Media Matt Hughes continues his impressive recovery

[AstralPanda]

Jones has to have been abused as a child. Id say he was successful at overcoming that trauma although his journey is not complete, no ones is in this

I don't think so.

He came from a pretty good home / upbringing to my knowledge.

But, being a star and having the pressure of greatness on your back, being around Hollywood, entertainment and all the goblins, vices, vultures, money, coke, women and everything else can be pretty traumatizing.

You get exposed to a lot of darkness just being in those spaces, can bring out the best and worst in a human, you have to be strong just to exist.

That's why a lot of stars go off the deep end for some reason or another. Drinking / substances often end up being a coping mechanism.

Jones is an inherently chaotic human in general, it's why he was such a creative, multi dimensional fighter. Alcohol is an amplifier, one of the worst things for someone like that.

He's just one of those guys who can't drink. Or at least, has to heavily moderate it.

 

[Deleted member 513083]

Again, you didn't read the book and you're just going by some internet breakdown thats completely biased and inaccurate. Growing up on a farm, you'll put down animals all the time. You'll castrate animals regularly. It's a regular part of farm life, but like most every topic from his book, the internet has taken pieces of it and drawn the most hyperbolic picture they can.

My Family are all farmers, never heard of them castrating animals for fun.

 

[Bob Gray]

My Family are all farmers, never heard of them castrating animals for fun.

See? This is the kind of dishonesty I expect. I never said he castrated animals for fun. The breakdowns of people on the internet make up shit about what he says in the book.

I said castration happens on a farm. People that want to make it sound as bad as possible say stuff like "he cutting off animal testicle FOR FUN!! Hughes sucks, am I right, guys?

You didn't read the book. You don't know what the book says. Nothing i can say will change your opinion about what the book you didn't read says, even though you didn't read it.

 

[Deleted member 513083]

See? This is the kind of dishonesty I expect. I never said he castrated animals for fun. The breakdowns of people on the internet make up shit about what he says in the book.

I said castration happens on a farm. People that want to make it sound as bad as possible say stuff like "he cutting off animal testicle FOR FUN!! Hughes sucks, am I right, guys?

You didn't read the book. You don't know what the book says. Nothing i can say will change your opinion about what the book you didn't read says, even though you didn't read it.

I read the part now and I admit there was no mention of doing it for fun. I got bamboozled on that one.
Still not changing my opinion on him, it is a book written by him that still makes him look bad. I know this type of person and it is the same kind of psycho I see in a lot of other athletes that rightfully get called out for it. Just don't agree to cut Hughes slack because he got hit by a train was the main argument in this thread. I got like 4 @ for it that's the only reason I am still writing in here.

If you think Hughes was alright and a swell guy and everyone is getting to worked up over it. Fair. Does not change my views one bit.

 

[Bob Gray]

I read the part now and I admit there was no mention of doing it for fun. I got bamboozled on that one.
Still not changing my opinion on him, it is a book written by him that still makes him look bad. I know this type of person and it is the same kind of psycho I see in a lot of other athletes that rightfully get called out for it. Just don't agree to cut Hughes slack because he got hit by a train was the main argument in this thread. I got like 4 @ for it that's the only reason I am still writing in here.

If you think Hughes was alright and a swell guy and everyone is getting to worked up over it. Fair. Does not change my views one bit.

I'm not saying to change your opinion on him because he got hit by a train. But judge by things that actually happen. What's in his book and what sherdog/reddit posters say is in his book are vastly different.

The book itself is nothing special. His story is fine and all, but his story is probably not all that different from many others, sans the UFC part of it. However, the amount of misinformation about what it contains is staggering.

Just another classic example, when people bring up he was "a dick" to Tim Sylvia. But the point he's making is that Tim Sylvia was a selfish jerk that was thinkijg of himself, but eventually worked at it and became a better person, and a better fighter and became champion.

That's the point hes making. And he goes on to talk about how he and Sylvia became great friends when he saw what an effort he made to improve himself. But people don't care about what Hughes actually wrote so much as how terribly they can interpret it.

 

[Deleted member 513083]

I'm not saying to change your opinion on him because he got hit by a train. But judge by things that actually happen. What's in his book and what sherdog/reddit posters say is in his book are vastly different.

The book itself is nothing special. His story is fine and all, but his story is probably not all that different from many others, sans the UFC part of it. However, the amount of misinformation about what it contains is staggering.

Just another classic example, when people bring up he was "a dick" to Tim Sylvia. But the point he's making is that Tim Sylvia was a selfish jerk that was thinkijg of himself, but eventually worked at it and became a better person, and a better fighter and became champion.

That's the point hes making. And he goes on to talk about how he and Sylvia became great friends when he saw what an effort he made to improve himself. But people don't care about what Hughes actually wrote so much as how terribly they can interpret it.

I disagree with that, while that is how Hughes might have perceived it and I was obviously not at their camp at the time it was happening but everything screams huge bully about him. I do not see any regret or remorse in how he writes a lot of things in his book.

That is the big point for me, no remorse. He thinks of these events as little anecdotes or just being silly. It is written in a way that never really tries to reflect on past behaviour or take responsibility for ones actions. How he and his girlfriend after she got pregnant are different people and names a fucking sweatshirt as an example. I am not saying Hughes is the only or biggest scumbag I have seen in MMA far from it, still doesn't mean I would respect this guy in a way I would MM or someone like that.

 

[Billthebutcher]

St Pierre remains unimpressed.

 

[ComeChooDaddy]

 

[smalliebiggs]

guy's a piece of shit. putting all the passengers/crew of train at risk because he wanted to die or because of carelessness. either way, piece of shit

 

[Steve Fox]

In better shape than Stipe.

 

[jeff7b9]

He probably didn't, because as I keep saying, none of the people criticizing him actually read the book. They just go by the breakdowns from sherdog or reddit or some crap. It's almost completely inaccurate but people who haven't read the book would never know.

The McCorkle review seems to be pretty accurate. Just flipping thru a few pages Matt is bragging/proud of himself for going to a party he wasn't invited to and stealing and looking for a fight, egging his friends on to swim in dangerous water which would lead to 2 people drowning, laughing while mutilating baby pigs with no anesthesia and seeming rather amused that the animals are screaming in pain and that his friend who he is clearly showing off for is disgusted ... and he mentions massaging and having his hands on an 8th grade girl who his brother fooled around with, while they were 19.

At most the McCorkle review is SLIGHTLY exaggerated for comedic effect, but the content is an accurate reflection of the events and the unremorseful/bragging tone which the book features.

Pretty fucking weird that you seem so determined to defend Matt for this. But yes, Matt definitely did publish this, put his name on it as the writer and went out of his way to share a bunch of stories that make him look like a complete douchebag, and he does this with no hint of remorse and a clear tone of bragging and being very proud of how cool he thinks he is for his stories of animal abuse, property damage and pretty disgusting sexual behavior.

 

[Bob Gray]

The McCorkle review seems to be pretty accurate. Just flipping thru a few pages Matt is bragging/proud of himself for going to a party he wasn't invited to and stealing and looking for a fight, egging his friends on to swim in dangerous water which would lead to 2 people drowning, laughing while mutilating baby pigs with no anesthesia and seeming rather amused that the animals are screaming in pain and that his friend who he is clearly showing off for is disgusted ... and he mentions massaging and having his hands on an 8th grade girl who his brother fooled around with, while they were 19.

At most the McCorkle review is SLIGHTLY exaggerated for comedic effect, but the content is an accurate reflection of the events and the unremorseful/bragging tone which the book features.

Pretty fucking weird that you seem so determined to defend Matt for this. But yes, Matt definitely did publish this, put his name on it as the writer and went out of his way to share a bunch of stories that make him look like a complete douchebag, and he does this with no hint of remorse and a clear tone of bragging and being very proud of how cool he thinks he is for his stories of animal abuse, property damage and pretty disgusting sexual behavior.


View attachment 1063657

As weird as quoting the contents of a book you never read and insisting it's accurate?

When did I say he didn't publish it and put his name on it. Wtf are you talking about?

I don't care what anyone thinks of Hughes. If you think he's a dick, whatever. But people using the book are wrong and innacurate, and it's always weird to me when people insist something is accurate when they haven't experienced it themselves. At length he tells stories about his youth and talks about his regrets over the way he acted. But you have to actually read the thing to get the context. As in not "skim through it at Barnes and Noble" or "flip through the pages", but literally read the book. Otherwise everything is lacking context, which is pretty much entirely the point.

I'm obviously not gonna change your mind, but whatever.

 

[jeff7b9]

As weird as quoting the contents of a book you never read and insisting it's accurate?

When did I say he didn't publish it and put his name on it. Wtf are you talking about?

I don't care what anyone thinks of Hughes. If you think he's a dick, whatever. But people using the book are wrong and innacurate, and it's always weird to me when people insist something is accurate when they haven't experienced it themselves. At length he tells stories about his youth and talks about his regrets over the way he acted. But you have to actually read the thing to get the context. As in not "skim through it at Barnes and Noble" or "flip through the pages", but literally read the book. Otherwise everything is lacking context, which is pretty much entirely the point.

I'm obviously not gonna change your mind, but whatever.

Well then, by all means, let me know which pages have this context that would change everything.

 

[Deleted member 449757]

Matt Hughes is a great human being and an example for the rest of us. Second only to Sensei Seagal.

 

[Thepaintbucket]

Damn never thought about a tracheotomy damaging your vocal cords.

His movement and speech patterns seems more natural.

 

[WildShrimper]

oh wow i thought he was done after that accident, he actually sounds very coherent. first few months of his recovery seemed rough

 

[HHJ]

oh wow i thought he was done after that accident, he actually sounds very coherent. first few months of his recovery seemed rough

Months??

it took him years and years to get this far.

 

[Bob Gray]

Well then, by all means, let me know which pages have this context that would change everything.

Let me see if I understand you.

You've cited absolutely nothing from the book. No pages or passages whatsoever and you've admitted that only "skimmed through the pages" at a Barnes and Noble many years ago.

But now I'm supposed cite the page number and passage that contradicts all of the things you're saying, with zero sources from you? Are you serious?

So you can make a claim about a book you didn't read, cite nothing from this book, and then you challenge someone else to cite the page number that refutes what you're saying? Are you for real?

I've already given several examples of how the breakdowns are hyperbolic at best and dishonest at worse. You are a person who has not read a book, that is arguing about the contents of a book you haven't read, with a person who has read the book, and you think I need to cite page numbers to refute the claims you make about something you haven't read?

Do you not realize how stupid that is?


If someone tells you you're wrong about a movie you havent seen, do you ask them to cite the minute of the movie some event happens?

 

[rearnakedchoke]

A country boy can survive.

 

[jeff7b9]

Let me see if I understand you.

You've cited absolutely nothing from the book. No pages or passages whatsoever and you've admitted that only "skimmed through the pages" at a Barnes and Noble many years ago.

But now I'm supposed cite the page number and passage that contradicts all of the things you're saying, with zero sources from you? Are you serious?

So you can make a claim about a book you didn't read, cite nothing from this book, and then you challenge someone else to cite the page number that refutes what you're saying? Are you for real?

I've already given several examples of how the breakdowns are hyperbolic at best and dishonest at worse. You are a person who has not read a book, that is arguing about the contents of a book you haven't read, with a person who has read the book, and you think I need to cite page numbers to refute the claims you make about something you haven't read?

Do you not realize how stupid that is?


If someone tells you you're wrong about a movie you havent seen, do you ask them to cite the minute of the movie some event happens?

The book is trash and written at around a 5th or 6th grade level. I don't need to read 300 pages of that horseshit.

You are the one making claims. Specifically you repeatedly claim or infer that the McCorkle synopsis is not legit. It is. As I have stated, it is a pretty accurate summary and at most slightly exaggerated.

You are talking out of your ass, and when I brought the receipts you can't back your nonsensical stance up, which is exactly what I suspected.

You are the one backing up the guy who brags about taking a dirty blade and castrating baby pigs for amusement and taking pleasure in the animal screaming in pain. You actually felt the need to defend that specific thing over and over again.

Page 65

"I held the pig and slit it open, it screamed hysterically."

Page 66

"My brother and I grabbed as many testicles and dead baby pigs as we could. Fiore took off running and we ran after him chucking pig parts at our buddy. It was a wonder we didn't slip, because Mark and I were laughing so hard we were almost crying and our ammunition was all over the ground."

... "finally we cornered him in the barn. We stood there for another minute pelting him with testicles and dead baby pigs while he tried his best to block the carnage. Mark and I were division 1 wrestlers so quitting was not an option."


that's what you are defending.

I'd like YOU to read it. People said some of the most inane shit about his autobiography or just interpreted shit with zero context. Like "Oh, he worked on his farm and cut some of the animals testicles off and threw them at his brother." WTF?. But castrating animals on a farm is pretty common. That's the kind of thing that happened.

Other stuff was literally him saying "I regret stuff like this when I was younger" but people acted like he was celebrating his past behavior or something.

He literally says they were laughing hysterically.

No sure what you're referring to. Is this something from the internet or did you actually read his book?

Interesting. I dont remember that part of the book at all. I'm guessing you haven't read it and you're going by something someone said on the forum?

You didn't read the book, right? And you're going by what people on a forum today you it said?

He grew up on a farm. Castration and putting down animals is part of the deal. Almost every single criticism of the book is either a lie or lacking in context. And it's been like, what? 12 years now? If you didn't know by now, nothing I say is gonna change your mind.

Yeah buddy. Castrating baby pigs for fun and using their mutilated testicles and dead babies as projectiles to throw at people is "just part of the deal."

Again, you didn't read the book and you're just going by some internet breakdown thats completely biased and inaccurate. Growing up on a farm, you'll put down animals all the time. You'll castrate animals regularly. It's a regular part of farm life, but like most every topic from his book, the internet has taken pieces of it and drawn the most hyperbolic picture they can.

He probably didn't, because as I keep saying, none of the people criticizing him actually read the book. They just go by the breakdowns from sherdog or reddit or some crap. It's almost completely inaccurate but people who haven't read the book would never know.

See? This is the kind of dishonesty I expect. I never said he castrated animals for fun. The breakdowns of people on the internet make up shit about what he says in the book.

I said castration happens on a farm. People that want to make it sound as bad as possible say stuff like "he cutting off animal testicle FOR FUN!! Hughes sucks, am I right, guys?

You didn't read the book. You don't know what the book says. Nothing i can say will change your opinion about what the book you didn't read says, even though you didn't read it.

See Bob... you were talking out of your ass and completely full of shit.

The problem with talking out of your ass and being completely full of shit is that it doesn't hold up particularly well to scrutiny.