Media Miles Johnes landing glove grab KO

[Safton]

Brasilian favela cheater confirmed

I mean... not really.

 

[Trabaho]

This sport would still have intentional groin shots if it wasn't for state regulation,

If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle. If Boxing permited kicks it would be kickboxing

I question whether you actually know anything about the history of prize fighting,

More than you likely

it also wouldn't exist without the Yakuza and the Mob .

Vale tudo brasil ?

If you think this is high martial arts then maybe you should go to a local MMA show, or actually talk to fighters, a huge swath of which are basically functional alcoholics .

I sparred plenty fighters over 2 decades

So again without harsh enforcement, people are going to glove grab and eye gouge and grab the fence,

I know. But most aren't going to. They don't.

and yes often if you aren't bending the rules you aren't using everything at your disposal.

breaking the rules is fighting dirty

Why do you think we see eye pokes every other fight? It's because a point isn't taken, so it's useful to do.

This is a mjaor loophole. But not every other fight.

You are simply being delusional thinking there is some kind of high idealism at play here.

Where ? There are 10 000 pro bouts globaly a year. All over the world. You are putting all in 1 category.

It's spectacle, exactly, MMA is more about money then anything else. It's not some honorable form of martial arts, and you guys are dorks for thinking it is.

Money is a huge factor. It's about half of it. You don't become inspired to fight just by money. Mostly you are a fan of it yourself. Since you never sparred or had a match in your life, or trained for years with fighters, you do not know. You probably just a hood rat or whatever street stuff, village drunk brawler. And project your mentality onto the sport. That exsist. In the end noone judges it and we're all fans. But IF you respect the rules. Respect the rules and your background or mentality can be whatever. I really wonder who you are in real life. Location, occupation, ethnicity, family background. What type of harsh things have you been trough to see all of MMA as some cheat fast with eye pokes, glove hooking KOs and the fighters trying to kill each other for money. Since you called us dorks and clowns I went there and talked about you as a person based on what you said thus far. You don't agree to disagree but make total statements on the morals of all fighters being in the gutter.

These rules won't come into fruition by pretending everyone's honorable in this sport, and sitting on a high hill exclaiming virtue and getting butthurt when a fighter glove grabs, it'll come from actually enforcing rules, i.e. disqualifying and taking points.

I voice my disatisfaction. You can live with it. I bring light to it.

 

[Carrotman23]

If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle. If Boxing permited kicks it would be kickboxingm

More than you likely


Vale tudo brasil ?


I sparred plenty fighters over 2 decades



I know. But most aren't going to. They don't.



breaking the rules is fighting dirty


This is a mjaor loophole. But not every other fight.


Where ? There are 10 000 pro bouts globaly a year. All over the world. You are putting all in 1 category.


Money is a huge factor. It's about half of it. You don't become inspired to fight just by money. Mostly you are a fan of it yourself. Since you never sparred or had a match in yojr life, or trained for years with fighters, you do not know. You probably just a hood rat or whatever street stuff, village drunk brawler. And project your mentality onto the sport. That exsist. In the end noone judges itnand we're all fans. But IF you respect the rules. Respect the rules and your background or mentality can be wahtever. I really wonder who you are in real life. Location, occupation, ethnicity, family background. What type of harsh things have you been trough to see all of MMA as some cheat fast with eye pokes, glove hooking KOs and the fighters trying to kill each other for money. Since you called us dorks and clowns I went there and talked about you as a person based on what you said thus far. You don't agree to disagree but make total statements on the morals of all fighters being in the gutter.

I voice my disatisfaction. You can live with it. I bring light to it.

I am making a simple point, that from my perspective both you and @TheMMAnalyst are operating under what can only be described as infantile idealism.

I am not saying there should be "street fighting rules" in MMA, I'm saying that without harsh rule enforcement there will be a plethora of fouls, and there is no abstract principle of "honor" that is stopping someone from, say, glove grabbing for a KO, and its not some egregious crime to conduct such a foul, thats simply a part of the game, and hand ringing on a high hill wont stop it, and furthermore I'm not going to pretend like it outrages me because it really doesn't.

So in reality I'm advocating for more strict rule enforcement by pointing out the simple fact that you cant rely on fighters "honor" to fight "fair" (the Gracies did what would be called cheating today and gamed the system often in early MMA).
Without state regulation some of these guys would literally fight to death (or at the very least, MMA would have many more deaths then it currently has had), and fighters like Dominick Cruz even get triggered when people who arent fighters try and make something like weight cutting safer, despite that obviously being in the fighters best interests.

While of course there is genuine love for fighting among most MMA fighters, and a lot find a form of redemption in it, at the end of the day this is a business and it is all about money. I'm more calling out the promoters here and the reality of their ruthless pursuit of wealth rather then fighters per say, although at the end of the day it is about money for them as well.
"50 G's babay" and to be clear I dont blame them, everyone's gotta eat.

What type of harsh things have you been trough to see all of MMA as some cheat fast with eye pokes, glove hooking KOs and the fighters trying to kill each other for money. Since you called us dorks and clowns I went there and talked about you as a person based on what you said thus far. You don't agree to disagree but make total statements on the morals of all fighters being in the gutter.

I voice my disatisfaction. You can live with it. I bring light to it.

Lastly I didnt say this sport was about fighters "trying to kill each other", @TheMMAnalyst did, so I was simply pointing out a clear contradiction in his holier than thou view of prize fighting.

I am dissatisfied with the current lack luster enforcement of rules too, I'm simply pointing out I'm not gonna be outraged when fighters skirt rules for a win when they are not enforced. If a point isnt taken, why not bend the rules?
"Honor" and "morality" isn't going to enforce them, consequences will though.
Max Holloways last win was heavily aided by eye pokes, did he do it on purpose?
Maybe! whose to say.

 

[Trabaho]

I am making a simple point, that from my perspective both you and @TheMMAnalyst are operating under what can only be described as infantile idealism.

I am not saying there should be "street fighting rules" in MMA, I'm saying that without harsh rule enforcement there will be a plethora of fouls, and there is no abstract principle of "honor" that is stopping someone from, say, glove grabbing for a KO, and its not some egregious crime to conduct such a foul, thats simply a part of the game, and hand ringing on a high hill wont stop it, and furthermore I'm not going to pretend like it outrages me because it really doesn't.

So in reality I'm advocating for more strict rule enforcement by pointing out the simple fact that you cant rely on fighters "honor" to fight "fair" (the Gracies did what would be called cheating today and gamed the system often in early MMA).
Without state regulation some of these guys would literally fight to death (or at the very least, MMA would have many more deaths then it currently has had), and fighters like Dominick Cruz even get triggered when people who arent fighters try and make something like weight cutting safer, despite that obviously being in the fighters best interests.

While of course there is genuine love for fighting among most MMA fighters, and a lot find a form of redemption in it, at the end of the day this is a business and it is all about money. I'm more calling out the promoters here and the reality of their ruthless pursuit of wealth rather then fighters per say, although at the end of the day it is about money for them as well.
"50 G's babay" and to be clear I dont blame them, everyone's gotta eat.


Lastly I didnt say this sport was about fighters "trying to kill each other", @TheMMAnalyst did, so I was simply pointing out a clear contradiction in his holier than thou view of prize fighting.

I am dissatisfied with the current lack luster enforcement of rules too, I'm simply pointing out I'm not gonna be outraged when fighters skirt rules for a win when they are not enforced. If a point isnt taken, why not bend the rules?
"Honor" and "morality" isn't going to enforce them, consequences will though.
Max Holloways last win was heavily aided by eye pokes, did he do it on purpose?
Maybe! whose to say.

If we agreed to fight with no glove hooking and you KO me with glove hooking and eye pokes. I would be in the right to smash a baseball face across your face and fracture it. A face for a brain, or a brain for a brain. Note I said I would be right for it. Not that I ever did anything remotely close to it ever.
Are you this Miles Johnes guy ? I know UFC fighters post undercover and half of them read sherdog. Internet hoes. Look at them at twitter and IG.

You are long winded getting philosohpical. It's simple. He cheated to hurt someone for a win. Scummy.
Cheating = scummy.

So your reply can be. Cheating is alright. And not these walls of text.

Oh right according to you it could not be cheating. 3 glove grabs and a fine glove hook into KO. Do you think I'm dumb. We got eyes and the video. And called him out for it.

Oh cry, his reputation. Well that's what you get for CHEATING. I made the thread to soley slander him for being a cheater.

You want to cheat but not get slandered for it ?
Do you also wanna eat your cake and not gain weight.

Your decision to cheat. My decision to point it out publicly.

I spammed DCs IG comments with emoticons and similar after he employed the eye jab tactic vs Stipe. I don't care I know I'm right.

 

[Carrotman23]

If we agreeed to fight with no glove hooking and you KO me with glove hooking and eye pokes. I would be in the right to smash a baseball face across your face and fracture it. A face for a brain, or a brain for a brain. Note I said I would be right for it. Not that I ever did anything remotely close to it.
Are you this Miles Johnes guy ? I know UFC fighters post undercover and half of them read sherdog. Internet hoes. Look at them at twitter and IG.

Actually no, If we agreed to a bout and I used a foul to win it would not grant you the right to commit a felony assault against me.

But I'm glad you went this route because it shows the facile mask of tolerance and morality that "honor cultures" or "honor systems" have. I personally prefer the harmony of law and reason.
That being said I do respect it more then @TheMMAnalyst 's moral posturing and utterly contemptible sophistry about some supposed humanistic values in prize fighting.

 

[Trabaho]

Actually no, If we agreed to a bout and I used a foul to win it would not grant you the right to commit a felony assault against me.

That's just my logic. Legal and illegal are BS sometimes. It is legal to bomb childreen. It is ilegal to fish without a permit. There are different fouls. This was a massive KO. Dude got a lot of power. From his trembelon sups wink wink. He ruined the other guy. I don't care about Conor doing desperate cheats vs Khabib while getting his head smashed in. Do not play with people health and life.

But I'm glad you went this route because it shows the facile mask of tolerance and morality that "honor cultures" or "honor systems" have.

I'm not part of a honor culture. I'm not into karate. Just normal combat sports. What tolerance ? Morality - simply be a good person. We all can work on ourselves. Hope God thinks I'm good and guides me on the right paths. Hope I hurt noone, verbaly or in a different way. Yes sinner. Born that way.

I personally prefer the harmony of law and reason.

bro MMA rules are law. Unfortunately aren't. I can't help that this majorely triggered me. Injustice leading to bodily harm will always have me rage. When I rage I use over the top statements and words. I'm aware of it.

That being said I do respect it more then @TheMMAnalyst 's moral posturing and utterly contemptible sophistry about supposed humanistic moral values in prize fighting.

 

[IIIIIIII]

he didn't get caught. that's on the ref.

 

[Carrotman23]

You are long winded getting philosohpical. It's simple. He cheated to hurt someone for a win. Scummy.
Cheating = scummy.

So your reply can be. Cheating is alright. And not these walls of text.

Oh right according to you it could not be cheating. 3 glove grabs and a fine glove hook into KO. Do you think I'm dumb. We got eyes and the video. And called him out for it.

Oh cry, his reputation. Well that's what you get for CHEATING. I made the thread to soley slander him for being a cheater.

You want to cheat but not get slandered for it ?
Do you also wanna eat your cake and not gain weight.

Your decision to cheat. My decision to point it out publicly.

I spammed DCs IG comments with emoticons and similar after he employed the eye jab tactic vs Stipe. I don't care I know I'm right.

I see that you edited your post, I also see that you prefer simple answers rather then complex ideas. Fair enough, this is a karate forum after all.

So for the sake of your personal tastes I will be more simple.

Prize fighting = Fighting for money, Fighting for money = incentive to win, Incentive to win = incentive to use any means at your disposal, which = things like eye poking, groin shots, and other things that don't belong in any modern sport/entertainment product.

Rules and regulations and enforcing them therefore = incentive to not use strikes and actions that we can all agree are things we would prefer not to see.

Morality and honor dont play a major part here.

Lastly, Im not going to be outraged about people following clear incentives, it is simply human, and this is the spectacle of an entertainment product, its not something sacred.

That's just my logic. Legal and illegal are BS sometimes. It is legal to bomb childreen. It is ilegal to fish without a permit. There are different fouls. This was a massive KO. Dude got a lot of power. From his trembelon sups wink wink. He ruined the other guy. I don't care about Conor doing desperate cheats vs Khabib while getting his head smashed in. Do not play with people health and life.

I dont mean to be flippant but you are taking this KO too seriously, its a stretch to start comparing this to a war crime. Although even then we could talk about how if war crimes law isnt enforced, people are going to commit war crimes. Which again leads to my main point.

I'm not part of a honor culture. I'm not into karate. Just normal combat sports. What tolerance ? Morality - simply be a good person. We all can work on ourselves. Hope God thinks I'm good and guides me on the right paths. Hope I hurt noone, verbaly or in a different way. Yes sinner. Born that way.

I employed the term honor culture because you threatened egregious violence over something you view as dishonorable.
I'm glad you found god, most MMA fighters say they've found Jesus, and plenty of MMA fighters are frankly bad people, who would hang around even worse people for clout and a paycheck. Not hating, just saying.

bro MMA rules are law. Unfortunately aren't. I can't help that this majorely triggered me. Injustice leading to bodily harm will always have me rage. When I rage I use over the top statements and words. I'm aware of it.

MMA rules arent enforced like they are laws, again going back to my basic point that rule enforcement is what stops fouls, and also why I think acting righteous about fouls is just silly to put it glibly.

You said earlier the ref gave warnings about glove grabbing before the KO, what he should've done is take a point the first time it happened.

 

[TheMMAnalyst]

@Carrotman23 instead of trying to use fancy words that you don't understand to make inarticulate and long-winded points why don't you just say the truth i.e. "I don't believe in adhering to a moral code in combat sports."

I even said in my original post:

Which is fine, but just acknowledge that you’re the one that doesn’t care about honor/justice/morality, since clearly most fighters do or they would be egregiously cheating all the time instead of a few doing it some of the time.

I mean @Trabaho and myself might disagree with that position, but at least you are being honest, instead of just hiding behind a cascade of bullshit posturing. It has nothing to do with "moral posturing and utterly contemptible sophistry" it's just us explaining the other side of the argument. Apparently you can't just disagree with it, you find someone explaining why your position is retrograde to be a personal affront, so you've got go on some diatribe that goes all over the place and completely belabors the points being made.

I've got no problem agreeing to disagree, it's just you try to justify your ridiculous position by pretending we are on some moral high-horse because we don't think cheating in bloodsport governed by rules that most adhere to is the correct moral posture to take. You literally act like we don't know if someone is intentionally committing fouls when they commit the same foul 3 times in the same fight - not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse, but it completely undermines the core argument of your position.

 

[Carrotman23]

@Carrotman23 instead of trying to use fancy words that you don't understand to make inarticulate and long-winded points why don't you just say the truth i.e. "I don't believe in adhering to a moral code in combat sports."

I even said in my original post:

Which is fine, but just acknowledge that you’re the one that doesn’t care about honor/justice/morality, since clearly most fighters do or they would be egregiously cheating all the time instead of a few doing it some of the time.

I mean @Trabaho and myself might disagree with that posture, but at least you are being honest, instead of just hiding behind a cascade of bullshit posturing. It has nothing to do with "moral posturing and utterly contemptible sophistry" it's just us explaining the other side of the argument. Apparently you can't just disagree with it, you find someone explaining why your position is retrograde to be a personal affront, so you've got go on some diatribe that goes all over the place and completely belabors the points being made.

I've got no problem agreeing to disagree, it's just you try to justify your ridiculous position by pretending we are on some moral high-horse because we don't think cheating in bloodsport governed by rules that most adhere to is the correct moral posture to take. You literally act like we don't know if someone is intentionally committing fouls when they commit the same foul 3 times in the same fight - not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse, but it completely undermines the core argument of your position.

You are making another basic mistake concerning what are the actual contours of this argument.

I'm not saying I dont "believe in a moral code in combat sports", I'm saying there literally is no "moral code" in combat sports, and the history of fighting shows this, what stops fouls is rule enforcement, this "moral code" of yours is completely built up in your head, it is metaphysics, it does nothing to actually stop fouls.

The rest of your post is just typical back handed insults masked in some kind of civility which I've come to expect from your posts.
Get back to me when you actually have an argument rather then simply trying to dismiss what I'm saying by trying to claim I'm some kind of vindictive nihilist who doesn't believe in anything, which is simply not the case.
Although perhaps my sarcasm and glib posturing in previous posts is in part to blame for that.

 

[TheMMAnalyst]

You are making another basic mistake concerning what are the actual contours of this argument.

I'm not saying I dont "believe in a moral code in combat sports", I'm saying there literally is no "moral code" in combat sports, and the history of fighting shows this, what stops fouls is rule enforcement, this "moral code" of yours is completely built up in your head, it is metaphysics, it does nothing to actually stop fouls.

The rest of your post is just typical back handed insults masked in some kind of civility which I've come to expect from your posts.
Get back to me when you actually have an argument rather then simply trying to dismiss what I'm saying by trying to claim I'm some kind of vindictive nihilist who doesn't believe in anything, which is simply not the case.
Although perhaps my sarcasm and glib posturing in previous posts is in part to blame for that.

There obviously is a moral code in combat sports or every fighter would be cheating all the time, instead its just some of the fighters some of the time - either complete pieces of shit (i.e Wes Sims), fighters that use that as a strategy (i.e. Jon Jones and eye pokes) or certain fighters when they are losing (i.e. McG vs. Khabib, Suga vs. Yan, etc.).

But by far the vast majority of the time it would clearly appear that most fighters are not breaking the proverbial moral code that is inherent to regulated violent combat. They do this on the basis that it's the only fragile thing that holds fighting with rules from turning a hybrid sport/spectacle into a pure unadulterated and unregulated violence.

If there is no agreed upon conceptual moral basis to not foul each other than every fighter would go into fights not only expecting their opponent to foul them, but also then knowingly needing to take the exact same position i.e. if they are going to eye-poke/groin-strike/back-of-the-head shot/etc. me then I'm almost a complete fucking fool if I don't do the same to them first, especially because we get away with it the vast majority of the time.

There is the idea of a "moral code" that we all follow at least if we have a conscience that dictates we adhere to an ideological concept of right and wrong under the expectation that those same morals will be applied back to us, or else we might as well just assume everyone is a thieving/raping/murderer and shoot them on site. Because laws only mean so much if they aren't adhered to and there isn't anyone around to stop someone from doing as they please.

Ultimately I'm just asking you to be honest about your position, which after this long dog and pony show we've finally gotten to - you don't seem to believe that morality exists in combat sports, despite the litany of historical proof that it does. Instead you seem to take the outliers as the norm and then use that to create a framework for your own twisted moral perspective.

Which again, it's absolutely fine to hold that position, but to try to frame it as some inherent foundational understanding of combat sports is not only ignorant to history, it completely defies the utter framework of morality in that the root expectation of how we treat others is how we expect to be treated in return within the confines of rules/laws/etc.

You seem to take a more "dog eat dog" approach to the world, which would seem rather nihilistic but I wouldn't call it vindictive, just anti-historical and not founded in provable logic.

FYI - None of my insults are back-handed, they are all fore-hands lol.

 

[Papasmurf45619]

Immediately what I thought of. Big Nog also used this technique to sweep Big Tim en route to a submission in a fight he was losing.

Hahaha you'll get nothing but crickets from the people who are always pissy at Tim for that.

 

[Señor Dudu Bird]

Dirty, but effective for actual fighting.

 

[Carrotman23]

There obviously is a moral code in combat sports or every fighter would be cheating all the time, instead its just some of the fighters some of the time - either complete pieces of shit (i.e Wes Sims), fighters that use that as a strategy (i.e. Jon Jones and eye pokes) or certain fighters when they are losing (i.e. McG vs. Khabib, Suga vs. Yan, etc.).

There is no moral code in combat sports, there is a ruleset that some fighters follow and others dont and said ruleset is only useful in as far as it is enforced by officials and commissions.
This is simply an unimpeachable fact, your example of fighters fouling is an example of my point, not an argument against it. You can believe they are "pieces of shit" for breaking some abstract principle that you've built up in your head if you want, but it is simply a testament to your ego rather then any real code of ethics or law.

But by far the vast majority of the time it would clearly appear that most fighters are not breaking the proverbial moral code that is inherent to regulated violent combat. They do this on the basis that it's the only fragile thing that holds fighting with rules from turning a hybrid sport/spectacle into a pure unadulterated and unregulated violence.

Ive highlighted what is relevant to my above point in this part of your post, there is no "inherent" "moral code" that "regulates violent combat" , state commissions are what regulates MMA, again you've conjured up some code that doesn't exist and has no basis in stopping fouls. If there were no rules and no refs and no state commissions, none of the issues we are discussing would be relevant.

There is the idea of a "moral code" that we all follow at least if we have a conscience that dictates we adhere to an ideological concept of right and wrong under the expectation that those same morals will be applied back to us, or else we might as well just assume everyone is a thieving/raping/murderer and shoot them on site. Because laws only mean so much if they aren't adhered to and there isn't anyone around to stop someone from doing as they please.

You are barely making sense here and what stops people from not assuming everyone else is a thief/rape/murderer is the fact that there are agreed upon norms that are enforced by laws and regulations against thieving and murdering and raping (and one could simply add, most people inherently know others aren't a rapist or a murderer, because most people don't take part in extreme anti social behavior unless pushed by environmental and/or social factors.)

Laws don't "only mean so much if they arent adhered to" that barely makes sense (and is some terrible grammar by the way). Laws mean as much as they are enforced and as much as they are accepted by whatever consensus any given grouping of people agrees upon. Of course there are power dynamics and complications but that is outside the scope of this topic.
So to get back to the topic at hand (because frankly your attempt at waxing philosophical is rather embarrassing), on the whole fighters don't foul because it is against the ruleset that is enforced by commissions.
Sure some dont foul because they don't want to do something they see as "immoral" or they dont want the other fighter to return said foul. Which is better said as "treat other people how you want to be treated" rather then your convoluted mealy mouth attempt at theory.
BUT if there was no ruleset and fighting was simply based off of your made up "moral code" that "we" follow, there would be many more eye gouges, groin shots and outright deaths. You should get off of your proverbial hill and come back to reality.

Ultimately I'm just asking you to be honest about your position, which after this long dog and pony show we've finally gotten to - you don't seem to believe that morality exists in combat sports, despite the litany of historical proof that it does. Instead you seem to take the outliers as the norm and then use that to create a framework for your own twisted moral perspective.

Which again, it's absolutely fine to hold that position, but to try to frame it as some inherent foundational understanding of combat sports is not only ignorant to history, it completely defies the utter framework of morality in that the root expectation of how we treat others is how we expect to be treated in return within the confines of rules/laws/etc.

You seem to take a more "dog eat dog" approach to the world, which would seem rather nihilistic but I wouldn't call it vindictive, just anti-historical and not founded in provable logic.

Again you dont understand my position and are attempting to dismiss what I'm saying through strawman exaggeration. I'm not saying every fighter themselves has NO morality whatsoever, after all we are talking about human beings here, most of whom cannot be assumed to be sociopaths (though some are), and in typical dunce fashion you've taken my glib humor far too seriously.
My point is that your conjured up "moral code" which isnt written anywhere and isnt agreed upon by any commission or other organization that matters is not what stops fouls on the whole, hence why enforcing rulesets with actual consequences is what will lessen fouls such as eye pokes, groin strikes, glove grabbing etc. And without said rules, there would be many more fouls, because your mind palace of a "moral code" only exists in said mind palace. To put it again to you in a more simple fashion; moral posturing does nothing concerning this topic ("fighter A is meany head because he's breaking my made up code of conduct!") and is borderline delusional and definitely infantile.

FYI - None of my insults are back-handed, they are all fore-hands lol.

Lastly it is clear that for whatever reason you have an extremely high opinion of your own rhetorical skills, and I'm sorry to say it is quite unwarranted.

 

[Pequeño Corey]

Hahaha you'll get nothing but crickets from the people who are always pissy at Tim for that.

I’m a Pride fanboy, and I love Nog, but C’mon man big Tim was puttin the wood to him.

 

[Psychojoe86]

I never saw that fight but I’ve seen the ko countless times. Somehow I never noticed the glove grab. Blatant cheating, crazy.

 

[Prince Nephilim]

The person who is truly to blame is the ref.

 

[MillingMeSoftly]

Similar cheat technique Tim Kennedy used on Yoel Romero before being such a piece of shit that he even falsely accused Romero of cheating while recovering from it.

Romero def cheated too he's a piece of shit too by your standards lo

 

[TheMMAnalyst]

There is no moral code in combat sports, there is a ruleset that some fighters follow and others dont and said ruleset is only useful in as far as it is enforced by officials and commissions.
This is simply an unimpeachable fact, your example of fighters fouling is an example of my point, not an argument against it. You can believe they are "pieces of shit" for breaking some abstract principle that you've built up in your head if you want, but it is simply a testament to your ego rather then any real code of ethics or law.

You provide literally no evidence of this "unimpeachable fact," you literally present an ahistorical and asinine subjective perspective as such and parrot it thinking that by repeating yourself it becomes evident.

I've seen tens of thousands of fights over the course of decades - boxing, kickboxing, may thai, MMA, wrestling, BJJ, bare-knuckle, etc. - the vast majority of fights do not have fouls and the ones that do the vast majority of the time it pretty clearly isn't intentional (seems due to bad timing or sloppy technique more-so than ill-intent).

When I give my examples of when it happens I'm pointing out that it's small percentage of the time it's a strategy (i.e. Jones being able to get away with eye pokes), a small percentage of the time it's reactive panic to getting your ass-beat and not knowing what else to do (McG vs. Khabib), and and even smaller percentage of the time it's downright evil intent to hurt people with no regard for the rules (Wes Sims).

The fact that you can't realize this means you either don't watch a lot of fights or you just pigeon-hole a retarded narrative in your brain based off the few fights you've seen with fouls in it, when anyone who knows anything about fighting knows it's not normal to intentionally commit fouls in fights. It's got literally nothing to do with my ego, it's an observable and provable metric to anyone that pays attention to what they are watching, something you clearly don't.

Ive highlighted what is relevant to my above point in this part of your post, there is no "inherent" "moral code" that "regulates violent combat" , state commissions are what regulates MMA, again you've conjured up some code that doesn't exist and has no basis in stopping fouls. If there were no rules and no refs and no state commissions, none of the issues we are discussing would be relevant.

You seem to completely lack reading comprehension skills, as you highlighted my point and then misinterpreted it somehow -

regulated violent combat.

i.e. there are rules and regulations that serve as guidelines that the fighters agree to follow this isn't blood-sport or street fights or felony fights, it's the business of prize-fighting where in order to keep making a living fighters need to agree to follow these to not potentially cripple each other. I thought you understood it was about money but to your insane moral code the only thing fighters care about is winning to make money at all costs, so they all must be willing to cheat by whatever means necessary to win apparently.

If you actually knew/met fighters (which I have to dozens), the vast majority do not want to foul their opponents to win, they do follow a type of bushido code where they believe it's dishonorable to break the given ruleset in order to win, even for the sake of "winning more money," but we clearly know where your moral interpretation of things begins and ends, with the almighty dollar. That's you just projecting your own incredibly shallow moral compass onto fighters, who may be dumb violent meatheads but actually do adhere to a set of moral principles that someone like you apparently could never understand.

You are barely making sense here and what stops people from not assuming everyone else is a thief/rape/murderer is the fact that there are agreed upon norms that are enforced by laws and regulations against thieving and murdering and raping (and one could simply add, most people inherently know others aren't a rapist or a murderer, because most people don't take part in extreme anti social behavior unless pushed by environmental and/or social factors.)

You don't even understand the concept of laws - they dont' stop anyone from doing anything in practice, they are a deterrent that acts as a punishment after the fact, but only if someone is caught/convicted. So theoretically if someone could get away with robbery/rape/murder then according to your logic they would just do so, they would have no inherent moral need to adhere to any code since they wouldn't be getting punished for doing so.

If you were walking down the street and a someone wanted to kill you would the law stop him? Unless there is a cop right there no one is stopping him, and even then the cop can't stop him until he "breaks the law visibly" and can react to it. Laws are reactive in nature, that's why it's up to the inherent morality of individuals to adhere to them. We put them in place as a set of moral guidelines to help shape people's behaviors, but they are a reactive application (i.e. you can only do something about it after the fact).

Laws don't "only mean so much if they arent adhered to" that barely makes sense (and is some terrible grammar by the way). Laws mean as much as they are enforced and as much as they are accepted by whatever consensus any given grouping of people agrees upon. Of course there are power dynamics and complications but that is outside the scope of this topic.
So to get back to the topic at hand (because frankly your attempt at waxing philosophical is rather embarrassing), on the whole fighters don't foul because it is against the ruleset that is enforced by commissions.
Sure some dont foul because they don't want to do something they see as "immoral" or they dont want the other fighter to return said foul. Which is better said as "treat other people how you want to be treated" rather then your convoluted mealy mouth attempt at theory.
BUT if there was no ruleset and fighting was simply based off of your made up "moral code" that "we" follow, there would be many more eye gouges, groin shots and outright deaths. You should get off of your proverbial hill and come back to reality.

Sorry you lack the reading comprehension to understand my prose fully, you were dropping words like "sophistry" so I thought you had the vocabulary and reading abilities to be able to parse through this, but apparently not.

Fighters don't foul for the most part because like I said before, they A) adhere to a certain code of morals/ethics in fighting (i.e. if you have to cheat to win you are a loser and a pussy) and B) if you assume your opponent is willing to foul to get away with it and win, then you are an idiot to not immediately foul them first (after all everyone gets a free eye poke, groin shot, and cage grab right?).

Based on your logic every fight should immediately devolve into a series of each fighter trying to foul each other to a level where they can get away with it. You can't really get away with "eye gouges/spine strikes" and some of the most gratuitous fouls, but you pretty much can get away with everything else, which if you've seen enough combat sports you would realize.

But apparently to you fighters are all greedy dumb brutes ready to cripple each other at a moments notice to make a few dollars more with no regard for their fellow fighters or the implications of what it would devolve fights into, which would be a rush to foul each other and get away it as often as possible. Which just doesn't happen very often if you actually have watched a lot of fights, which again, you clearly haven't.

Again you dont understand my position and are attempting to dismiss what I'm saying through strawman exaggeration. I'm not saying every fighter themselves has NO morality whatsoever, after all we are talking about human beings here, most of whom cannot be assumed to be sociopaths (though some are), and in typical dunce fashion you've taken my glib humor far too seriously.
My point is that your conjured up "moral code" which isnt written anywhere and isnt agreed upon by any commission or other organization that matters is not what stops fouls on the whole, hence why enforcing rulesets with actual consequences is what will lessen fouls such as eye pokes, groin strikes, glove grabbing etc. And without said rules, there would be many more fouls, because your mind palace of a "moral code" only exists in said mind palace. To put it again to you in a more simple fashion; moral posturing does nothing concerning this topic ("fighter A is meany head because he's breaking my made up code of conduct!") and is borderline delusional and definitely infantile.

I understand your point all too well, it's not a straw-man exaggeration.

The point is that the rules are just guidelines that the fighters have the choice to follow or not and since they are rarely punished for initial fouls - based on your viewpoint that all they care about is winning/money and there is no actual moral/ethical code to follow, they should be fouling each other literally all the time in every single fight.

And yet the vast majority of fights they don't, and when they do it's pretty much clearly accidental except in a small minority of fights/fighters. So your point doesn't exist in any reality outside of your convoluted interpretation of fighting based on how you see it, which is completely amoral and existing in a homeostasis where money/winning is the only driving factor and the idea of adhering to a code is all just fancy fake bullshit apparently.

Lastly it is clear that for whatever reason you have an extremely high opinion of your own rhetorical skills, and I'm sorry to say it is quite unwarranted.

You don't seem very sorry lol.

Yeah, the reason I spend hours posting detailed explanations on a fighting message board is because I think I'm a terrible communicator.



No shit I've got a reasonable opinion of myself and ability to make my points, otherwise why the fuck would I be here doing this in the first place?

Clearly I'm not your cup of tea and that's fine, I don't need everyone to agree with what I say or how I say it. I've got plenty of people who do seem to enjoy my posts so I'll gladly continue to share my thoughts and opinions, just as you are welcome to do so.

I oddly enough do appreciate your point of view to a certain degree, you just do a terrible job of articulating it and basing it in any type of reasonable fact or logic, and just excuse any type of examples or philosphical discussion as being outside the realm of the discussion. Maybe it's just something your not capable of comprehending, but instead of taking the time to reflect it's a lot easier to be triggered when someone vehemently disagrees with you and just start typing.

You do you bro, no worries.

 

[Carrotman23]

You provide literally no evidence of this "unimpeachable fact," you literally present an ahistorical and asinine subjective perspective as such and parrot it thinking that by repeating yourself it becomes evident.

I've seen tens of thousands of fights over the course of decades - boxing, kickboxing, may thai, MMA, wrestling, BJJ, bare-knuckle, etc. - the vast majority of fights do not have fouls and the ones that do the vast majority of the time it pretty clearly isn't intentional (seems due to bad timing or sloppy technique more-so than ill-intent).

Its really is cute that you've put this much effort smashing your head against the proverbial wall because you cant understand the fact that there is no abstract moral code among fighters.
Yes, and out of those tens of thousands of fights how many were regulated by a ruleset?
Id say the vast majority.
It is naive to think modern combat sports and especially MMA didnt come into their current form by enforced regulation, this is a very basic point and yes it is an unimpeachable fact.

When I give my examples of when it happens I'm pointing out that it's small percentage of the time it's a strategy (i.e. Jones being able to get away with eye pokes), a small percentage of the time it's reactive panic to getting your ass-beat and not knowing what else to do (McG vs. Khabib), and and even smaller percentage of the time it's downright evil intent to hurt people with no regard for the rules (Wes Sims).

The fact that you can't realize this means you either don't watch a lot of fights or you just pigeon-hole a retarded narrative in your brain based off the few fights you've seen with fouls in it, when anyone who knows anything about fighting knows it's not normal to intentionally commit fouls in fights. It's got literally nothing to do with my ego, it's an observable and provable metric to anyone that pays attention to what they are watching, something you clearly don't.

Firstly you are vastly underestimating the amount of fouls in modern MMA , during basically every UFC card I've seen over the past couple of years there are eye pokes and groin strikes.

Secondly the entire underlining structure of my critique is that you cannot actually gage intent in a fight, and the rulesets stipulating "intent" as a clause for when a point is taken is the exact reason why so many fouls dont lead to any consequences by the ref.
So its clear the only one being pigeon-holed is yourself, absolutely twisting up in knots because you are seemingly unable to understand what my argument even is, and are unable to articulate your own as the goal post continues to move into deeper abstraction with every paragraph you frantically jot down.
And it absolutely is normal to commit fouls in fights, again talking about "intention" is the entire underlining issue of the ruleset.

i.e. there are rules and regulations that serve as guidelines that the fighters agree to follow this isn't blood-sport or street fights or felony fights, it's the business of prize-fighting where in order to keep making a living fighters need to agree to follow these to not potentially cripple each other. I thought you understood it was about money but to your insane moral code the only thing fighters care about is winning to make money at all costs, so they all must be willing to cheat by whatever means necessary to win apparently.

If you actually knew/met fighters (which I have to dozens), the vast majority do not want to foul their opponents to win, they do follow a type of bushido code where they believe it's dishonorable to break the given ruleset in order to win, even for the sake of "winning more money," but we clearly know where your moral interpretation of things begins and ends, with the almighty dollar. That's you just projecting your own incredibly shallow moral compass onto fighters, who may be dumb violent meatheads but actually do adhere to a set of moral principles that someone like you apparently could never understand.

Yes genius my entire point has been this is regulated prize fighting and not a street fight, literally no one but yourself has brought up anything about a moral code, and of course some fighters would be willing to cheat to win! What world are you living in??
If you think every fighter follows a "bushido code" and thats why there arent many fouls then you literally live in the land of fairys and gum drops, it would be sweet if it didnt also make you such an aggressive moron .
Sure some fighters do have principles that they learn form practicing martial arts, but plenty dont, plenty are people who have something broken in them and fighting helps them with that. Plenty drink heavily and get in bar fights, plenty would fight to the death if there wasnt a ref to stop the fight. Remember this is an org that started with people like Tank Abbot.

It is foolish to think a large portion of fighters wouldn't commit transgressions in a prize fight if it was the rule of the jungle.
Remember, a real fight for high levels of money is a lot different then your gym sparring.
Go to any local MMA show, you'll see plenty of bruisers and insanity and outright dangerous people half the time. Sure plenty are also great guys, but its not all regulated by honorable martial traditions or whatever you are even trying to say at this point.

You don't even understand the concept of laws - they dont' stop anyone from doing anything in practice, they are a deterrent that acts as a punishment after the fact, but only if someone is caught/convicted. So theoretically if someone could get away with robbery/rape/murder then according to your logic they would just do so, they would have no inherent moral need to adhere to any code since they wouldn't be getting punished for doing so.

If you were walking down the street and a someone wanted to kill you would the law stop him? Unless there is a cop right there no one is stopping him, and even then the cop can't stop him until he "breaks the law visibly" and can react to it. Laws are reactive in nature, that's why it's up to the inherent morality of individuals to adhere to them. We put them in place as a set of moral guidelines to help shape people's behaviors, but they are a reactive application (i.e. you can only do something about it after the fact).

Obviously laws are a deterrent, I never stated that if someone could get away with a crime then they would always do so. My point was that certainly more people would commit crimes if there weren't enforced laws, and furthermore I literally stated outright in the very post that you quote that most people dont engage in extreme anti social behavior regardless of laws, unless pushed to by environmental or social factors, i.e. stealing because they would otherwise go hungry and so on.

Your second paragraph is just incredibly stupid. If some one wanted to murder me they would probably still face punishment after the fact, regardless of whether or not there was literally a police officer in the vicinity.

There is no such thing as "inherent morality" in the way you are trying to articulate outside the fact that most people would not commit such egregious crimes regardless of the law (which I literally said in the very post you quote), but in so much as law and punishment does deter such acts and regulates any given society, the law is only as effective in as much as it is effectively enforced.
You're regurgitating a more navel gazing form of what was the last part of my point; That along with enforcement the law is only effective depending on how any given group - whether ethnic, national and so on - chooses to adhere to them given their culture, environment, and yes, that nebulous concept of some ever shifting human nature.
Lastly there are also power dynamics, ideology and many other factors, things you seemingly lack the comprehension to discuss because you continue to draw on the meta physics of some inherent morality/moral code that you think is grafted into the very being of everyone else, merely because you declared it so.

Fighters don't foul for the most part because like I said before, they A) adhere to a certain code of morals/ethics in fighting (i.e. if you have to cheat to win you are a loser and a pussy) and B) if you assume your opponent is willing to foul to get away with it and win, then you are an idiot to not immediately foul them first (after all everyone gets a free eye poke, groin shot, and cage grab right?).

I dont know how to be polite about this because it seems you lack the ability to think about this outside of your deeply held emotions and ideals, so I will simply say this is incredibly stupid, even catastrophically idiotic.
Yes if there were not explicit rules against groin strikes, in a fight were the winner takes more money, there would be many more groin strikes. That is why such a rule was put into place after the early days of the UFC.
Yes many fighters foul because points arent taken immediately, that is clear, unless you live in some kind of bubble where all these guys follow "bushido" .

Based on your logic every fight should immediately devolve into a series of each fighter trying to foul each other to a level where they can get away with it. You can't really get away with "eye gouges/spine strikes" and some of the most gratuitous fouls, but you pretty much can get away with everything else, which if you've seen enough combat sports you would realize.

But apparently to you fighters are all greedy dumb brutes ready to cripple each other at a moments notice to make a few dollars more with no regard for their fellow fighters or the implications of what it would devolve fights into, which would be a rush to foul each other and get away it as often as possible. Which just doesn't happen very often if you actually have watched a lot of fights, which again, you clearly haven't.

Yes if there were no rules and money was at steak for the victor, you would see many many more things such as eye/pokes strikes to the back of the head and groin strikes.
In fact you already see a plethora of those fouls even when there are commission rules. Why?? In large part because the rules arent enforced enough.
But again keep smashing your head into bits against this basic observation because it offends your seemingly extremely weak and fragile view of prize fighting and the rules and regulations that guide them.

I understand your point all too well, it's not a straw-man exaggeration.

The point is that the rules are just guidelines that the fighters have the choice to follow or not and since they are rarely punished for initial fouls - based on your viewpoint that all they care about is winning/money and there is no actual moral/ethical code to follow, they should be fouling each other literally all the time in every single fight.

And yet the vast majority of fights they don't, and when they do it's pretty much clearly accidental except in a small minority of fights/fighters. So your point doesn't exist in any reality outside of your convoluted interpretation of fighting based on how you see it, which is completely amoral and existing in a homeostasis where money/winning is the only driving factor and the idea of adhering to a code is all just fancy fake bullshit apparently.

You clearly dont understand the point though, because again you pivot to a weak exaggeration and a caricature of my actual point.
"Based on my viewpoint" there should be a plethora of avoidable fouls, and there are, because I simply acknowledge the reality of prize fighting, nothing I've said has to stand on some ridiculous expectation that all fighters would have to foul all the time.

In reality, the very fact that there are state regulations and commissions is enough to outline the basic structure of what I'm saying.
See how long the sport would go if this was no holds barred anything is aloud prize fighting, see how long your literally made up "Bushido" (haha) fantasy land would last then.
It would be a disaster and would never happen because thankfully most people involved in the higher echelons of the sport are still connected to the real world, and are'nt wandering aberrations in your mind palace.

You don't seem very sorry lol.

Yeah, the reason I spend hours posting detailed explanations on a fighting message board is because I think I'm a terrible communicator.



No shit I've got a reasonable opinion of myself and ability to make my points, otherwise why the fuck would I be here doing this in the first place?

Clearly I'm not your cup of tea and that's fine, I don't need everyone to agree with what I say or how I say it. I've got plenty of people who do seem to enjoy my posts so I'll gladly continue to share my thoughts and opinions, just as you are welcome to do so.

I oddly enough do appreciate your point of view to a certain degree, you just do a terrible job of articulating it and basing it in any type of reasonable fact or logic, and just excuse any type of examples or philosphical discussion as being outside the realm of the discussion. Maybe it's just something your not capable of comprehending, but instead of taking the time to reflect it's a lot easier to be triggered when someone vehemently disagrees with you and just start typing.

You do you bro, no worries.

Its sarcasm, a little jab at your expense, but nice attempt at being cute.

I have to say I'm glad you appreciate my point of view to a "certain degree", because I dont think I've encountered a more convoluted self righteous poster on this entire site. I'm sure many people do appreciate your posts, I'm sure you do know a lot about certain aspects of fighting, in fact I'm sure most people on this karate forum would see this issue more through your lens of idealism as opposed to my materialism.

There was only one time I've ever had such a tedious and tiresome back and fourth with someone on this website, and to be fair that was in the War Room where such things are expected.
You do not trigger me, so I will end this by merely pointing out the fact that a large portion of every post you make every time I have engaged with you in any kind of argument is filled with tedium and low brow insults in a feeble attempt to try and sound more intelligent.

You do you as well, it has truly been a displeasure, and no one has come out of this more enlightened.