| Posted By |
Message |
|
|
popsci.com
Greg Jackson, the single most successful trainer in the multi-billion-dollar sport of professional mixed martial arts fighting, works out of a musty old gym in Albuquerque, New Mexico, not far from the base of the Sandia Mountains. On a recent morning, the 38-year-old Jackson, who has the cauliflowered ears and bulbous nose of a career fighter, watched two of his students square off inside the chain-link walls of a blood-splattered ring called the Octagon.
One of them was Jon Jones, the light heavyweight champion of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), the premier MMA league. In four weeks, Jones would be defending his title against Rashad Evans, an expert fighter and his former training partner. To prepare him, Jackson had set up a sparring session with Shawn “The Savage” Jordan, a heavyset fighter from Baton Rouge.
Saw this on the UG, article is from July. I didn't see it in the forum search, apologies if it's a repost. Super interesting article none-the-less.
|
|
Post #1 8/15/12 10:26:26PM
|
|
|
I agree using mathematical statistics can and will definitely help fighters do better but overall I think it is the fighter, and his natural tendencies and abilities which will determine the outcome of a fight. You can come up with the perfect strategic game plan but if your natural fighting instincts, tendencies, and abilities are inferior to your opponent, the chances of you losing would be great. Now if you are facing an equally skilled opponent and you use mathematical statistics in your training and he doesn't, then your chances of winning will be greater than if you were to not use mathematical statistics.
Overall, I think this method of training will only become significant when facing someone with similar build, strength, speed, power, and skills.
GSP has been so dominant in his matches and I attribute that mainly to his speed, strength, and skills.
|
|
Post #2 8/16/12 1:41:57AM
|
|
|
I normally don't agree with your breakdowns KFM, but I think you nailed this one and I have my short, mathematical version of what you said here:
each individual's human nature>math
_______________________________________
|
|
Post #3 8/16/12 1:49:21AM
|
|
|
Posted by cowcatcher
I normally don't agree with your breakdowns KFM, but I think you nailed this one and I have my short, mathematical version of what you said here:
each individual's human nature>math
Stop beating around the bush and just say you want to be friends again. 
|
|
Post #4 8/16/12 1:57:07AM
|
|
|
Posted by KungFuMaster
Posted by cowcatcher
I normally don't agree with your breakdowns KFM, but I think you nailed this one and I have my short, mathematical version of what you said here:
each individual's human nature>math
Stop beating around the bush and just say you want to be friends again.
I get tennis elbow when I'm beating it without a bush being around.
_______________________________________
|
|
Post #5 8/16/12 2:00:30AM
|
|
|
Posted by cowcatcher
Posted by KungFuMaster
Posted by cowcatcher
I normally don't agree with your breakdowns KFM, but I think you nailed this one and I have my short, mathematical version of what you said here:
each individual's human nature>math
Stop beating around the bush and just say you want to be friends again.
I get tennis elbow when I'm beating it without a bush being around.
So you're beating it in the open??? Have mercy on the little children for crying out loud.
|
|
Post #6 8/16/12 2:30:15AM
|
|
|
greg jackson is only 38 !!!
|
|
Post #7 8/16/12 6:18:59AM
|
|
|
Sounds like classic graph theory. The natural progression of thoughts and ideas into models and displays.
_______________________________________
|
|
Post #8 8/16/12 9:55:05AM
|
|
|
Very interesting article. "Damage Node" sounds like a metal band.
It sounds similar to how, i think, many of us try to predict which fighter will win and how they will win. We analyze their styles, their predilections, and estimate how it will play out. It's nowhere near as formalized as Jackson's game trees but i think it's similar.
_______________________________________
"In short, because this Order imposes intrusive government regulations that won’t work to solve a problem that doesn’t exist using legal authority the FCC doesn’t have, I dissent." - Ajit Pai on the FCC's Net Neutrality order.
|
|
Post #9 8/16/12 2:06:05PM
|
