The Science and Math of Mayweather vs. MacGregor

By now you have all seen the greatest MMA fight of all time, Floid Mayweather vs. Conor MacGregor. Mayweather is the pound-for-pound ninjutsu specialist in the western hemisphere, but is competent in all arts. Hence the interest in him fighting the Irish/Scottish street fighter MacGregor – a matchup so crazy, it just might have worked!

Sports scientist Jack Slack (no, not that one!) asked “four questions” leading into this fight. In this study I will demonstrate answers to Jack’s (if I may… see what I did there?) questions.

But first, a preliminary round of answer. Jack Slack is, as you may know (yep), a pseudoname. See here for details. But he has major league tipped his hands in his “four questions,” showing that he is likely Jewish. Matzoh, anyone? This narrows things down to probably Wolf Blitzer. Anyway, onward to Slack’s four questions.

(1) What are “MMA angles” and “MMA distance”?

Jack’s first question is about some technical terminology. Everyone who is anyone knows that soccer is different from football is different from foosball, and fighting is no different. You might think of an “angle” as being the direction in which a fighter punches his (OR HER) strikes, but this is only in European fighting, which is more historical. In Modern Martial Arts (MMA), which is primarily American-influenced, the angles can be the directions of literally anything – kicks, pile drivers, headlocks, or fork lifts. Here is a perfect example of what I’m talking about:

Notice that McGregor uses the angle of the air to fork lift his opponent, rather than his hand per se. In European-style this is actually not permitted (for obvious reasons).

Now, MMA distance is a whole another ball game (pardon the metaphor). In the older arts, which Mayweather practitions as noted above, fighters mainly wrestle each other on the ground. Here is perhaps the greatest predecessor to Mayweather (Roy Grazie) showing traditional, European distance:

This is called a leggy jolt. Notice how Gracie jolts in and breaks his opponents knees with his hands, then executes a standard horizontal gyration up to the head.

But MMA rules disallows this kind of maneuver, because there have been too many injuries (see the recent studies of brain injuries in soccer, for appetizers). For more on the science of acceleration, distance, and gravity, see my work here.

(2) How much gas will there be in McGregor’s [sic] tank?

Now, this question is a bit trickier to answer scientifically, because we do not know what MacGregor was eating before the fight or even during the breaks between rounds – since the camera often panned away.

But basically, what we know is that when a fighter doesn’t have any food, they tend not to have much in the way of gas. Gas is produced by food. When a fighter does have food, they are capable of gas. But of what quality? It looks like MacGregor, out of arrogance, did not eat very well during the fight. As many commentators have speculated, he came out aggressively in the beginning of the fight, which means that he had a lot of food to keep his initial gaseous state. But by the second trimester of the fight, you can see him getting very tired. For example,

I wasn’t the only one thinking he looked a wee bit wobbly at this point in the pàrléz-vous. Even Maverick Mac said of himself, “…wobbly…”.

For more on food and how to build your life around it, see my work here.

(3) How will the clinch be contested and, more importantly, refereed?

If I may be Franky Alvarez, the clinch wasn’t refereed. The referee for this match allowed Mayweather and MacGregor to clinch tens, possibly hundred of times (I lost count even in the first trimester). The clinch has been a serious problem in traditional fighting and MMA. It is basically fighting’s version of soccer players falling down and crying.

They clinch when they are too scared to fight anymore. Here is probably the most famous clinch of the 21st century:

Notice how all of a sudden these two otherwise excellent boxers are able to absorb a gaggle of gut punches. Coincidence? No Sir, Bob. Remember that “distance” we were chatting about earlier? The clinch is known to reduce, that is to say, diminish, it. And what happens when you reduce distance? You reduce force. Boxing may as well be like

The sad thing is, fighters think they are protecting their brains when they clinch. For why this is pure hufflebunny, see my work here and here. (To make a short story: your brain is everywhere, folks.)

(4) Who will actually buy this fight?

One of the biggest markets seems to have been the racism-abuse-nbd crowd (explained). Or as Kelefa Sanneh explains, the same. This is unfortunate because, as studies have shown ages after age, it is bad to be racist.

Coincidentally, it is also bad to be a misogyny!

For some of my work on sexism, see here. This concludes the applications of my theories to the fight of the centuries as questioned by Jack Slack.


A Cavity in the Heart of Science’s Tooth

Confirming everything that I have ever said about science on this blog since 2007, according to this study by the New York Times, dentists and the government that runs them have been lying to children about the value of flossing since 1979. You will recall with fervor that 1979 was the year that Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ruhollah Mūsavi Khomeini returned from exile to rule Iran.
Not only that, but it was the last time there was a total sun darkening over America, interpreted here:

The next time there will be a total eclipse in America? Sufficing to be said, basically right now.

“Nothing in my life is a coincidence.”
Kami Garcia, Beautiful Creatures

Very sorry I cannot find much on this topic right now except for this.

We will become immortal jellyfish

Just yesterday the New York Times published a study about a species of animal that has achieved immortality. Or, we should say, inertial immortality. Inertial immortality is defined by me as follows: an object is inertially immortal if but only if it exists and will continue to exist unless another object destroys it. Many non-living objects have inertial immortality, e.g. plastic bottles, plastic bins, nuclear missiles, and so on. However, very few living objects have inertial immortality. Alex Chiu claims that he is one such object, but these claims have yet to be reviewed by the FDA or NASA.

Unfortunately, the author of the study, professional tweeter Nathanial Rich, falsely claims that this discovery has “barely registered outside the academic world.” Yet I, who am (proudly) outside the academic world, clearly registered the discovery back when Nathan was in diapers. It would have been nice to receive credit in Rich’s article.

I will end with a striking quote from the leading jellyfish scientist, Shin Kubota, who triples as a professional web designer and singer-songwriter.

Turritopsis application for human beings is the most wonderful dream of mankind. … Once we determine how the jellyfish rejuvenates itself, we should achieve very great things. My opinion is that we will evolve and become immortal ourselves.

Strike that. I will in fact end with an emotional video (different from the one in the singer-songwriter link) of Dr. Kubota presenting his research lyrically.

This week in “I already knew this, no thanks scientists”

(1) Someone gave scientists a grant to figure out that, the heavier a pregnant women is, the heavier her baby is likely to be. We already knew this. Newton showed that if you put a heavy object X inside of a lighter object Y, you get the weight of X plus the weight of Y. That gives you the weight of Z.

(2) Someone gave scientists a grant to figure out that, insofar as you continue drinking habits into youth, you feel like you are still a kid. We already knew this. Newton showed that an object that stays at rest does so precisely because it doesn’t do anything new. Those who remain immature, will remain so.

(3) Someone gave scientists a grant to figure out that, the less you sleep, the more obese you are. We already knew this. While Newton did not show it, other people showed that when you sleep, you are not eating. The less calories you consume, the lest you weigh. Mutantis matandis, as they say, the more you sleep, the less you eat!

Bad advice from disreputable people, i.e. studies by scientists

When scientists aren’t indulging in their weird fetish conferences, they are busy giving bad advice to young people.

This time around, scientists have given people even more incentive to become moderately intoxicated. Inebriation, they argue, will “lower” the risk of certain kinds of diseases. By the same logic, because drunkenness lowers inhibitions, and confidence raises attractiveness, and romantic partnerships increase lifespan, moderate drunkenness will “lower” the risk of death. But that is clearly nonsense!

And in any case, as anyone paying attention will know, buzzed driving is drunk driving. See for example this study.

You might be saying to yourself, “Wait a minute how can we reduce the risk of disease, when this guy Kevin says we are disease?” To this I say: Just because some lowly grad student named “Kevin” says something, doesn’t mean it’s true. After all, which is more likely: (1) That you are a person with free will, thoughts, feelings, and a body or (2) that some grad student on the Internet named Kevin has made an original contribution to science?

Can the elimination of humans foster human wellbeing?

So says this new research done by Science Daily. Thus we are now beginning to see the fruits of Sam Harris, who says that science can answer moral questions.

Well here’s an answer of science – eliminate the birthrate.

But if you eliminate the birthrate, then modus ponens you eliminate childhood, but then fortiori you eliminate adults! And what are we, if not adults?

Yet wellbeing is part of the fabric of the universe, as Brian Greene has vomited.* So you can’t have wellbeing without having the universe, and you can’t have the universe without adults.

The Vienna University of Technology should have its accreditation revoked by NIH.

*Yes, I know. A rare instance of my agreement with this Melchizedek of nonsense.