Tired of so called "MMA" in UFC

[ShaolinTiger00]

Just so you know, I'm not trying to p!ss you off.

It never appeared to me that you were trying. no harm, no foul.

train all of your weapons and use them at the appropraite time.

And that's what I'm trying to tell you. the "appropriate" time to kick come few and far between. maybe you're going to throw a kick at the beginning to "check" him but 9 out of 10 times a successful kick comes off of a punching combination that rocked him, then you put the kick on the end as an exclamation point to the action.

you know how quickly the free standing range is gapped. either the fighter on the offensive side is pressing to damage more or go into a dominant clinch of his own or the guy taking the worst end of the strikes closes quickly to stop the whupping..

kicks sure hurt, but they rarely KO unless your opponent is dazed or in a very poor place like on his hands and knees, or his guard has dropped etc..

[Merryprankster]

Oh no, I remember you. I had put you on my ignore list back then too, for precisely the same sort of reasons.

Glad your DSM says they are the same thing. My understanding is that ASD takes on many forms of expression, while a true sociopath is completely amoral (as opposed to immoral), and lacks empathy. Perhaps this is merely a matter of degrees, but considering that criminals with ASD can still love their mothers and feel guilt, while a sociopath, as I understand it, is incapable of those things, that's one hell of a difference in degrees.

As far as you being a medical professional, that's lovely. I've met plenty of medical professionals who aren't too bright or have reached faulty conclusions or done boneheaded things. What, after all is malpractice insurance for? This does not let you off the hook for saying something that, as of right now, doesn't seem to have any evidence for it other than your own observations.

I am fully aware that studies can be manipulated to show many different things. However, individual bias is typically less reliable than empirical studies. You appear to be chock full of bias.

For the record, a null hypothesis is put forth against data from a study, postulating that Parameter1-Parameter2=0, or Parameter1=Parameter2, whichever you prefer to think of it as. Basically, if the null hypothesis is correct, then there is no statistically significant difference between population1 and population2 for the parameter being measured.

A t-test measures the statistical difference between the means of data about two populations relative to the variance of those data. Basically, it tells you how much "overlap" there is between the two populations. It is possible, for instance to have a situation in which the difference between the means for pop1 and pop2, is the same as between pop3 and pop4. However, pop1 and 2 may have low variance from their respective mean values, while pop3 and pop4 have high variance from their respective mean values. So the difference between the means itself doesn't tell us much, which is why we use the t-test.

The t-test basically tells us whether or not parameter1 does/does not equal parameter 2, going back to the example above. A one tailed t-test would only test for significant difference in one direction ie H1: parameter1-parameter2<0 or parameter1-parameter2 >0. A two-tailed test looks for difference in either direction, ie, parameter1-parameter2 does not equal 0.

The purpose of the t-test is therefore to tell us whether or not the measured parameter is statistically different between the populations, and how statistically different it is if at all, and in what direction.

Can I have a cookie now?

Please?

Now, even if I am wrong, which I'm 99% sure I'm not, your discussion of null hypotheses and t-tests doesn't actually speak to the issue at hand: You asserted that high school wrestlers are bullies/aggressive/abused as children/eat the dead, etc. You have done so based on your personal observation, which is nice, and certainly not INVALID as a piece of information. But, it is hardly complete information, nor is it necessarily accurate. A good way to show its accuracy would be by showing us a study somewhere that demonstrated your assertion is true. As it stands, you haven't done that.

You made a claim. You haven't laid out any evidence for us, other than your personal opinion. Rather than provide evidence to back your point up, you've embarked on several interesting, if irrelevant tangents. You'll understand if I object to your claim as lacking foundation.

For the record, Noam's approach to ethics has nothing to do with Nietzsche. Nietzsche's primary point was that values are a man-made thing, not derived from anything other than what we have agreed is morally correct. As such, they are subject to change and revision, just like any other man-made thing. Ultimately, Nietzsche's vision of the perfectly ethical person was really quite neurotic, eccentric and pretty much a jerk. Of course, that doesn't matter to Nietzsche, because that person is above being judged by the rest of society.

Chomsky, on the other hand, DEMANDS that behavior be held to up to scrutiny to see if it conforms to ethical standards. Judgment is part of his framework, and even the morally/ethically perfect are not above judgment in his world. They are continuously scrutinized and reviewed.

So really, the comparison doesn't work.

The comparison doesn't really even work between Kierkegaard and N, although they are frequently lumped in together, I suspect because some people classify both Kierkegaard and N as nihilists/existentialists. One might reasonably make the argument that Kierkegaard was a Christian Existentialist, since his leap of faith was a choice, but I think N rather defies classification. Further, their approaches are entirely different. N reasons his way out of despair to the idea of the superman, whereas Kierkegaard reasons his way INTO despair, then lets go in order to take the leap to meaning and value. One reasons his way out of despair, the other into it in order to let faith take over.

I think that's rather different.

But again, you are entitled to your opinions.

Hello ignore list. Great feature!

[Marcos-XB]

man... you guys still get into this discussions???

I'm gonna work my way and some years I'll score with some 3 chicks at the same time
come back here
And yall still gonna be discussin silly?



peace/love and shyt guys

[Chief Fox]

It never appeared to me that you were trying. no harm, no foul.



And that's what I'm trying to tell you. the "appropriate" time to kick come few and far between. maybe you're going to throw a kick at the beginning to "check" him but 9 out of 10 times a successful kick comes off of a punching combination that rocked him, then you put the kick on the end as an exclamation point to the action.

you know how quickly the free standing range is gapped. either the fighter on the offensive side is pressing to damage more or go into a dominant clinch of his own or the guy taking the worst end of the strikes closes quickly to stop the whupping..

kicks sure hurt, but they rarely KO unless your opponent is dazed or in a very poor place like on his hands and knees, or his guard has dropped etc..

We probably agree here more than we disagree.

The specific situation I was talking about is towards the end of a match when both fighters are obviously waxed and they're standing there just exchanging blows. IMO leg kicks would be very effective in this situation.

[greensage22]

Do I get college credits for reading this?

[CoRWiN]

Cheif Fox your completly in the right. I felt exaclty the same way about their complete lack of aggressivness when it comes to throwing kicks to the legs, which after many rounds of sparrin works for me time and time again. I also notice many of them rarely commit to a manuever, as if their holding themselves back. Maybe shaolintigers style of fighting dosn't incorporate many kicks but to say 9 out of 10 appears to be REALLY arbitrary and what is that based on? Kicks that are actually being thrown in the fight or the ones i'm screaming at the TV for them to perform?

On the upside of UFC it's brought martial arts to mainstream TV which has been pretty absent since Kung-Fu the legend "Dis"Continued.

[ShaolinTiger00]

The fact that you do not understand why they are being conservative with their striking is an indication to me that you do not train with highly skilled grapplers/MMA fighters.

If I thought that my opponent was a better striker than me, I'd PRAY that he goes aggressive instead of waiting to counterstrike, because I'd have a much easier time getting to the clinch/taking him down and taking away his best skill set.

[CoRWiN]

But isn't the mere fear of striking already crippling the strikers best tool?

[SimonM]

Before the strip mall kung fu school and the second coming of the David Carradine kung fu charade there was once a martial art called Kung FU and I can assure you, the masters back in China were NOT the pathetic, wishy washy, touchy feely, new age, pacifist, granold chomping pansies you want to make them out to be...

... I bet they'd have eaten Granola if they were hungry enough...

ROTFLMFAO guys. Well played.

Granola is a tasty treat. You don't have to be a pacifist to eat it. Although I eschew unnecessary (and/or non-mutually-consenting-recreational) violence I'm hardly a pacifist. I've been in fights both inside the ring (lost some, won some) and outside the ring (won 'em; I don't generally fight fair) and I like Granola. I think that I should take to carrying around a granola bar and the next time I get in a fight I'll sit on my vanquished foe and snack down on some granola in order to redeem it's manliness.

Prankster: Chomsky does say some stupid things - his whole "language acquisition device" thing comes to mind.

'Megapoint: Chill the hell down man! You went from 0 to frothing in no time flat.
And Nietzshce is not a poor man's Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard was quite interested in Nietzsche, despite Nietszshe's atheism, but never got around to reading him. The two of them both were just logical extensions of Hegel and Kant through the lense of a Europe in a post-age-of-reason continental crisis of faith.

[SevenStar]

But isn't the mere fear of striking already crippling the strikers best tool?

It's about fear of striking, it's about peeping his game; If I overcommit, I am giving him the takedown. You can strike, but you have to know WHEN to strike.

[CoRWiN]

Right it IS about fear of striking, a fear that must be overcome. Peep his game?? And what do you mean be over commit. To me that sounds like a technique improperly executed, does that mean all those hours I train my kicks i'm actually over commiting myself on everyone? Or does it mean that all th trainning is worthless against a grappler? And in terms of when to strike I find that a kick to the legs is a great technique to open with, it's certaintly not a finisher. I do understand that a roundhouse to the head thrown out of the blue is not always the smartest idea but that's not really what im' talking about when criticising the UFC fighters.

[SevenStar]

No, the fear is justified and should NOT be overcome. committed strikes in certain instances BEG for someone to take you down. It's not a fear of the person; it's an avoidance of what would be pretty much inevitable. And yeah, peep his game. you gotta realize that he's a grappler and know how to deal with him. You have to know that excessively kicking will leave you off balance - Even if you do connect. You have to realize that a properly executed offensive strike can lead to you being taken down. Once you realize this, you will evade more - takedown defense and counterfighting.

A kick to the leg is NOT a good opener. A jab to his face, followed by the leg kick is a better opener. Leg kicks can be finishers. I've known of real fights to be ended by them.

[hskwarrior]

on this one i agree with sevenstar.....

you should never use a kick as an opener because the other person is still "Fresh" in his mind and can easily see that a kick is coming. but if you throw that jab first it may take his attention from his lower half and then you should throw that kick you are talking about.

the only other instance a kick could be used as an opener is when you throw "YOUR" first blow. For example, he throws a jab, hook or whatever and you evade and then throw a leg kick as "your" opening move to your arsenal.

but let's not say that an opening leg kick cannot be done effectively. theoretically it can be done if the guy is in reverse and you are advancing on him. if timed right you can launch a leg kick and get him on his retreat. but other than that i would never use a leg kick as an opener. you have to hold his attention with something else first.


peace

[David Jamieson]

It is also fair to say imo, that with the continued play of mma, it is coming into being a martial art in it's own right.

where it used to be guys who mixed styles and fought competitively, it has since refined and narrowed into similar skill sets and training methodologies across the board.

kinda like bruce's old 'take what's useful and leave the rest' saying.

I'm surprised about the article that was mentioned that said mma is not martial arts.

The picture of old masters being hippy or not is actually debatable for the simple and glaring fact that there were many of them who were also devout buddhists. And let's not forget the times they lived in where the skills weren't about sportiveness, they were survival tools. I suppose there were likely to be just as many brawlers, at least I would assume so with all the tales that get told.

[hskwarrior]

i kinda see MMA as becoming a martial art. I just don't see how long the UFC and such will last, and then what will the mma do from there? Just like when the gracie's came out, everyone jumped on their bandwagon and the gracie's blew up.

now its mma. mayber it may not become a "real" martial art, but i do see it having an effect on the future development of TCMA or even japanese arts.

in the end, it can only make us better, right?

but let's not lose out TCMA to something when compared to TCMA is an overnight thing.


peace.