Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
superold

Is Dake better than Taylor?

Recommended Posts

Maybe when they're both 40 they'll meet up in a closed room and settle it once and for all.

 

It really is too bad that they never got the chance to settle it in college. No chance to ever wrestle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Dake squeeks by" argument is also false anyway. Going into Des Moines Dake was 32-0 with 20 of those wins by pin or tech fall. Taylor was 26-1 with 19 wins by pin or tech fall. So Dake pinned or teched in 63% of his matches while Taylor pinned or teched in 70% of his matches. They both were totally dominant over other wrestlers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting, I had thought of this exact thing. The way to really tell who is better, is to put them in against better folk competition and see who makes it further. With them being the 2 best, we are left with having to speculate as to whether we're seeing a bad match up type situation. The best way would be this exact scenario. Who advances further in the tournament, that's the better wrestler.

 

If only there had been a tournament just a few weeks ago that allowed us to see who got further between the two of them.

 

If only.

 

p3gKhvl.jpg

 

 

Agreed. 2 weeks ago though probably wouldn't have been good with them both competing at NCAAs. But say like a midlands where several post collegiate studs show up and battle it out would have done the trick. Say Howe and Burroughs show up as well as Askren, Paulsons, and several others. That would have been perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe when they're both 40 they'll meet up in a closed room and settle it once and for all.

Taylor: Look Dynamite, when you won at the scuffle, you won by one second. You beat me by one second. That's very hard for a man of my intelligence to handle!

 

Dake: But didn't you say after I beat, you learned how to live with it?

 

Taylor: I lied.

 

(Cue Eye of the Tiger music)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Dake and Taylor were precisely even, the odds of one winning three straight would be 12.5%-- possible, but unlikely.

 

Also, a lot of the Taylor mystique is based on him having just one loss in his first two years. BUT he also had two losses his redshirt year (or three his first three years of college, compared to four for Dake). This was the same year that Dake also had two losses, except Dake was wrestling on varsity and in the NCAA tournament, while Taylor was wrestling in open tournaments mostly against fellow redshirts and backups. He lost to Cyler Sanderson, who was no slouch, but who did not place that year.

http://www.gopsusports.com/sports/m-wre ... 46170.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But lets not kid ourselves, Taylor walks right through the weight classes Dake had to go through his first 3 years.

I doubt this, unless you are still imagining Taylor redshirting. His redshirt year he was losing to Cyler Sanderson, so it's probably unlikely that he walks through Dake's freshman year bracket, in which he had to beat Reece Humphrey and Montell Marion, who took 3rd, and 2nd respectively at 141 that year. Taylor was losing to a guy (Sanderson) who placed 6th at 157, and that year was not one of the years when 157 was ridiculously hard, like it had been the year before. So I still think that a freshman Taylor would struggle to place had he competed right out of the gate. And also, even when he did start competing, he lost to Bubba in the finals. I would have Dake beating Bubba that year, had Dake been a 157 pounder. So any way you cut it, Dake's credentials are better than Taylor's, except when comparing margins of victory against inferior opponents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Dake and Taylor were precisely even, the odds of one winning three straight would be 12.5%-- possible, but unlikely.

25%. Since somebody has to win the first, it's just a matter of if that same person wins the next two.

 

However, if you count the freestyle match it does become 12.5%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Dake and Taylor were precisely even, the odds of one winning three straight would be 12.5%-- possible, but unlikely.

25%. Since somebody has to win the first, it's just a matter of if that same person wins the next two.

 

However, if you count the freestyle match it does become 12.5%

The probability of either guy winning three straight by chance are 25%, but the probability of that guy being Dake at the outset (or Taylor), before the first match was wrestled is 12.5%. As soon as Dake won that first match, the probability that he wins the next two by chance was 25%, but immediately after winning the second one, the probability of winning in the NCAA finals by chance was 50 percent. According to the math of some posters on this board, this proves that Dake's luck keeps getting greater and greater, therefore he is winning by pure luck, ergo Taylor is actually better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Dake and Taylor were precisely even, the odds of one winning three straight would be 12.5%-- possible, but unlikely.

25%. Since somebody has to win the first, it's just a matter of if that same person wins the next two.

 

However, if you count the freestyle match it does become 12.5%

The probability of either guy winning three straight by chance are 25%, but the probability of that guy being Dake at the outset (or Taylor), before the first match was wrestled is 12.5%. As soon as Dake won that first match, the probability that he wins the next two by chance was 25%, but immediately after winning the second one, the probability of winning in the NCAA finals by chance was 50 percent. According to the math of some posters on this board, this proves that Dake's luck keeps getting greater and greater, therefore he is winning by pure luck, ergo Taylor is actually better.

Well I can't argue with that. Glad it's settled! Hopefully Dake will reach Taylor's level someday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Dake and Taylor were precisely even, the odds of one winning three straight would be 12.5%-- possible, but unlikely.

25%. Since somebody has to win the first, it's just a matter of if that same person wins the next two.

 

However, if you count the freestyle match it does become 12.5%

 

12.5% is right for three matches if they were perfectly matched. Winning 1/1 would be 50% (.5^1), 2/2 would be 25% (.5^2), and 3/3 would be 12.5% (.5^3).

 

If the freestyle match was included (and I don't think it should be, since it is a different style with different rules and scoring) then it would be a 6% chance that that are perfectly matched given the match outcomes. The chance that Taylor is 1% better than Dake given a 4-0 record is 5.7%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taylor's redshirt season

 

2009-10:

Red-shirt season...posted 21-2 record as an unattached competitor...wrestled in five open tournaments, winning three and taking second in the other two...won W&J Open on 1/14...second at ESU Open on 11/22...won Mat-Town on 11/28...second at NLO on 12/6 (losing to Lion All-American Cyler Sanderson 9-7 in finals)...won National Collegiate Open on 2/20...competed all season at 157...7-0 in pins, 10-0 in technical falls and 2-0 in majors.

 

So Dake having two losses as a true freshman matters a huge deal, but Taylor having two losses that same year while redshirting doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Dake and Taylor were precisely even, the odds of one winning three straight would be 12.5%-- possible, but unlikely.

25%. Since somebody has to win the first, it's just a matter of if that same person wins the next two.

 

However, if you count the freestyle match it does become 12.5%

 

12.5% is right for three matches if they were perfectly matched. Winning 1/1 would be 50% (.5^1), 2/2 would be 25% (.5^2), and 3/3 would be 12.5% (.5^3).

12.5 percent is the odds that Dake in particular wins all three matches if they are perfectly matched. However, the odds that one of the two wins all three matches is 25%. The reason being is that the result of the first match doesn't affect whether or not someone will win all three and therefore it is not factored into the equation.

 

Think of it this way, if you flip a coin, what are the odds that the coin will land on the same side all three times? The answer is 25%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In order for Dake to have even odds of going 3-0 against Taylor this season he would need to have an 80% chance of winning each individual match (.8^3 is approx 50%).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Think of it this way, if you flip a coin, what are the odds that the coin will land on the same side all three times? The answer is 25%

 

That is incorrect. If you flip a coin three times here are your chances for each possible outcome:

 

    [*:3o2sonx5]3 Heads, 0 Tails: 12.5%
    [*:3o2sonx5]2 Heads, 1 tails: 37.5%
    [*:3o2sonx5]1 Heads, 2 tails: 37.5%
    [*:3o2sonx5]0 Heads, 3 tails: 12.5%

 

Edit: I get what you are saying. I skipped part of the argument. My mistake. You are saying that there is a 25% chance that 1 of the 2 of them would win all three of the matches. Which is technically correct but I have no idea why you would make that argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Edit: I get what you are saying. I skipped part of the argument. My mistake. You are saying that there is a 25% chance that 1 of the 2 of them would win all three of the matches. Which is technically correct but I have no idea why you would make that argument.

I'm just saying that if they're the same quality, the odds that one of them will win three matches in a row (which is what happened) is 1/4. It's not that unlikely a scenario.

 

]If you ascribe to the idea that Dake winning all 3 matches proves he's better, you must also ascribe to the idea that if Taylor won all 3 matches, that would prove Taylor is better. Both scenarios must be factored into the probability for it to have any validity in this case.

 

It's easiest to think about this in terms of roulette. Let's say you spin a roulette wheel and it lands on 13. You accuse the casino of rigging the game because there was only a 1/38 chance the roulette wheel would land on 13. Do you see the problem here? The initial spin cannot be used as evidence that the roulette wheel is rigged because the wheel was bound to land on something. However, if the roulette wheel lands on 13 a second time, now you have evidence because there is only a 1/38 chance the wheel would land on the same number twice in a row (although not a 1/1444 chance as some people would want to claim).

 

It's a moot point though since I do think Dake is better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keep digging cletus, you look dumber by the second.

Yes, to you i'm sure it appears that way. What's happening is the discussion is sailing clearly over your head. Reread the OP if you must in order to unconfuse yourself. Or have an adult read it to you, which ever works better. You'll see the question that's being asked and then you'll see the input I've given from what I've read on the net. I even go as far as to select the wrestler I think is better than the other. I'll give you 3 tries at guessing which of these two it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's easiest to think about this in terms of roulette. Let's say you spin a roulette wheel and it lands on 13. You accuse the casino of rigging the game because there was only a 1/38 chance the roulette wheel would land on 13. Do you see the problem here? The initial spin cannot be used as evidence that the roulette wheel is rigged because the wheel was bound to land on something. However, if the roulette wheel lands on 13 a second time, now you have evidence because there is only a 1/38 chance the wheel would land on the same number twice in a row (although not a 1/1444 chance as some people would want to claim).

 

I think you have a flawed understanding of probability when it comes to multiple events. You are wrong again there.

 

The spins of the wheel are independent events. You are correct there. The fact that the first spin was a 13 does in fact have no bearing on what you will get on the second spin (assuming the wheel is not fixed). So, the chance that the second spin will be a 13 is the same as the chance that the first spin will be a 13. They are independent events.

 

However, you are incorrectly applying these facts together.

 

Here is a true statement: If you spin the wheel once and get a 13, on the second spin there is a 1/38 chance that it will be a 13.

 

Here is the false statement you are making: There is a 1/38 chance that it will land on 13 twice in a row.

 

The chance of it landing on 13 twice in a row is 1/1444.

 

You are claiming these are equivalent statements when they are not. In the first statement you are talking about the chance on a single spin of the wheel. In the second statement you are talking about the paired chance of two spins of the wheel.

-----

So in the case of two evenly matched wrestlers:

 

True statement: If they are evenly matched and wrestler 1 wins the first match, in the second match there is a 50 percent chance that wrestler 1 will win, and a 50 percent chance that wrestler 2 will win.

 

False statement: If they are evenly matched there is a 50% chance that Wrestler 1 will win both matches.

-----

In the case of Dake vs. Taylor, if they were evenly matched then in every single one of their matches they both had a 50% chance of a win in each individual match. However, if they were evenly matched then there was only a 12.5% chance that Dake would successfully go 3-0 against Taylor this season. Not 25%, 12.5%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's easiest to think about this in terms of roulette. Let's say you spin a roulette wheel and it lands on 13. You accuse the casino of rigging the game because there was only a 1/38 chance the roulette wheel would land on 13. Do you see the problem here? The initial spin cannot be used as evidence that the roulette wheel is rigged because the wheel was bound to land on something. However, if the roulette wheel lands on 13 a second time, now you have evidence because there is only a 1/38 chance the wheel would land on the same number twice in a row (although not a 1/1444 chance as some people would want to claim).

 

I think you have a flawed understanding of probability when it comes to multiple events. You are wrong again there.

 

The spins of the wheel are independent events. You are correct there. The fact that the first spin was a 13 does in fact have no bearing on what you will get on the second spin (assuming the wheel is not fixed). So, the chance that the second spin will be a 13 is the same as the chance that the first spin will be a 13. They are independent events.

 

However, you are incorrectly applying these facts together.

 

Here is a true statement: If you spin the wheel once and get a 13, on the second spin there is a 1/38 chance that it will be a 13.

 

Here is the false statement you are making: There is a 1/38 chance that it will land on 13 twice in a row.

 

The chance of it landing on 13 twice in a row is 1/1444.

 

You are claiming these are equivalent statements when they are not. In the first statement you are talking about the chance on a single spin of the wheel. In the second statement you are talking about the paired chance of two spins of the wheel.

-----

So in the case of two evenly matched wrestlers:

 

True statement: If they are evenly matched and wrestler 1 wins the first match, in the second match there is a 50 percent chance that wrestler 1 will win, and a 50 percent chance that wrestler 2 will win.

 

False statement: If they are evenly matched there is a 50% chance that Wrestler 1 will win both matches.

-----

In the case of Dake vs. Taylor, if they were evenly matched then in every single one of their matches they both had a 50% chance of a win in each individual match. However, if they were evenly matched then there was only a 12.5% chance that Dake would successfully go 3-0 against Taylor this season. Not 25%, 12.5%.

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying. There is a 1/1444 chance that you'd get 13 twice in a row. However, there is a 1/38 chance that you'd get the same number twice in a row. Therefore you should not be shocked if you see 13 twice in a row (or 12, or 22, or any other number for that matter). Which number you get twice in a row is inconsequential.

 

Similarly, If the two wrestlers really are equal, it is inconsequential which wrestler wins the first matchup (This ONLY applies to the first matchup). One of them is bound to win whether they are equal or not. Therefore, the fact that there was a winner does not make any progress towards disproving the null hypothesis that the wrestlers are equal. Since a tie is impossible, the fact that there is a winner is a guaranteed result.

 

Similarly, since the roulette wheel has to land on a number, the fact that it landed on 13, or 12, or 22, or 32 is not out of the ordinary. It's only the repetition of this result that can be used as evidence that they do not have equal probability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it is inconsequential which wrestler wins the first matchup (This ONLY applies to the first matchup). One of them is bound to win whether they are equal or not. Therefore, the fact that there was a winner does not make any progress towards disproving the null hypothesis that the wrestlers are equal. Since a tie is impossible, the fact that there is a winner is a guaranteed result.

 

That's not how probability works.

 

Is who won the first matchup inconsequential in regards to who wins the second matchup? Yes. They are independent events.

 

Is who won the first matchup inconsequential in regards the chance that one or the other wrestler will win both matchups? No. It matters a lot.

 

You are trying to argue one thing (that the chance that in a three match series two wrestlers could be evenly matched but it isn't absurdly unlikely that one of them would go 3-0). But then you are using math to prove a totally different thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it is inconsequential which wrestler wins the first matchup (This ONLY applies to the first matchup). One of them is bound to win whether they are equal or not. Therefore, the fact that there was a winner does not make any progress towards disproving the null hypothesis that the wrestlers are equal. Since a tie is impossible, the fact that there is a winner is a guaranteed result.

 

That's not how probability works.

 

Is who won the first matchup inconsequential in regards to who wins the second matchup? Yes. They are independent events.

 

Is who won the first matchup inconsequential in regards the chance that one or the other wrestler will win both matchups? No. It matters a lot.

 

You are trying to argue one thing (that the chance that in a three match series two wrestlers could be evenly matched but it isn't absurdly unlikely that one of them would go 3-0). But then you are using math to prove a totally different thing.

You continue to misinterpret what I'm saying. I'm not talking about independent probabilities. Not in the slightest.

 

As a thought experiment, lets say you roll a die three times. You get 4 every time. You marvel at how rare an event this is. you calculate the odds that this happened as being 0.0046. However, those are the same odds that you would roll a 4 the first time, a 1 the second, and a 3 the third. While it is true that those are the odds of rolling three 4's in a row, that is not the proper way of thinking about it. The actual rare event is that you rolled the same number 3 times in a row. The odds of this are 0.0278. Meanwhile, the odds of rolling three different numbers (as is the case with 4, then 1, then 3) is greater than 50%.

 

Similarly, Now apply this to thinking about Taylor and Dake. You can't say that Dake winning all three matches has meaning, but if Taylor won all three matches it wouldn't have meaning (If you accept one you must accept the other). Therefore, the first match is inconsequential. It merely determines which wrestler has a chance to win all three matches, but it does not affect the chance that A wrestler will win all three matches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dice odds:

4, then 4, then 4 = 0.0046

4, then 1, then 3 = 0.0046

Three of the same number = 0.0278

Three different numbers = 0.55

 

Odds of results for 2 equal wrestlers:

X wins, then X, then X = .125

X wins, then Y, then X = .125

A wrestler wins all three even though they are of equal quality = .25

A wrestler wins 2 out of 3 even though they are equal quality = .75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also a 100% chance that someone will win a given match. If they wrestle twice there is a 100% chance that there will be a victor in both matches. If they wrestle three times there is a 100% chance that there will be a victor in all three matches.

 

You're technically correct, but I still fail to see what your point is. If they were perfectly matched then yes, the chance of Taylor winning all three would be the same as Dake winning all three. What does that observation add to the conversation? Especially since this whole line of thoughts stems from the idea that they are equally matched, which is 87.5% likely to not be the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...