Does MMAth Mean Denis Kang Will Beat Alan Belcher?

by Kid Nate on Jan 14, 2009 5:52 PM EST in MMA Events

FightMatrix -- one of the best quantitative MMA analysts out there has done a study of fight results that shows that MMAth -- MMA math -- seems to actually be a very accurate predictor of fight outcomes:

It’s an interesting subject that probably comes up more in boxing than in MMA, but it’s definitely more intriguing in the MMA world due to the large variance in styles. I ran the analysis with all MMA bouts that we have on record (over 68,000).

So how often does A beat C?
...

In the end, A prevailed over C at a 71% success rate (2988 of 4210).

When all three bouts occur within a 3 year window, the success rate improves to 72.3% (2144 of 2967).

Within a 2 year window, 73% (1590 of 2179).

18 months, 74.2% (1211 of 1633).

12 months, 75.2% (732 of 974).

9 months, 77.5% (488 of 630).

6 months, 80.9% (262 of 324).

3 months, 85.6% (77 of 90).

That's very compelling analysis when looking at 68,000 fights. However, I think it breaks down just a bit when it comes to individual bouts. For example when he looks at UFC 93:

Denis Kang (A) beat Marvin Eastman (B) on 10/25/2008
Marvin Eastman (B) beat Alan Belcher (C) on 9/24/2005
Denis Kang (A) ??? Alan Belcher (C) on 1/17/2009

Admittedly, Kang is the favorite of the odds makers as well. Seemingly everything is on Kang's side except the Octagon debut jitters. But still I have a feeling Kang is going to KTFO'd this weekend.

Tweet Comment 20 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Nice stat's.

Very interesting the way it was broken down. I would love to see more fighter stats and in fight breakdowns during the PPV shows.

by Wookalarman on Jan 14, 2009 6:03 PM EST reply actions

I’d really like to see this study when it only involves top 25 or top 10 fighters. The problem I have with the study is that if “A beats B” and “B beats C,” without knowing ANYTHING about any of the fighters involved it’s intuitive to say that A is probably a better fighter than C. A won his fight, and C lost his. If you were asked who probably has a best record, A would be the best bet. So, when matched up together, there’s a good chance that A just might be on another level than C.

For example, Fedor Emelianenko beat Minotauro Nogueira. Minotauro Nogueira beat Zulu. Of course Fedor is going to beat Zulu. Zulu is awful.

That’s kind of rambling, but I hope it makes sense to others.

by Mike Fagan on Jan 14, 2009 6:14 PM EST reply actions

I think you are on the right track, but I don’t thing top X is the way to refine the stats. Maybe when A and C have a win over the same guy D. or A, B, and C have winning records. Not something as restrictive as top X because that changes all the time. but something to filter out a lot of the BS in the stats. Wider strokes. Similar to the time window provided by fight matrix.

by szucconi on Jan 14, 2009 6:22 PM EST up reply actions

Perfect sense, its exactly what I said in the original post about it. Basically there is a selection factor so that any time three fighters fight each other, as long as one of the three fighters is much better than one of the others, 99% of the time it will result in A>B>C. Doesn’t matter how good the third fighter is, the fights will still wind up resulting in A>B>C.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 14, 2009 6:23 PM EST up reply actions

It is an interesting statistic. That said, correlation doesn’t show causation. I worry like Fagan that there are factors involved that might not have been accounted for in the formula.

by Rundownloser on Jan 14, 2009 6:40 PM EST reply actions

I think the big one is “time”. Fighters do not (these days) stay at a static skill level over time. But not all fighters change equally; they’re not all heading towards a skill singularity. Some of the most important evidence of this will be presented at 94, when two fighters – who STARTED with amazing ability and solid skills – face each other admist no real idea of who will win, and a lot of talk about who has improved which skills more.

"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."

by AJB on Jan 14, 2009 7:34 PM EST up reply actions

Who's gonna win?

Seemingly everything is on Kang’s side except the Octagon debut jitters. But still I have a feeling Kang is going to KTFO’d this weekend.

So who’s going to win? Is there a “get” missing? If so I agree, I’m a Kang fan as he’s a good interesting fighter, but I’m just not feeling it.

ON TOPIC of MMA Math I’m wandering what percentage of these fights are going to be a loss no matter who wins. Here’s an example of what I’m talking about: A?=?B / A>C but D>A, also B>D but C>B. MMA math is always going to win…and lose in this example no matter who ends up winning. might only be a couple of points difference, but is wouldn’t be surprised if it was more than 5%.

by natyong on Jan 14, 2009 7:37 PM EST reply actions

When I did this study..

I tried to keep it as basic as possible, because to be honest.. setting this thing up took some time and effort. Not only that, but I couldn’t really decide on a fair way to refine it… because as one earlier poster stated, doing Top X definitely has its downfalls.

I was actually very surprised in how well the math worked.. and especially how the narrowing time window consistently increased the probability.

by JCS_FM on Jan 14, 2009 7:57 PM EST reply actions

what if those with losing records were disregarded from the list? that could probably make it more accurate.

http://weoweoweo.deviantart.com/

by Anton Tabuena on Jan 14, 2009 9:11 PM EST up reply actions

Well..

Its accurate now.. its just that it applies to the entire MMA world, as opposed to only top fights.

I’m not sure disregarding losing records would do a whole lot… after all, a fighter has to be pretty pisspoor to having a losing record.

by JCS_FM on Jan 14, 2009 10:00 PM EST up reply actions

But guys like Travis Fulton and Dan Severn (or even to a lesser extent, say, Chris Tushcherer) move that chain a little through mass fighting of bums/questionably worked bouts. Still, the sample size is big enough that its impressive to note more so than a few guys with monster records.

by D.Capitated on Jan 15, 2009 8:17 AM EST up reply actions