Posted On:10/04/2002 6:36am
I think in my opinion I found a good "calculus" for hwo to decide a winner of a fight. I look on the following:
1) Physical attributes
How big, heavy, strong, fast, desxterious etc is the person
Its not what style/technique that is important. It is how well it is performed (in a sense where the technique is applicable in a real fight, not in a Kata).
How strongly does the person wanna win, how much sacrifice in terms of pain threshold and injuries is the person willing to withstand to win.
Sticks, knives, guns etc
A good fighter is not only the best. There is a lways a small element of luck.
With this model, only one problem persists... what is the "exchange rate" between 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5? I mean lets say for example: Is Physical 1 worth Technique 0.5? 1? 2? 100?.
Anyone have any suggestions how 1,2,3,4 and 5 relates to eachother... maybe in a multiplier sense?
Posted On:10/04/2002 10:37am
That's a good calculus Darkface.
I'd say 1 and 2 would be of the same importance, which is high.
4 is probably the most important factor, after all weapons can come in many forms and if someone has a sword or gun there's pretty much nothing you can do.
I'd say 5 the random luck factor is also important, and I'd put that in the same group as 3.
so my order would go
4 (most important)
5 (least important)
"You realise the transformations give a man enough strength to destroy a truck with his bare hands!?
YOU HAVE BETRAYED ME, IN THE WORST POSSIBLE MANNER!!" - KiWarrior
"Sport ? That kind of thing's not my bag baby!" - Sammy Franco
"This system was developed with the help of notible BJJ fighter Ribbon Muchado." - "Sifu" Anthony Iglesias
Posted On:10/04/2002 12:36pm
Looks like a good priority... question is... how to exchange between them... hwo much technique do I need to netralize that the guy is twice as big as me... and how do you quantify so you get numbers :-)
Guess only good strategy is to make sure you're:
1) Biggest and strongest
2) Got the best technique
3) REALLY wanna win
4) Holds the gun
5) Have a lucky day
all at the same time :-)
Posted On:10/07/2002 5:48am
yer, I see what you're saying.
I'll have a go at making some sort of ratio of one to another.
Posted On:10/07/2002 10:03pm
Forget it -- there is no way to quantify these parameters amoung pro fighters, which i assume is who you are talking about. There is no way to even know who is strongest.
All you know about fighters, is what they have done in previous fights, what they showed, the quality of their opponent, etc.
If you could successfully do what you are proposing, the bookies wouldn't make any money...
Posted On:10/08/2002 4:04am
Well I'd assume Darkface was not talking about MMA as weapons were mentioned as one of the factors.
And it's only a rough guess, even if it was for MMA, I seriously doubt it would be accurate enough to worry any bookeys.
Posted On:10/13/2002 8:57am
I'm also interested in rating fighters and convinced that it can be done reliably enough. My approach, though, is similar to what the ADCC people are trying to do with their database.
Posted On:10/13/2002 9:36am
Exactly... I do include weapons... true "NHB" is without rules... ;-)
Lets bring sticks and knives!
Posted On:10/15/2002 6:09am
The questions I'm dealing with are abstract. For instance, how many fights do I need to gauge a fighter's ability? In chess, it is agreed that 20-30 games will give one an accurate idea of a player's strength. What is the equivalent in NHB/MMA?
Articles and Reviews
Tools and Info