( o ) ABCDEs - Ranking puzzle...( o )

A is tops as he is 3-1

B is second: he is 2-2, but beats C and D who are also 2-2

D is third: he is 2-2, but loses to B, but beats C

C is fourth: he too is 2-2 but loses to both his peers B and D

E is fifth as he is 1-3

It must be assumed all fighters were of very similar ability, thus no win means more than any other, other than in breaking a tie against your peer.

 

I find myself in the unenviable position of disagreeing with my esteemed colleague Cross Trainer - which I have found in the past to be a position fraught with peril - so I will be a little more mathematical to attempt to justify my rankings. Please bear with me.

If I have made an error in my analysis I respectfully invite you to please point it out to me.

My central premise is simple -
No one boxes to lose :hey

So IF wins are all that matter

A is first he has three wins.

B,C and D each have 2 wins - what do we do now?

Quality of opposition - count the wins their opponents have (wins are all that matter) -
B has wins over guys that have combined 4 wins (C has 2 wins D has 2 wins)
C has wins over guys that have 4 wins (A has 3 and E has 1)

So they are still tied

D has wins over guys that have 3 wins (C has 2 and E has 1) so he has an even record with B and C over the weaker opposition and should go behind B and C.

Between B and C they have even scores of wins and even strength of opposition ( 4 wins by guys they beat ) so it comes down to head to head in which B takes it by virtue of his win against C

E is the weakest with no real argument for avoiding last place.

A B C D E

IF WINNING IS ALL THAT MATTERS :good

 

I agree with this.

 

My analysis:

#1 - Fighter "A" seems to be the best fighter of the bunch, my guess is that he's probably the most talented of the group and the most consistent fighter who just didnt match up very well with "C"

#2 - I give fighter "C" second place. Given that we don't have a body of work to go by, his wins over the best and worst fighter of the group means, at the very least, he appears to be a competant contender that can rise to the occasion but clearly has his limitations hence the losses.*

#3 - Third Place goes to Fighter "B" the dangerous but inconsistent puncher. I label him a puncher and Based on his losses more so than his wins. He lost to the best and worst fighters. His loss to A was not so surprising given A's superior ability. But his loss to E is clearly a case of fighters blowing "give me" fights. Punchers tend to be more inconsistent than boxers. A limited puncher can concievably beat good fighters (C,D) based on his physical attributes but will fall short against an elite fighter with stellar chin (A). Furthermore they are likely to come in over confident against lesser fighters (E).*


#4 - Fighter "D" has a win over C and E showing that he can beat a Trial Horse and a decent contender. Probably a semi skilled fighter with an average chin to the extent that he lost to the best fighter and he lost to a dangerous puncher. His losses are respectable. Why does he come in 4th? because Fighter "C" edges him based of his win over the best fighter and Fighter "B" edges him because of thier head to head match up.

#5 - I think its pretty obvious that Fighter "E" comes in last. Though we shouldnt speculate that he's a terrible fighter.




*C and B to me are the only interchangable ones to me. A, D and E are the only ones whose places IMO should be 1, 4 and 5 respectively.