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.

Advertisements

Jean-Yves Beziau refutes scientists and his detractors: decisive

Many of you readers will have been following, upon my blog, the controversy. The first part [<–my research] was Cladistics who courageously defends Parsimony as the main methodologies of knowledge – a thesis that, not guilty of its own self, originated in the Nazi Germany. The second part [<– not my research] is New England Journal of Medicine declaring how, with Parsimony, the main methodologies of ethics is to share everything with everybody – even all data. Also drawing from Nazi imagery, the NEJofM labeled dissenters “research parasites.” All of these caused such hash tags as #ParsimonyGate and #researchparasites.

The third part has just come in, freshly from the press of a man called  “Jean-Yves Beziau."This man has upon the motivation of himself written a non-standard analysis of something called logic. Read there for the criticisms. But he has decisively and with completeness and confidence answered his accusers here. [<–not my research, but please read] Beziau’s reply will, I think be subjected to a lot of stigmata, much as my own work is. It is very hard, very difficult, to be against the going on in a field of study. Especially when you are quirky or funny, like Beziau (and me).

Lighter question: Will philosophers make as good hash tagging as the scientists?

I leave you with a quote from Professor Beziau:

Women and Men are not biologically similar, as you can see if you have a telescope.

Twitter study on the astronautical audience for Gilmore Girls

Recently (aka just now) NASA, which was subject to many public embarrassments following the Edward Snowden links on The Guardian website, was doing some public imaging work, allowing for people to tweet into a panel discussion. Here was the announcement Tweet. In any case, much to my pleasures, they responded to one of my tweets, I’ll be it after the panel was over (but it was right after it was was over, so I’ll be it a little fewer than otherwise). Here was our exchange:

The science of abortion

Last Thursday the United States Supreme Court, led by Sony Sotomoto, finally made a decision in the ongoing class action suit called Roe v. Wade, legislating once and for all that insurance companies cannot use their lavish tax breaks to give bonuses to doctors for performing abortions. The court’s decision was only loosely based on an historic agreement reached in 1885 called the “Dawes Act.” It’s no wonder that the Court decided to enforce this agreement only now, after Obama appointed the first minority to the bench. But PC is as PC does.

What is interesting to me in these debates is that no one pays attention to the science involved in this issue. As you can see by this astrological drivel, even the scientists don’t pay attention to the science. This is not surprising since, as Carl Hempel demonstrated, specialists frequently resist the truth in favor of their current theories.

So what is the science of abortion? Consider the following argument, which uses the scientific method:

(1) Abortions cannot be performed on unliving humans without unalienable rights to dreams, friends, and life [intuitive premise]
(2) Abortions are abortions [transitive property]
(3) If something is aborted, there must be a good reason for aborting it [from 2]
(4) If something is aborted, it was justified [adjusting the consequent; from 3]
(5) If something is aborted, it therefore was a living human with rights, albeit alienable, with respect to dreams, friends, and life [modus pondles; from 1 and 3]
(6) But 4 and 5 yield a negation of 2 [abductive disjunction of parts]
(7) Abortions, if they exist, must be unjustified [metaphysical necessity; ontological argument]
_____________
(8) Therefore, human beings are alive, and are not subject to a negation of at least some of the rights detailed in 1 [principles of logic; science]

It seems to me that this paradigm, a la cartes Thomas Küng, better explains the facts. Pro-Choicers and Pro-Lifers can whine all they want, but the truth is plain for all to see. My argument shows that abortions don’t exist but would be unjustified if they did exist. This shows that both competing paradigms – the Constitutional Paradigm, and the Religious Paradigm – are misguided. In a sense, like Newtonian physics, both are correct. I don’t have time to explain any further, but if someone wants to continue discussion in the comments they are more than welcome. As I’ve been known to throw my pearls to swine, I might respond.

William Dembski’s estrogen level exceeds 800 lb/ml

So William Dembski – in addition to histrionically closing discussion after my simple yet devastating objection to his ego-maniacal self-praise made him “weary” – has now deleted my comment altogether on The Panda’s Thumb. Several individuals, including Mr. Tomato Guy, have asked for the original comment. Although my victory over Dembski is now being trumpeted throughout the scientific community, I’ll post it here for posterity.

notedscholar

08/19/2009

11:39 am

Not to burst your bubbles, but this isn’t actually a pro-ID article. It’s more about math than anything else.

NS

Lastly, a video about Dembski becoming “weary”:

William Dembski can’t handle the truth

Go see over at the Panda’s Thumb where my very, very simple objection to Dembski’s theories makes him go totally berserk and shut off all comments for the blog. Talk about a lack of an open mind.

Why does he claim he shuts them off? Because he is “weary.” In addition to being very womanly [this annoys him because he is a Republican, not because women are bad – it is a major insult to women in fact to be so compared], this response to me shows how Dembski absolutely hates peer-review. They always act like they want peer-review, but when they get an actual peer (me) to review them, their brains shut off. Amazing.

You can’t make this stuff up.

dembski