As predictably as the tides, you can expect MMA website to hem and haw over the weekly Bellator ratings and what the increases and decreases mean for the promotion and MMA as a whole. There is much hand-wringing over the gain or loss of 75,000 viewers. For example, see MMA Junkie's latest weekly update:

http://mmajunkie.com/news/27996/bellator-62-ratings-up-61-percent-event-scores-175000-mtv2-viewers.mma

There was concern last week over a near record-low of only 108,000 viewers and jubilation this week over a return to 175,000 viewers. The problem is that these numbers are all estimations and the difference between last week and this week is equal to less than two dozen households.

Here's some math to prove my point:

Continue reading this post »

Among all the other annoyances of having Comcast, they don't carry FUEL and don't seem like they're going to anytime soon. For those that absolutely need to see as many fights live as possible, there is a partial solution. Fox Deportes looks like it will carry all the prelims that would be seen in English on FUEL. I checked my channel guide and they're listed as carrying the prelims before the FX show on Friday and the prelims before the Fox show next Saturday. It's too early to tell whether they'll carry the actual FUEL show on February 15th. I'm hoping the answer is yes.

It's not perfect. I don't get the channel in HD. I don't speak Spanish. You have to pay for the Multi Latino package, which is another $20 a month. You won't be able to watch the other programming like UFC Tonight or Countdown. But if you're desperate and you can't get FUEL, there is another way. Just thought I'd share that in case it helped anyone else.

...had nothing to do with Cruz-Faber or Siver-Wiman. Both were close fights with close rounds. An honest appraisal of several close rounds could lead one to call them for either fighter.

No, the thing that really makes me furious is Patricia Morse-Jarman's score of 30-27 for Anthony Njokuani. That means that she called the first round of the fight 10-9. What's a brother got to do to get a 10-8 round from this judge? The fight could have been stopped several times with Njokuani landing dozens of heavy shots. If that round wasn't 10-8, I have to imagine that no round could be. I'm sick and tired of lazy and incompetent judging. I'd love to know from Ms. Morse-Jarman why she disagreed with the other two judges. If I ran the athletic commission, I'd withhold further judging assignments until I got a straight answer. Of course, in the real world, not only was Morse-Jarman spared any negative repercussion, there she was judging the main event. 

I get that judging is really hard. I also get that sometimes good judges have a bad night. But we deserve better than this.

It didn't happen in some small regional promotion -- it happened in the WEC

It didn't happen in just any WEC event -- it happened in the last WEC event ever

It didn't happen in an untelevised prelim fight -- it happened on the main card

It didn't happen in just any main card fight -- it was a title fight

It didn't happen in just any title fight -- it was the main event

It didn't happen in just any main event -- it was the last WEC fight ever

It didn't happen in a blowout fight -- it happened in a painfully close decision

It didn't happen in just any round -- it happened in the last round

It didn't happen at just any point in the round -- it happened in the last minute

It didn't happen as merely a crazy attempt -- it landed and scored a knockdown

We saw it happen, and it happened perfectly

I was pleasantly surprised to hear Joe Rogan rant against the ineptitude we see so often in MMA judges. Like many, I believe that it's the judges who are the problem, not the ten-point must system. Replacing the old guard of boxing judges with a new breed of judges who are intimately familiar with the nuances of MMA will go a very long way to solving the problems with bad decisions. 

I was with Joe Rogan right until this sentence in his response to Keith Kizer (emphasis has been added by me):

Mixed Martial Arts is a far more complicated sport than boxing, and in order for someone to be educated in the subtle details that are playing out in a fight they have to have some martial arts experience themselves. 

I'm sorry, but this is just not true and it offends my sensibilities as a fan. It strikes me as the classic (and equally wrong) chicken hawk argument that says that only those who have served in the military have a right to make policy on war or defense. While some might find it helpful to have experience, I don't think it needs to be prerequisite. 

You can be a rocket scientist without ever going to space. You can be an oncologist without ever having had cancer yourself. And most importantly, you can correctly identify a table and chairs without having any experience as a carpenter. There is a lot that careful study can teach you about a subject; enough that it should make you a credible source of information on the topic and a capable arbiter, if necessary.

Would one be more likely to give greater credence to something like a leg kick if they had taken a few hard ones themself? Yes, probably. But that only amplifies the problem. Judges who lend greater weight to the techniques they practice are nothing if not biased. It shouldn't matter if your background is in boxing, grappling, traditional martial arts, or if you have no background. All that matters is that you be competent and faithful to the judging criteria given to you by the athletic commission. Anything more is either bias or a willful disregard for the official standards in place.

I am not suggesting that experience in fighting or training is a bad thing to look for in judges. What I am saying is that prioritizing that sort of background will result in the exclusion of smart, knowledgeable, and competent people who could do the job just as well. And in the end, getting the best people for the job should really be the primary goal.

This is a follow-up to my last Fan Post about how I did not believe that Compustrike was being truthful in their correction of the Diaz-Noons numbers. You can read that Fan Post here.

There was some chatter in the comments section to the post about the Bisping-Akiyama Compustrike numbers that people had lost faith in that company. Compustrike saw fit to respond and it gave us a chance to engage them more directly in conversation about those Diaz-Noons numbers. I'm not out to get them, I just think they're making a mistake. I will simply paste the comments here without editorializing. I'll leave it to you to make up your own minds about what really happened.

 

Rollo

Rollo, you’re still hung up over Noons’ strikes thrown? Noons-Diaz was a straight-up boxing match. Noon was throwing a lunging jab and many body shots that count as attempted arm strikes.

by compustrike on Oct 16, 2010 9:11 PM PDT via mobile reply actions  

 

600+ times?!?!

I ‘ve watched the iaz Noons fight 3 times now and it’s not even close.

Semper Fi' 
WatchKalibRun.com 
Pain don't hurt...

by RolloTomasi on Oct 16, 2010 9:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

 

Really?

Have you read the Fanpost I made regarding the thrown strikes number?

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2010/10/10/1743049/compustrike-is-not-off-the-hook-yet

It’s just not possible. It hurts the credibility of your stats to stand by that number.

by AnnieAgee on Oct 16, 2010 9:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

 

Rollo..Rollo...Rollo

if you’ve watched the fight three times and still come to that conclusion, then please don’t ever think about a career in strike counting!

by compustrike on Oct 16, 2010 9:27 PM PDT reply actions  

 

Why are you relying on insults? Given the evidence, don’t you think the burden of proof is on you?

by AnnieAgee on Oct 16, 2010 9:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

 

thank you.

Semper Fi' 
WatchKalibRun.com 
Pain don't hurt...

by RolloTomasi on Oct 16, 2010 11:58 PM PDT up reply actions  

 

really Annie?

Annie, were you live in San Jose for Diaz-Noons? CompuStrike was. We’ve been in the counting business for 25 years and as I said earlier, that fight was a straightup boxing match. Lunging jabs and body shots, whether "significant" or not, count as attempted strikes. We manned up and fixed our error, let’s move forward

by compustrike on Oct 16, 2010 9:35 PM PDT reply actions  

 

Appeal to Authority – (noun) A fallacy in which a rhetor seeks to persuade not by giving evidence but by appealing to the respect people have for the famous.

That’s one logical fallacy I’m not falling for.

I understand it was basically a boxing match, but after watching the fight several times myself, I still find it impossible to believe that Noons threw almost 200 more strikes than Diaz, who appeared equally as active with the same lunging jabs. If it was good for Diaz, why does Noons get different stats.

Are you sure you’ve fixed your error?

by AnnieAgee on Oct 16, 2010 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

 

compu,

For those that have not done the math, 600 strikes in five five minute rounds in one punch every 2.5 seconds, from bell to bell, every round, without pause.

Semper Fi' 
WatchKalibRun.com 
Pain don't hurt...

by RolloTomasi on Oct 17, 2010 12:00 AM PDT up reply actions  

 

Rollo,

You say this as if it is impossible to achieve. This fight was basically a boxing match so let’s compare it to boxing. 15 minutes in boxing is 5 rounds. 600 punches thrown is 120 per round. We have lightweights, in our database, that have averaged that every round over their entire career!

Annie,

Thanks for the English lesson now here’s a math lesson:

200 strikes divided into 5 rounds is 40 strikes per round. Divide 40 strikes per round into 5 minutes per round and its 8 more strikes thrown per minute. Is it really impossible to beleive that he threw, not landed, 8 more strikes per minute? That an extra strike thrown per flurry.

We’re not saying these strikes thrown were with any kind of power behind them. We are simply countng a fighters output. If a fighter throws a strike, regardless of how weak it is, then we count it.

by compustrike on Oct 17, 2010 8:12 AM PDT reply actions  

 

a paw shouldn't count as a strike.

Semper Fi' 
WatchKalibRun.com 
Pain don't hurt...

by RolloTomasi on Oct 17, 2010 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions  

 

Wow, you just keep digging don’t you?

Did you just compare boxing stats to MMA stats? You do realize that boxing is a pure striking sport and that Noons spent a good while defending grappling techniques, right? That was time spent not striking.

And did you just suggest that three minute rounds are comparable to five minute rounds? You do realize that fighters tire at the end of rounds and that the longer the round, the more their work rate tends to decrease, right?

You like math? How do you figure that your numbers were within half a percent of FightMetric and were 30% off on Noons? Since you’re the ones who admitted a mistake and that their numbers seem to be closer to what people think they saw, I’d say your numbers are the ones that look suspicious.

But the bigger problem is that your argument of "just" another 8 strikes per minute is absurd. Can you imagine someone throwing "just" another 8 strikes per minute more than the 611 you counted for Noons? And what about "just" 8 more strikes per minute than that?

That argument works when dealing with a low-activity striker. But you’re suggesting that Noons threw 27% more strikes than Nick Diaz, the highest-activity striker you have ever tracked, the man who holds all your records for volume. You can’t just expect to add incrementally to a number that’s already extremely high. It’s called diminishing returns.

Tell me, what is your current Compustrike record for most strikes thrown in a fight? My guess is that it now belongs to Noons and that he didn’t just break the previous record, he probably shattered it by at least 20%. That’s like someone right now running the 100 meter dash in 7.66 seconds. But of course, that would "just" be 0.2 seconds faster per 10 meters, right? Doesn’t that sound reasonable?

by AnnieAgee on Oct 17, 2010 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions  

 

I am aware of what Noons did, we were there live, cage-side.

Diminishing returns? That is a economic term that has absolutely nothing to do with counting strikes during an MMA fight.

I’m glad that you are well versed in English and Economics but this is why we just read these comments and have never responded. Your points, although intelligent, make no relevant sense to this discussion.

You, Annie, and Rollo seem like intelligent people but the majority of the comments on these websites are idiotic so we will spend more time continuing to improve our service and less time responding to these posts.

Thanks for the debate guys and have a great day.

by compustrike on Oct 17, 2010 11:04 AM PDT reply actions  

 

I’m sorry that you didn’t see the point. Diminishing returns means that any production system has a harder time squeezing more gains as production grows. That’s entirely relevant to MMA. The number of strikes thrown in a round cannot increase on a linear scale. It’s impossible to keep adding more and more. Neither time remaining nor responding to your opponent will allow it.

I give you credit for responding to this thread. You did your best to defend the indefensible. The 611 number is almost certainly wrong and you’ve offered no reasonable explanation beyond saying "Yup, that’s what happened." This, despite acknowledging that at least a portion of the number was wrong (although the correction has since disappeared from your website).

I commend you on your desire to improve your service and wish you the best of luck.

by AnnieAgee on Oct 17, 2010 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions  

 

When the Compustrike numbers showed up at the end of the Diaz-Noons fight, nearly everyone thought they looked wrong. Tonight, Compustrike posted new stats and issued the following statement:

 

**Correction**
We regret to announce that after reviewing the stats, we found a glich in our system that counted double the amount of Total Arm Strikes Landed for Noons.

We deeply regret this glich and assure that it will not happen again. 
The correct numbers are below.

 

Call me paranoid, but I'm not buying it.

While the 300+ strikes landed for Noons was certainly suspicious, equally suspicious was the fact that they claimed Noons threw 611 strikes. Their correction makes no mention that the number of Arm Strikes Attempted was part of their supposed glitch, so they are presumably standing by that number. The problem is that it is almost certainly false, just like the Arm Strikes Landed stat was false.

The first problem is that it just doesn't match what we all saw. Noons and Diaz were both extremely active. It's hard to say who was more active. It's just not possible that Noons was 27% more active than Diaz.

For example, the FightMetric numbers show 441 attempts for Diaz to 426 for Noons, a difference of 3% in Diaz's favor. Even considering the differences in the two systems, it's hard to believe that Compustrike saw a 30% difference in attempts than FightMetric saw.

To prove this point, we can see that the difference in Compustrike's number for Diaz (443 attempts) and FightMetric's number (441 attempts) is less than 0.5%. Is it even conceivable that their numbers for Noons would be different by more than 30%?

Maybe the same "glitch" affected the Arm Strikes Attempted too? Then how thorough was their review of the stats that surfaced the first error? And if we cut the number of attempts in half, by the new count, it would mean a total of 315 total strikes attempted, a difference of 26% from the FightMetric total for Noons. Given the 0.5% difference for Diaz, it doesn't seem likely. 

Something here doesn't add up. For the sake of the integrity of their stats, I'd hope to get a better explanation from Compustrike. And considering the number of MMA media people who rely so heavily on their statistics, I'd hope that they wouldn't let this story die because of an implausible correction that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Personally, I don't rely on stats much when I think about fights. I know what I saw and I don't need stats to tell me who should have won a fight. I'm sure they have their place in MMA, but if this Compustrike incident is any indication, I'm just not sure how much they can be trusted.

I've encountered a problem and I could really use some advice. I just bought a nice big HDTV and to go with it, I got the new Tivo Premiere to replace my old Series 2 Tivo. I installed the CableCard in the Tivo Premiere today and everything was going great. The problem is, when I called Comcast to order UFC 114, they told me that I couldn't get it because the CableCard is not addressable. That sounded a little strange to me, but it seems to be true. So here's my question:

Do any of you have a Tivo with a CableCard and if so, how do you order UFC events? It seems like there's just no way to get them if you have a Tivo Series 3 or later. Is my only option to get a crappy Comcast DVR if I want to be able to watch PPV's and have DVR?

As usual, Randy Couture found a way to just win. It wasn't pretty, but it sure was effective. Did anyone else feel like they were watching a replay of Tim Sylvia vs. Brandon Vera? It was basically the same deal. Sylvia kept Vera pressed against the fence for the vast majority of the fight. Vera managed a takedown, even passed to side control, but couldn't manage to do much with it. The outcome would be different, of course, given that Vera managed a knockdown against Couture and never really damaged Sylvia, but the gameplan and execution were basically the same. The funny thing is that conventional wisdom after the Sylvia fight said that Vera was just too small to deal with the big heavyweights. Now that he's dropped to 205, he succumbed to the exact same tactic. Seems like the issue is not so much size but strategy.

I'll leave it to others to debate the quality of the fights themselves (though I thought the two that went to decision were dreadful), but I felt it had to be said that last night's Strikeforce broadcast had so many awful, maddening, amateurish problems that the entire experience was marrred. I thought the commentary was as poor as it ever was with EliteXC (even without Bill Goldberg), but my main problems are two:

Continue reading this post »

Listen, I'm not about to blow a gasket because Dana White used disparaging terms about women and gays. I get the feeling that these are terms that he uses quite frequently when the cameras aren't rolling. While the words are hateful in origin and hurtful in context, it's beyond my scope to level much ire against Dana's vocabulary. He's probably talked like that his entire life and it's not something we can change.

What baffles me, what infurates me, is his hubris. There are plenty of cases where public figures make politically-incorrect statements because they didn't know a microphone was on or they thought they were speaking off the record. But this was Dana White's own production. He has complete control over what appears in his video blogs, was well aware that the language he used was sure to offend, and yet he still chose to broadcast his little rant without any edits. That video can't ever be recalled, so he must have known that his words could be thrown back in his face at some point in the future. And still, knowing all that, he didn't just rubber stamp the broadcast, he insisted on it. That's not "ballsy," it's megalomania, and it makes me very nervous.

Reading a lot of the comments from regular fans on MMA blogs, there seems to be a common sentiment in the wake of Evan Tanner’s death: it hurts more than people expected and they’re not exactly sure why. Most never met the man at all, yet they feel for his loss like a member of their own family. Let me put in my two cents:

The fan-athlete relationship between Evan Tanner and the MMA community was not like the relationship with other fighters. Evan was our child and we were his protectors.

Continue reading this post »