I think is accessable to most people.

I find myself in the unenviable position of disagreeing with many of my esteemed colleagues - which I have found in the past to be a position fraught with peril - so I will be a little more mathematical to attempt to justify my rankings. Please bear with me.

If I have made an error in my analysis I respectfully invite you to please point it out to me.

My central premise is simple -
No one boxes to lose :hey

So IF wins are all that matter

A is first he has three wins.

B,C and D each have 2 wins - what do we do now?

Quality of opposition - count the wins their opponents have (wins are all that matter) -
B has wins over guys that have combined 4 wins (C has 2 wins D has 2 wins)
C has wins over guys that have 4 wins (A has 3 and E has 1)

So they are still tied

D has wins over guys that have 3 wins (C has 2 and E has 1) so he has an even record with B and C over the weaker opposition and should go behind B and C.

Between B and C they have even scores of wins and even strength of opposition ( 4 wins by guys they beat ) so it comes down to head to head in which B takes it by virtue of his win against C

E is the weakest with no real argument for avoiding last place.

A B C D E

IF WINNING IS ALL THAT MATTERS :happy

[DanePugilist]

I just noticed that the rating puzzle was posted in the general forum also.

I wanted to explain my position on the matter and offer a mathematical model that I think is accessable to most people.

I find myself in the unenviable position of disagreeing with many of my esteemed colleagues - which I have found in the past to be a position fraught with peril - so I will be a little more mathematical to attempt to justify my rankings. Please bear with me.

If I have made an error in my analysis I respectfully invite you to please point it out to me.

My central premise is simple -
No one boxes to lose :hey

So IF wins are all that matter

A is first he has three wins.

B,C and D each have 2 wins - what do we do now?

Quality of opposition - count the wins their opponents have (wins are all that matter) -
B has wins over guys that have combined 4 wins (C has 2 wins D has 2 wins)
C has wins over guys that have 4 wins (A has 3 and E has 1)

So they are still tied

D has wins over guys that have 3 wins (C has 2 and E has 1) so he has an even record with B and C over the weaker opposition and should go behind B and C.

Between B and C they have even scores of wins and even strength of opposition ( 4 wins by guys they beat ) so it comes down to head to head in which B takes it by virtue of his win against C

E is the weakest with no real argument for avoiding last place.

A B C D E

IF WINNING IS ALL THAT MATTERS :happyYou make a valid point, and its defendable - I still feel that placing B, C and D you need to go by H2H, which would mean B>D>C, but your point is good as well.

[Decebal]

I just noticed that the rating puzzle was posted in the general forum also.

I wanted to explain my position on the matter and offer a mathematical model that I think is accessable to most people.

I find myself in the unenviable position of disagreeing with many of my esteemed colleagues - which I have found in the past to be a position fraught with peril - so I will be a little more mathematical to attempt to justify my rankings. Please bear with me.

If I have made an error in my analysis I respectfully invite you to please point it out to me.

My central premise is simple -
No one boxes to lose :hey

So IF wins are all that matter

A is first he has three wins.

B,C and D each have 2 wins - what do we do now?

Quality of opposition - count the wins their opponents have (wins are all that matter) -
B has wins over guys that have combined 4 wins (C has 2 wins D has 2 wins)
C has wins over guys that have 4 wins (A has 3 and E has 1)

So they are still tied

D has wins over guys that have 3 wins (C has 2 and E has 1) so he has an even record with B and C over the weaker opposition and should go behind B and C.

Between B and C they have even scores of wins and even strength of opposition ( 4 wins by guys they beat ) so it comes down to head to head in which B takes it by virtue of his win against C

E is the weakest with no real argument for avoiding last place.

A B C D E

IF WINNING IS ALL THAT MATTERS :happy

I agree...when I first made up this puzzle, I thought that A, B, C, D, E was the right order...but the more I looked into it, the more I realised that C was actually not third, but fourth...this explains the various wins and loses better than any other combination (i.e. more fights go to form using this combination than according to any other...)

[Decebal]

:bump

because it might help with the p4p debate threads...