Media Miles Johnes landing glove grab KO

[TheMMAnalyst]

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.

Effort?

That took me all of 10 minutes to type out bro, complete stream-of-thought consciousness, about as much effort as I need to take when I'm slightly constipated, so don't over-estimate how much time/energy it takes to respond to this level of discourse.

We are ultimately going to agree to disagree - I actually have studied fighting for decades and known dozens of fighters and all do have some sort of abstract moral code they adhere to (albeit on a slightly sliding scale/spectrum, but they have a code nonetheless).

You clearly don't know any fighters and just choose to believe what you want because of how it makes you feel - cool, good for you, that's a real scientific basis for analysis.

Nobody ever said this shit didn't have to anything to do with regulation, all I'm pointing out is that based on your moral interpretation everyone should be cheating all the time, which they clearly aren't if you actually watch fighting and pay attention to it - it's a small minority of time there is fouls and most of the time it's unintentional. You can play this ridiculous game of "but we don't know what they are thinking" but again, if you actually watched enough fights and paid attention there are so many obvious instances of head-butts, groin shots, and eye pokes where you can tell it's completely accidental and not deliberate without needing to be a telepath that is reading a fighters mind, but you'd rather make the most obtuse argument possible to try and make your point.

Your unimpeachable facts exist in a vacuum inside your own brain without any tangible evidence to support them - again, very scientific method of you.

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've literally seen tens of thousands of high-level MMA fights, every single UFC, almost every single PRIDE, almost every Bellator/EliteXC/Strikeforce/Rizin/Dream/etc.

Obviously every card there are fouls - are there fouls in every single fight? I'd say it's definitely a minority, probably on any given card the average is like 25% or less of fights will have actual significant fouls in them and of those times it's probably like 25% or less of the time it's intentional. That's just guesswork on the numbers, but that means that like 1/16th of the time there is a fight there is a significant intentional foul.

You of course can gauge intent by using your fucking eyes, lol, tell us you don't watch fights without telling us you don't watch fights. There is a clear methodology to doing dirty ass eye pokes and groin strikes, most of the time it's pretty evident when it's intentional, a small portion of the time it's in a grey area where it's anyone's guess. Overall it's a vast minority of fights this shit occurs in, but to you it's the status quo.

It's absolutely abnormal to commit intentional significant fouls (bad eye pokes, huge groin shots, blatant headbutts that drop or cause cuts), but you don't watch enough fights to know this.

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.

Ummm yeah this all started with another poster bringing up the moral code that is agreed upon in combat sports, which I jumped in to contribute on.

I never said some fighters aren't willing to cheat, I just said the majority aren't because they A) don't want to look like losers/pussies (because if you have to cheat to win in a fight you are admitting you aren't capable of winning otherwise) and B) they don't want to create a culture where their opponents are looking to foul them immediately under the assumption that they are pieces of shit that are looking to do the same.

I never said every fighter follows a Bushido code, but most of the ones that make it to the highest level to compete do follow a code of some sorts, though there are always outliers. I sincerely doubt most fighters at the highest level would "fight to the death," I'm sure there are a few sickos here and there but you must have a really low opinion of fighters to try to push this narrative as if it's normal. There will always be cheaters and dirt bags and those that don't care about their opponents well-being, but for the vast majority at this stage of the game they are literally "professional athletes" which is something you cannot comprehend, to you they are just mindless killers with no code that will cheat at a moments notice to make a few extra bucks even if it means crippling their opponent and creating a fight culture where fouling is to be expected and reciprocated.

I've been to plenty of local MMA shows, but I'm not talking about tough mans and low-level shit, I'm talking about the highest level of prize-fighting in whatever combat sport you can think of - the guys that actually make it to that level do tend to have a code because you don't make it that level without one. Go talk to some professional fighters sometime and you might be surprised what you learn about them, but that would mean getting off the keyboard and going into some fight gyms and actually training and talking to high-level fighters.

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.

The point about laws being a deterrent is that rules only mean so much if people don't choose to follow them. Since fighters can always get away with multiple free fouls it would seem (free groin shot/eye poke/cage grab) why do we not see every fighter do it every single fight then?

It would seem if you could actually do a thought experiment you would realize that it's not conducive to creating a good fighting environment if everyone is trying to cheat all-the-time because then it leads to more cheating from everyone, which just gets everybody unnecessarily hurt even worse and makes them all look like losers and pussies that don't think they can win without grossly bending the rules to their advantage based on referee incompetence every chance they see fit.

I guess you aren't capable of seeing the comparative analysis behind what actually limits people from doing something vs. what they are capable of - that's the point I was making about someone being able to murder you and the law doing nothing to actually stop it (though they could hypothetically get caught and charged). If the only thing that was stopping people from breaking the law was fear of punishment then there would be a grotesque amount of more robbery/rape/murder, but it would seem there is thing that exists in society called "morality" where people have a conscience and actively choose to not do these things not because of "fear of punishment" but because they know it's not the right thing to do. Just as with fighters knowing they could foul their opponents and get away with it but most choose not to do it - are they really afraid of getting sternly warned by the referee? I highly doubt it.

I'm just trying to get you to understand something that you fail to acknowledge or just don't believe in, that every culture creates a moral spectrum of values it exists in, and since combat sports is regulated with rules and it's a business there is actually a code of morals/ethics that most fighters adhere to (some on a more sliding scale then others and a few that just disregard it entirely). But you just choose to believe that there are no morals or ethics, only just winning and money, which again is just a reflection of your own twisted view of human nature.

 

[TheMMAnalyst]

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" .

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.

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.

Oh now we are trying to be polite? lol

"if this wasn't illegal in a fight, people would use that technique!" No shit sherlock, the moral spectrum exists solely based around the agreed upon rules, otherwise there would be be no framework for what is or isn't moral.

I never said some fighters don't cheat and I'm sure the ones who do likely do it because they know they can get away with it - it's just they are the vast minority of fighters when it comes to the highest level of combat sports. But you can keep believing that there are gross intentional fouls in every fight even if there is absolutely no evidence to support that.

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.

Oh that's that new thing called sarcasm huh? Never heard of it before and didn't realize that's what you were doing....

I've got no problem seeing things through a materialist lens, I do believe that's always a competing force at play against the moral/ethical lens, I just don't think it exists as solely one or the other, I think both are always at play and to disregard the moral/ethical framework entirely is to basically slander what it is prize fighters do for a living by minimizing them to greedy savage brutish killers - which they are, to a degree, but they are also humans on another level that have a moral complex just like anyone else.

And if you think this argument was filled with low brow insults that tells me you've not been paying much attention on these forums in spite of dropping 15,000 posts in under 5 years.

 

[Legendary]

Love how quickly some sherdoggers are to pearl clutch.

No he broke the rules and its clear as day. No one is clutching at anything.

God people are fucking retarded

 

[KillerIsBack V2]

Here's a GIF of that.

Fuck both these cheating douchbags and their fans taking sides like sheep.

 

[Carrotman23]

We are ultimately going to agree to disagree - I actually have studied fighting for decades and known dozens of fighters and all do have some sort of abstract moral code they adhere to (albeit on a slightly sliding scale/spectrum, but they have a code nonetheless).

It is patently ridiculous and frankly a symptom of your own projection to think every fighter has some code of honor that they follow for fights beyond the regular fluctuating moral decisions and values that most human beings have and even then thats far too much credit to fighters, because most fighters are extreme individualist, and most fighters have a streak of brutality in them, even to the point of creating violent alter egos.

Nobody ever said this shit didn't have to anything to do with regulation, all I'm pointing out is that based on your moral interpretation everyone should be cheating all the time, which they clearly aren't if you actually watch fighting and pay attention to it - it's a small minority of time there is fouls and most of the time it's unintentional. You can play this ridiculous game of "but we don't know what they are thinking" but again, if you actually watched enough fights and paid attention there are so many obvious instances of head-butts, groin shots, and eye pokes where you can tell it's completely accidental and not deliberate without needing to be a telepath that is reading a fighters mind, but you'd rather make the most obtuse argument possible to try and make your point.

Your unimpeachable facts exist in a vacuum inside your own brain without any tangible evidence to support them - again, very scientific method of you.

Oh really now? below is a a previous post of yours literally arguing that this ill defined "moral code" is the "only fragile thing that holds fighting with rules from turning a hybrid sport/spectacle into a pure unadulterated and unregulated violence." In other words you are the one who said that at the end of the day fighters not fouling is not held together by regulation, but rather your literal made up Bushido ethics or whatever the fuck you are even going on about at this point.
And no you cannot "tell" that any given foul is "completely accidental". That is a massive assumption that isnt based off any sort of logic, its quite literally a vibes based analysis that you are making through second hand observation, so you have no ground to stand on about trying to mock my analysis as being illogical and not based in fact, you are the one operating under precarious assumptions.

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.

I've literally seen tens of thousands of high-level MMA fights, every single UFC, almost every single PRIDE, almost every Bellator/EliteXC/Strikeforce/Rizin/Dream/etc.

Obviously every card there are fouls - are there fouls in every single fight? I'd say it's definitely a minority, probably on any given card the average is like 25% or less of fights will have actual significant fouls in them and of those times it's probably like 25% or less of the time it's intentional. That's just guesswork on the numbers, but that means that like 1/16th of the time there is a fight there is a significant intentional foul.

You of course can gauge intent by using your fucking eyes, lol, tell us you don't watch fights without telling us you don't watch fights. There is a clear methodology to doing dirty ass eye pokes and groin strikes, most of the time it's pretty evident when it's intentional, a small portion of the time it's in a grey area where it's anyone's guess. Overall it's a vast minority of fights this shit occurs in, but to you it's the status quo.

It's absolutely abnormal to commit intentional significant fouls (bad eye pokes, huge groin shots, blatant headbutts that drop or cause cuts), but you don't watch enough fights to know this.

Super cool that you've seen so many fights, I would actually say that less then 25% of fights have fouls, but we can go with that, said percentage is of course a significant amount of fouls compared to any other sport. But again it is impossible to gage whether a foul is "intentional" or not.
Thats why the "intentional" clause in the ruleset is patently ridiculous, and why pretty much no foul gets called intentional, hence why almost no foul is a loss of a point in the first instance.
Notice how virtually no other sport has a clause about "intention", a foul is merely considered a foul regardless of the intent, because ultimately, gaging a fighters "intention" is completely subjective.
But again have that point go over your head and assume that "I dont watch enough fights" to "know" something that is completely subjective.
Logic really isnt your strong suite.

I never said some fighters aren't willing to cheat, I just said the majority aren't because they A) don't want to look like losers/pussies (because if you have to cheat to win in a fight you are admitting you aren't capable of winning otherwise) and B) they don't want to create a culture where their opponents are looking to foul them immediately under the assumption that they are pieces of shit that are looking to do the same.

I never said every fighter follows a Bushido code, but most of the ones that make it to the highest level to compete do follow a code of some sorts, though there are always outliers. I sincerely doubt most fighters at the highest level would "fight to the death," I'm sure there are a few sickos here and there but you must have a really low opinion of fighters to try to push this narrative as if it's normal. There will always be cheaters and dirt bags and those that don't care about their opponents well-being, but for the vast majority at this stage of the game they are literally "professional athletes" which is something you cannot comprehend, to you they are just mindless killers with no code that will cheat at a moments notice to make a few extra bucks even if it means crippling their opponent and creating a fight culture where fouling is to be expected and reciprocated.

I've been to plenty of local MMA shows, but I'm not talking about tough mans and low-level shit, I'm talking about the highest level of prize-fighting in whatever combat sport you can think of - the guys that actually make it to that level do tend to have a code because you don't make it that level without one. Go talk to some professional fighters sometime and you might be surprised what you learn about them, but that would mean getting off the keyboard and going into some fight gyms and actually training and talking to high-level fighters.

Most fighters dont foul because its against the ruleset, it really is that simple. You think most guys wouldnt grab a glove if it was legal?? Thats a complete joke and a take that is simply way outside of what could be called the real world.
Theres is very literal operative culture here or pride in not wanting to be a "loser/pussy". Sounds like once again you are reverting to your own projections.

And the phrase you used was "the vast majority of fighters follow some code of Bushido" haha, as far as most fighters haveing some code of ethics, again maybe in your mind palace, but I dont see any reason to be making such massive assumptions about this or that fighters moral compass.
My point about fighters fighting to "the death", is not what say you said in a previous posts which is that fighters go into a match "trying to kill each other", but that many fighters would keep fighting until they were seriously at risk of death or life changing bodily harm, i.e. Izzy saying "I'm willing to die in here" in the Gastelum fight.
Its more related to another critique of MMA that I've had which is the lack of throwing in the towel among corners, but I brought it up to try and guide you to the point that this sport is held together by rules and regulations.

The things that high level fighters say and the way they conduct themselves is actually to my point in the extreme, these guys want to win, and some will do things that are going to be considered a foul to win, again this is prize fighting not your metaphysical plane of morals.
Sorry that I live in some modecom of reality and don't think that say, a fighter like Khamzat is a Bushido master who would never commit a foul if it weren't for set rules.

The point about laws being a deterrent is that rules only mean so much if people don't choose to follow them. Since fighters can always get away with multiple free fouls it would seem (free groin shot/eye poke/cage grab) why do we not see every fighter do it every single fight then?It would seem if you could actually do a thought experiment you would realize that it's not conducive to creating a good fighting environment if everyone is trying to cheat all-the-time because then it leads to more cheating from everyone, which just gets everybody unnecessarily hurt even worse and makes them all look like losers and pussies that don't think they can win without grossly bending the rules to their advantage based on referee incompetence every chance they see fit.


I guess you aren't capable of seeing the comparative analysis behind what actually limits people from doing something vs. what they are capable of - that's the point I was making about someone being able to murder you and the law doing nothing to actually stop it (though they could hypothetically get caught and charged). If the only thing that was stopping people from breaking the law was fear of punishment then there would be a grotesque amount of more robbery/rape/murder, but it would seem there is thing that exists in society called "morality" where people have a conscience and actively choose to not do these things not because of "fear of punishment" but because they know it's not the right thing to do. Just as with fighters knowing they could foul their opponents and get away with it but most choose not to do it - are they really afraid of getting sternly warned by the referee? I highly doubt it.

This is getting so tiresome. My point doesnt hinge on literally every fighter committing fouls, thats just something you manifested in your own head.

Once again I NEVER said, not once that laws that manifest from social norms are only followed because of punishment. I have stated multiple times that obviously many social norms are followed - particularly the extreme examples that you seem so hell bent on regurgitating such as murder and rape - in large part because most people dont engage in extreme anti social behavior, and when they do more often then not it is because they are pushed by environmental and/or social factors.

Yes "morality" exists to a certain extent when we are talking about "society", its hilarious that you've twisted yourself up so bad that you're literally acting out the "we live in a society" meme.
That being said law is what governs transgressions, transgressions would be much more prominent without said laws, and said laws are only as viable as much as they are enforced.
you seemingly arent able to see this basic point because you have been triggered to respond to every point I make on maximalist, caricatured terms.
I'm not saying every fighter literally lacks any kind of morality whatsoever, or that we'd all be in the Lord Of The Flies without prisons and police, I'm merely saying that what stops fouls from occuring so often that it would make prize fighting incompatible with the modern world is rules and regulations and changes in norms, not some nebulous code of ethics that has no consensus, and the same goes for murder and rape, and the law and the state. And to get back to the original point, thats why enforcing said rules is what will make the sport have less fouls, not your hand ringing and desperate attempts at virtue signaling.
Yes many fighters don't commit fouls because its against the rules, if you think plenty of fighters wouldnt eye poke someone for 50k then I'm practically jealous of the sweet bliss your ignorance must bring.

Do a little thought experiment and go back to what laws governed the past, what cultural norms governed the past, what kinds of blood sports from Rome to the Aztecs took place regularly, and maybe you'll see that the phantom world you've constructed is simply within your own ego.

You also dont have a grasp of basic philosophical concepts, morality is something largely subjective and metaphysical, hence why science cannot give us morals, so your entire way of phrasing this sort of conversation is deeply confused.

I'm just trying to get you to understand something that you fail to acknowledge or just don't believe in, that every culture creates a moral spectrum of values it exists in, and since combat sports is regulated with rules and it's a business there is actually a code of morals/ethics that most fighters adhere to (some on a more sliding scale then others and a few that just disregard it entirely). But you just choose to believe that there are no morals or ethics, only just winning and money, which again is just a reflection of your own twisted view of human nature.

Its funny watching you go deeper into abstraction. Yes every culture creates a set of values, but even the most junior sociologist, historian, or philosopher could tell you that "values" and "culture" itself is guided by imbalances of power, by the accumulation of wealth, and by environmental factors.
I hate to break it to you, but there is no moral ark of history, there are no "better angels of our nature" that can be flattened upon humanity. You nor I truly know the kind of depths we could plunge to if material reality made us desperate enough, and no one can know unless confronted with extreme crisis.

Do I think in terms of human nature that there literally are no morals and ethics? Its complicated, and I have repeatedly said as much, even a term like "human nature" is extremely loaded with baggage.
I do think that material circumstances trump your fragile ideals.The wall of reality tends to cave in the skull of ideology.
So do I think prize fighting is primarily about money?
Yes, yes I do, because I'm not a mental infant.

 

[Trabaho]

Not reading right now replies. I just write bs when I'm mad. This whole hit him with a bat ect is bs im terms of me, but I would laugh if the victim here retaliated on him, I'd be pleased about it. And I'm done arguing morals.

 

[Trabaho]

Fighting you need to be more fair than other sports cause people get hurt. Just follow the rules you signed up to. Dirty man. You can't buy health.

 

[Trabaho]

You're supposed to have honor period. In fighting and outside. Meaning being decent and not evil. Not thinking just bout yourself like a animal on survival. Fighting isn't just primitive violence. It's a whole culture ans sport. Be a good person period. Noone is perfect. Don't corupt yourself intentionaly.

 

[Carrotman23]

Oh now we are trying to be polite? lol

"if this wasn't illegal in a fight, people would use that technique!" No shit sherlock, the moral spectrum exists solely based around the agreed upon rules, otherwise there would be be no framework for what is or isn't moral.

No dont worry anything that could be interpreted as polite in this exchange is merely an attempt to keep you on track however exceedingly difficult that obviously is for you. I now see that you have truly become completely entangled in your own ceaseless threads though, because now you are saying that rules and regulations are actually agreed upon morals, so everything is everything in your bizarre world isnt it, we cannot even distinguish between what is subjective, what is law and what is culture. Rules are morals and morals are rules, got it.

I never said some fighters don't cheat and I'm sure the ones who do likely do it because they know they can get away with it - it's just they are the vast minority of fighters when it comes to the highest level of combat sports. But you can keep believing that there are gross intentional fouls in every fight even if there is absolutely no evidence to support that.

Again dude, for the love of all that is holy, I reject your very attempt at even discussing "intention", because that is completely subjective, and in my mind shouldnt even be in the ruleset in the first place.

I've got no problem seeing things through a materialist lens, I do believe that's always a competing force at play against the moral/ethical lens, I just don't think it exists as solely one or the other, I think both are always at play and to disregard the moral/ethical framework entirely is to basically slander what it is prize fighters do for a living by minimizing them to greedy savage brutish killers - which they are, to a degree, but they are also humans on another level that have a moral complex just like anyone else.

And if you think this argument was filled with low brow insults that tells me you've not been paying much attention on these forums in spite of dropping 15,000 posts in under 5 years.

Morality and ethics are factors of materialism, man is after all the only reason for morality and ethics to exist, so the point is'nt that both are at play but that the latter comes from the former.

Do I think prize fighters are savage brutal killers? No, but I do think they are closer to that then honorable Bushido warriors ha.
Then again Bushido comes a feudal code of ethics, and Samurai's were basically contract killers for land lords, but you know that of course.
But yes obviously they are people and I wish them all the best, Im glad we've come down to cushy humanism.


Lastly the post count thing just sucks haha, but yeah this place is a cesspool, but that what makes it great, its not even the insults that annoy me, its your posh attitude that I find contemptible, but that is neither here nor there so to speak.

 

[shunyata]

Cro-Copesque, if it didn't 'bounce out' maybe?

Brutal, get knocked out and inside heel hooked by gravity.

 

[Equinox Shadow]

Another rule in the book: "Fingers outstretched toward an opponent’s face/eyes"
...this rule gets abused by many MMA fighters.(Jon Jones is king.)

Another rule in the book: "- Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck"
...Belal Muhammad recently did that to Edwards.




You are doing lots of whining and griping. But I don't see you offering any solutions?
...Suspensions? Fines? Kicked out of the UFC?
...Have you contacted the refs, rules commission or UFC and let them know your blatant disgust of said event???

...Drunk McConor throws dolly hand truck at bus.
...Khabib Nurmagomedov after beating McConor jumps outside of the cage and starts beating people up as retaliation for McConor's foolishness.
Did the UFC do anything to either fighter for those two acts of violence outside of the Octagon?

What benefit is a dq when you got a massive concussion ? That is the least, a dq. Should be bigger punishment. People will. Brush it off that he knocked him oit anyways. Your opponent getting a DQ doesn't help your health and longevity.

 

[Trabaho]

Another rule in the book: "Fingers outstretched toward an opponent’s face/eyes"
...this rule gets abused by many MMA fighters.(Jon Jones is king.)

Another rule in the book: "- Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck"
...Belal Muhammad recently did that to Edwards.




You are doing lots of whining and griping. But I don't see you offering any solutions?
...Suspensions? Fines? Kicked out of the UFC?
...Have you contacted the refs, rules commission or UFC and let them know your blatant disgust of said event???

...Drunk McConor throws dolly hand truck at bus.
...Khabib Nurmagomedov after beating McConor jumps outside of the cage and starts beating people up as retaliation for McConor's foolishness.
Did the UFC do anything to either fighter for those two acts of violence outside of the Octagon?

Conor and Khabib had street fights before after the match, they're grown man. Khabib was right.

Who am I to bother emailing the refs, like wtf they care if I email them.

I'm not whining I'm disrespecting. I do not respect it.

The Belal slam takedown was covered and considered legal. He didn't directly throw him on his head, half of it is Leons fault. Things can happen in a takedown.

I could say you are whining right now and making excuses.

Others did eye pokes so this is ok. Awesome logic.

 

[TheMMAnalyst]

It is patently ridiculous and frankly a symptom of your own projection to think every fighter has some code of honor that they follow for fights beyond the regular fluctuating moral decisions and values that most human beings have and even then thats far too much credit to fighters, because most fighters are extreme individualist, and most fighters have a streak of brutality in them, even to the point of creating violent alter egos.

Oh really now? below is a a previous post of yours literally arguing that this ill defined "moral code" is the "only fragile thing that holds fighting with rules from turning a hybrid sport/spectacle into a pure unadulterated and unregulated violence." In other words you are the one who said that at the end of the day fighters not fouling is not held together by regulation, but rather your literal made up Bushido ethics or whatever the fuck you are even going on about at this point.
And no you cannot "tell" that any given foul is "completely accidental". That is a massive assumption that isnt based off any sort of logic, its quite literally a vibes based analysis that you are making through second hand observation, so you have no ground to stand on about trying to mock my analysis as being illogical and not based in fact, you are the one operating under precarious assumptions.

It's actually patently ridiculous to think that every human being doesn't have a moral code of some kind, they obviously exist on a spectrum and some will be more extreme in one way then the other, but the majority will fall towards the center.

Again with the reading comprehension abilities:

"only fragile thing that holds fighting with rules from turning a hybrid sport/spectacle into a pure unadulterated and unregulated violence.

I literally said "fighting with rules" as I earlier said "regulated combat" to make it clear we aren't talking about street fighting/bloodsport/etc.

If you can't tell when a foul is obviously unintentional then you clearly just completely lack significant perceptive abilities in how technique and the human body works. It has nothing to do with "vibes based analysis" it has to do with understanding when it's patently obvious that it's near impossible to execute certain moves in a way that would've resulted in fouls, in which case it's pretty clear you should give someone the benefit of the doubt. There are other instances when it's so obvious they are clearly fouling, as in the root instance of this thread where someone commits an identical foul 3 times in a row resulting in a finish, where ironically you won't seem to cede that this is intentional and we "can't know for sure" if he meant to do it or not lol.

Super cool that you've seen so many fights, I would actually say that less then 25% of fights have fouls, but we can go with that, said percentage is of course a significant amount of fouls compared to any other sport. But again it is impossible to gage whether a foul is "intentional" or not.
Thats why the "intentional" clause in the ruleset is patently ridiculous, and why pretty much no foul gets called intentional, hence why almost no foul is a loss of a point in the first instance.
Notice how virtually no other sport has a clause about "intention", a foul is merely considered a foul regardless of the intent, because ultimately, gaging a fighters "intention" is completely subjective.
But again have that point go over your head and assume that "I dont watch enough fights" to "know" something that is completely subjective.
Logic really isnt your strong suite.

So a minority of fights have fouls in them and even we inflated the number higher to 50% are intentional (which I think is obscenely high, but lets do it as a thought experiment), that would be 1/8 fights have intentional fouls in them. Again, according to your logic these guys have no moral code and are compelled only to win for money and since they all are able to do certain fouls and get away with it why don't we see intentional fouls in a much larger percentage of fights than 12.5%?

I understand the subjectivity in gauging a foul as intentional or not, I actually agree with you 100% that you should be punished for your actions regardless of intent if you are going to regulate fouls.

If you had seen enough fights though you'd be able to admit that it's pretty clearly evident most of the time when fouls are intentional or not - it's of course subjective but it's something that you are able to analyze and perceive more accurately the larger your sample size of experience is. I'm not touting the amount of fights I've watched to make me some "cool guy" (I would think it does the opposite in fact lol), it's to show you that by having seen so many fights I actually have developed a more refined ability to make a fair subjective analysis of intent based on timing/body position/technique/fighter history/tactics within a fight one might be winning or losing/etc. You want to think everything exists in a pure vacuum of impossible to predict subjectivity, which is all well and good, but I think it's relatively easy to make these type of subjective interpretations the more experience you have watching fights unless you just don't care to pay attention to these things.

Most fighters dont foul because its against the ruleset, it really is that simple. You think most guys wouldnt grab a glove if it was legal?? Thats a complete joke and a take that is simply way outside of what could be called the real world.
Theres is very literal operative culture here or pride in not wanting to be a "loser/pussy". Sounds like once again you are reverting to your own projections.

And the phrase you used was "the vast majority of fighters follow some code of Bushido" haha, as far as most fighters haveing some code of ethics, again maybe in your mind palace, but I dont see any reason to be making such massive assumptions about this or that fighters moral compass.
My point about fighters fighting to "the death", is not what say you said in a previous posts which is that fighters go into a match "trying to kill each other", but that many fighters would keep fighting until they were seriously at risk of death or life changing bodily harm, i.e. Izzy saying "I'm willing to die in here" in the Gastelum fight.
Its more related to another critique of MMA that I've had which is the lack of throwing in the towel among corners, but I brought it up to try and guide you to the point that this sport is held together by rules and regulations.

The things that high level fighters say and the way they conduct themselves is actually to my point in the extreme, these guys want to win, and some will do things that are going to be considered a foul to win, again this is prize fighting not your metaphysical plane of morals.
Sorry that I live in some modecom of reality and don't think that say, a fighter like Khamzat is a Bushido master who would never commit a foul if it weren't for set rules.

"fighting with rules"
"regulated combat"

Quit ignoring the critical juncture points of this entire argument.

I just don't understand how you can keep repeating dumb arguments like "you think a fighter wouldn't cheat if it wasn't cheating?" Again, no shit Sherlock, the rules are the framework for what is considered cheating or not, how could you have any type of moral code in fighting otherwise? It's literally "fighting with rules/regulated combat" that's the framework for most to draw their inference of what is fair and what isn't from.

It appears you've never really met any fighters or trained, so I guess I shouldn't expect you to have the ability to give them credit outside of being anything other than mindless killing robots that do this for only money and/or the opportunity to legally hurt someone (even if that's a terrible projection/reflection of your own beliefs about human nature).

As I said previously, morality is a spectrum and all fighters do have a code that exists somewhere on a spectrum of it - some are incredible honorable, some are incredibly dishonorable, most fall in the middle which is they do have some sort of honor but they might bend or break in certain regards (i.e. if they cheat I'll cheat back, if I'm losing I think cheating in these ways is OK, I don't consider it cheating if I don't target the groin but recklessly throw strikes that might hit it, and so on and so on).

This is getting so tiresome. My point doesnt hinge on literally every fighter committing fouls, thats just something you manifested in your own head.

Once again I NEVER said, not once that laws that manifest from social norms are only followed because of punishment. I have stated multiple times that obviously many social norms are followed - particularly the extreme examples that you seem so hell bent on regurgitating such as murder and rape - in large part because most people dont engage in extreme anti social behavior, and when they do more often then not it is because they are pushed by environmental and/or social factors.

Yes "morality" exists to a certain extent when we are talking about "society", its hilarious that you've twisted yourself up so bad that you're literally acting out the "we live in a society" meme.
That being said law is what governs transgressions, transgressions would be much more prominent without said laws, and said laws are only as viable as much as they are enforced.
you seemingly arent able to see this basic point because you have been triggered to respond to every point I make on maximalist, caricatured terms.
I'm not saying every fighter literally lacks any kind of morality whatsoever, or that we'd all be in the Lord Of The Flies without prisons and police, I'm merely saying that what stops fouls from occuring so often that it would make prize fighting incompatible with the modern world is rules and regulations and changes in norms, not some nebulous code of ethics that has no consensus, and the same goes for murder and rape, and the law and the state. And to get back to the original point, thats why enforcing said rules is what will make the sport have less fouls, not your hand ringing and desperate attempts at virtue signaling.
Yes many fighters don't commit fouls because its against the rules, if you think plenty of fighters wouldnt eye poke someone for 50k then I'm practically jealous of the sweet bliss your ignorance must bring.

I get your point all too well.

My point is that based on your view of fighter morality we should be seeing gross intentional fouls repeatedly far more often in fights than the hypothetical 1/8 (12.5%) since they are all according to you blood-money killers with no moral compass. And yet we don't, so you aren't capable of reflecting on that key point to understand that fighters would prefer to not have to cheat to win because of how it not only reflects to others as losers/pussies, but actually to themselves and their own egos.

Morality exists in every type of culture, you just refuse to acknowledge professional combat sports is a culture in and of itself, which is just ahistorical and willful ignorance on your part.

I definitely think some fighters would foul for money, just as I think plenty of fighters wouldn't - again it's a spectrum of belief and behavior and the carrot of money can highly distort that at times, so I can admit that plays a role in changing the morality of some fighters as they ascend the ladder.

Fighters are literally playing with each others lives, so there is a tacit understanding that they are going to agree to fight under the agreed upon rules and regulations for multiple reasons that I've re-iterated and go over your head:

A) How it reflects on them to the public and themselves
B) How it creates a culture of cheating/fouling as a pure means to an ends that becomes forever escalating

Since referees can't judge intent and deducting points based on modern scoring grossly affects the outcome of fights it's a blind-spot in fighting that is apt to be exploited if fighters choose to do so. So of course some will and we already discussed under what variety of circumstances - pure evil/strategy/response to losing/etc., it's just based on the actual metric evidence it occurs at such a low rate that it's obtuse to call it the norm when it's obviously not.

 

[TheMMAnalyst]

Do a little thought experiment and go back to what laws governed the past, what cultural norms governed the past, what kinds of blood sports from Rome to the Aztecs took place regularly, and maybe you'll see that the phantom world you've constructed is simply within your own ego.

You also dont have a grasp of basic philosophical concepts, morality is something largely subjective and metaphysical, hence why science cannot give us morals, so your entire way of phrasing this sort of conversation is deeply confused.

Its funny watching you go deeper into abstraction. Yes every culture creates a set of values, but even the most junior sociologist, historian, or philosopher could tell you that "values" and "culture" itself is guided by imbalances of power, by the accumulation of wealth, and by environmental factors.
I hate to break it to you, but there is no moral ark of history, there are no "better angels of our nature" that can be flattened upon humanity. You nor I truly know the kind of depths we could plunge to if material reality made us desperate enough, and no one can know unless confronted with extreme crisis.

Do I think in terms of human nature that there literally are no morals and ethics? Its complicated, and I have repeatedly said as much, even a term like "human nature" is extremely loaded with baggage.
I do think that material circumstances trump your fragile ideals.The wall of reality tends to cave in the skull of ideology.
So do I think prize fighting is primarily about money?
Yes, yes I do, because I'm not a mental infant.

Now you want to do a thought experiment where we compare Modern MMA to Gladiatorial blood sports of ancient history that had no rules/regulations and existed at a time when human life was treated with almost no regard whatsoever (especially if it was slaves or participants in death sports)? Pretty retarded thought experiment to extrapolate anything from that is relevant to this discussion.

Culture gives us morality, it's something that is perceptively developed and cultivated over time, constantly changing and shifting - I'd say that today more so in the past it's clear that fighters cheat/fight dirty far far less than they did when regulated combat sports were first popularized in modern society. That has to do with many reasons, but the end result is the same - the vast majority of fighters not committing grossly intentional fouls merely for the sake of "winning."

You can't seem to abstract a moral code from anything in this world it would seem, you're just a pure nihilist in your view of human nature and believe people are fully compelled by greed to justify any behavior as long as it leads to their personal enrichment. Pretty fucked up way to view the world I will say, I don't even see why you would want to take part or participate in any part of society or culture with that take on humanity, everyone is just a piece of shit doing whatever they need to do in order to enrich themselves at the expense of others, consequences be damned.

Mental infant is probably the most low-brow insult that's been thrown in this entire discussion, but I won't pretend as if that's the worst thing I've heard after almost two decades on Sherdog lol.

No dont worry anything that could be interpreted as polite in this exchange is merely an attempt to keep you on track however exceedingly difficult that obviously is for you. I now see that you have truly become completely entangled in your own ceaseless threads though, because now you are saying that rules and regulations are actually agreed upon morals, so everything is everything in your bizarre world isnt it, we cannot even distinguish between what is subjective, what is law and what is culture. Rules are morals and morals are rules, got it.

I just don't understand why you feel the need to pretend to fake your feelings saying shit about how you are trying to be polite - either just be polite or don't, but to preface your posts with that type of inordinate reference to behavior just makes it seem like you think you are above the level of the discussion you are having.

I said that rules and regulations are the framework from which morality is gleaned in the context of regulated combat sports. You can keep being obtuse and pretending to not understand (or actually understand and just not want to admit you didn't use reading comprehension).

Rules are a framework of a process; Morals are an individual's interpretation of how and why one should follow said rules.

Again dude, for the love of all that is holy, I reject your very attempt at even discussing "intention", because that is completely subjective, and in my mind shouldnt even be in the ruleset in the first place.

We're not talking about the rule set or the application by referees to give distinction on how to apply punishment - we are literally discussing subjective intent and you want to exist in a world where we pretend we don't know if Jon Jones is intentionally sticking his fingers in peoples eyes if he does it 100 times or we pretend that a groin shot didn't unintentionally land when someone throws a body kick at the exact same time as another guy throws a leg kick and it happens to slide up his thigh into the dudes groin.

Anyone with a grain of objectivity would be able to infer from these situations what is and isn't intentional fairly accurately, but you want to pretend that there is literally no ability to have any subjective analysis of timing/technique/history/tactics/etc. in a fight and it all just exists in a vacuum, which is absolutely absurd.

I think it's not possible to know in all instances, which is why I said some exist in a grey area, but even using fake stats we could easily say that 1/3rd of fouls are pretty obviously intentional, 1/3rd of fouls are pretty obviously not, and 1/3rd exist in a grey area where it's impossible to know.

You just want to say we can't know 100% of the time no matter what variables are at play and without having used our own eyes and knowledge from watching thousands of hours of fighting to make these deductions. You seem to watch enough fights and be smart enough to make these realistic deductions, but it seems your preference to view the fight game through your nihilistic world view has led you to a path where everything exists in an unknowable vacuum where only through telepathy could we ever really know for certain, so why even make educated guesses.

Morality and ethics are factors of materialism, man is after all the only reason for morality and ethics to exist, so the point is'nt that both are at play but that the latter comes from the former.

Do I think prize fighters are savage brutal killers? No, but I do think they are closer to that then honorable Bushido warriors ha.
Then again Bushido comes a feudal code of ethics, and Samurai's were basically contract killers for land lords, but you know that of course.
But yes obviously they are people and I wish them all the best, Im glad we've come down to cushy humanism.

So you readily admit there are morals at play, just that ethics shape the morality to begin with, which is basically a tacit admission that of course fighters use the framework of the rules to then create their own moral code to live/fight by.

Lastly the post count thing just sucks haha, but yeah this place is a cesspool, but that what makes it great, its not even the insults that annoy me, its your posh attitude that I find contemptible, but that is neither here nor there so to speak.

I definitely gleaned that from your posts that you don't like my attitude, though I wouldn't call it "posh" I can definitely see why it rubs some people the wrong way. It's pretty difficult to have a complex argument with someone when they take all your examples and attempts to use framework and philosophy as "trying to sound intelligent" but that's the nature of heated discussion on internet message boards I suppose.

Anyways I again do actually enjoy your perspective and as this has progressed think you've managed to make your points much more clear, even if I patently disagree with the majority of it, I can't argue that you have your own logic to things (even if I find it based in a complete disregard for subjective interpretation based on scientific metrics and actual experience with fighting/knowing fighters).

Out of curiosity, since you never responded earlier - do you actually know any prize fighters? Do you actually train any combat sport/martial arts? Or is this all just opinion you've gleaned from your nihilistic worldview?

 

[Only Here for Attachments]

And he could've had the chance to land this on Necktats

 

[Carrotman23]

It's actually patently ridiculous to think that every human being doesn't have a moral code of some kind, they obviously exist on a spectrum and some will be more extreme in one way then the other, but the majority will fall towards the center.

My god dude you really are the king of tedium, I literally said over and over that of course individuals including fighters have morality and feelings like empathy like every other person does perhaps outside of the few sociopaths or other mental defects here and there, go back and read my previous posts before repeating such elementary none sense.
That being said very few people outside of deeply pious people have some written code that they follow precisely and guide their lives with.

"only fragile thing that holds fighting with rules from turning a hybrid sport/spectacle into a pure unadulterated and unregulated violence.

I literally said "fighting with rules" as I earlier said "regulated combat" to make it clear we aren't talking about street fighting/bloodsport/etc.

Yeah and my point was that what separates the two is regulation itself, this idea that fighters have some kind of principled code outside of basically simply being a human being is quite literally all in your head, (like you tried to say previously that there is a "code" that "we" follow) I'm genuinely wondering if you are neurotic at this point.

If you can't tell when a foul is obviously unintentional then you clearly just completely lack significant perceptive abilities in how technique and the human body works. It has nothing to do with "vibes based analysis" it has to do with understanding when it's patently obvious that it's near impossible to execute certain moves in a way that would've resulted in fouls, in which case it's pretty clear you should give someone the benefit of the doubt. There are other instances when it's so obvious they are clearly fouling, as in the root instance of this thread where someone commits an identical foul 3 times in a row resulting in a finish, where ironically you won't seem to cede that this is intentional and we "can't know for sure" if he meant to do it or not lol.

You can not tell what is and isnt an intentional foul through "body mechanics". The same motion for an intentional groin strike would exist along side a misguided low kick that hits the groin, the same goes for extending ones fingerings when evading a punch and having it land in the opponents eye, which we see over and over again in fights. Both would look virtually the same whether it was "intentional or not", i.e. the physical acts of motion would be virtually identical.
Thats why Jon Jones eye pokes have never been called intentional by an official, because he will always have plausible deniability, and we have literally seen people foul 3 times in a row and no ref declares it "intentional". The clause should be removed from the ruleset, any rational person would have the ability to see this.

So a minority of fights have fouls in them and even we inflated the number higher to 50% are intentional (which I think is obscenely high, but lets do it as a thought experiment), that would be 1/8 fights have intentional fouls in them. Again, according to your logic these guys have no moral code and are compelled only to win for money and since they all are able to do certain fouls and get away with it why don't we see intentional fouls in a much larger percentage of fights than 12.5%?

You cant tell intention and you are again just making statistics on the spot so this entire paragraph is redundant and utterly pointless. And again no, fighters dont have a "moral code" in the real world, its all in your head bud.

If you had seen enough fights though you'd be able to admit that it's pretty clearly evident most of the time when fouls are intentional or not - it's of course subjective but it's something that you are able to analyze and perceive more accurately the larger your sample size of experience is. I'm not touting the amount of fights I've watched to make me some "cool guy" (I would think it does the opposite in fact lol), it's to show you that by having seen so many fights I actually have developed a more refined ability to make a fair subjective analysis of intent based on timing/body position/technique/fighter history/tactics within a fight one might be winning or losing/etc. You want to think everything exists in a pure vacuum of impossible to predict subjectivity, which is all well and good, but I think it's relatively easy to make these type of subjective interpretations the more experience you have watching fights unless you just don't care to pay attention to these things.

You are now just outright contradicting yourself, previously you stated that "If you can't tell when a foul is obviously unintentional then you clearly just completely lack significant perceptive abilities in how technique and the human body works." Which does not at all imply subjectivity, in fact you made a declarative statement (a ridiculous one at that). Now you are saying that "of course it is subjective". Sense you've admitted intention in a foul is subjective though, then it is clear it should be removed from the rule clauses.
It doesnt matter how many fights you've seen, or how inflated your own opinion of yourself is, you cant tell whether a fighter extending their fingers that land in the eye is intentional or not, hence why a foul is virtually never called to be intentional.

"fighting with rules"
"regulated combat"

Quit ignoring the critical juncture points of this entire argument.

I just don't understand how you can keep repeating dumb arguments like "you think a fighter wouldn't cheat if it wasn't cheating?" Again, no shit Sherlock, the rules are the framework for what is considered cheating or not, how could you have any type of moral code in fighting otherwise? It's literally "fighting with rules/regulated combat" that's the framework for most to draw their inference of what is fair and what isn't from.

It appears you've never really met any fighters or trained, so I guess I shouldn't expect you to have the ability to give them credit outside of being anything other than mindless killing robots that do this for only money and/or the opportunity to legally hurt someone (even if that's a terrible projection/reflection of your own beliefs about human nature).

As I said previously, morality is a spectrum and all fighters do have a code that exists somewhere on a spectrum of it - some are incredible honorable, some are incredibly dishonorable, most fall in the middle which is they do have some sort of honor but they might bend or break in certain regards (i.e. if they cheat I'll cheat back, if I'm losing I think cheating in these ways is OK, I don't consider it cheating if I don't target the groin but recklessly throw strikes that might hit it, and so on and so on).

Yes the rules are the framework, said rules are separate from this made up moral code you have. Notice how far you have back tracked, first it was "bushido" and a special nebulous "code" that "we" follow, now you are just conceding that in fact this entire time this "moral code" you were talking about is interchangeable with the official rule set.
Commission rules arent the ten commandments, and they are separate from some personal moral code.

Again I stated over and over again that I do not think fighters are mindless killer robots, so it is not a reflection on what I think about "human nature". Your childish maximalist little diatribes have nothing to do with what I actually wrote.
Obviously fighters vary in what they'll do to win a fight, again you've backpedalled so far that you are no longer making any sort of coherent argument. So sure some will cheat to win a fight, some wont, that aligns with my entire point.

My point is that based on your view of fighter morality we should be seeing gross intentional fouls repeatedly far more often in fights than the hypothetical 1/8 (12.5%) since they are all according to you blood-money killers with no moral compass. And yet we don't, so you aren't capable of reflecting on that key point to understand that fighters would prefer to not have to cheat to win because of how it not only reflects to others as losers/pussies, but actually to themselves and their own egos.

No we shouldnt, made up statistics aren't relevant to this conversation, nor is your subjective view of intention (which has become a completely circular argument), we see plenty of fouls though regardless of making up some exact numbers, we see fouls every fight, and we would see much less fouls if a point was taken after the first infraction.
No ONCE AGAIN I dont think fighters are "blood-money killers with no moral compass" (how many times do I have to repeat myself?). I do think they primarily fight for money though yes, often because MMA has a lower entry level compared to other sports, they often also fight for redemption and things like sobriety. Prize fighting is a buisness, fighting is a job, yes it is mostly about money, I'm sorry that this clearly bursts some kind of idealist bubble of yours but its true.
And also yes plenty of MMA fighters are not good people, and surround themselves with even worse people, thats a fact, like it or not, take it or don't.

Morality exists in every type of culture, you just refuse to acknowledge professional combat sports is a culture in and of itself, which is just ahistorical and willful ignorance on your part.

Of course morality exits in every type of culture, my point was that the term "culture" when discussing history is loaded with other baggage, and more importantly ideas of "morality" fluctuate with time and space, what can be considered wrong and evil in one place at one time can be considered virtuous in another. There is a limit to this fact, human beings are not completely malleable, but it is a truism, a basic point that any historian or philosopher could tell you.

I definitely think some fighters would foul for money, just as I think plenty of fighters wouldn't - again it's a spectrum of belief and behavior and the carrot of money can highly distort that at times, so I can admit that plays a role in changing the morality of some fighters as they ascend the ladder.

Fighters are literally playing with each others lives, so there is a tacit understanding that they are going to agree to fight under the agreed upon rules and regulations for multiple reasons that I've re-iterated and go over your head:

A) How it reflects on them to the public and themselves
B) How it creates a culture of cheating/fouling as a pure means to an ends that becomes forever escalating

So now we've come fully into the mouth of pure tedium. Yes some fighters foul for money some don't, what a breakthrough.

Nothing you've said has been "over my head", in fact you are twisting yourself up in knots. Fighters go in according to you "trying to kill eachother", yes obviously at a high level they are trained professionals and with very few exceptions won't fight after the bell, but rules and regulations enforced are the only thing that even stops say, striking the back of the head, or grabbing a glove being a "foul" in the first place. If there weren't said rules, fighter would conduct such actions in spades, thats a truism and if you can't see that then you lack the ability to see cause and effect and incentive.

Since referees can't judge intent and deducting points based on modern scoring grossly affects the outcome of fights it's a blind-spot in fighting that is apt to be exploited if fighters choose to do so. So of course some will and we already discussed under what variety of circumstances - pure evil/strategy/response to losing/etc., it's just based on the actual metric evidence it occurs at such a low rate that it's obtuse to call it the norm when it's obviously not.

I wanted to highlight this because with this sentence you truly boxed yourself into a corner with whatever substance this overall pointless debate has left. Refs are suppose to be able to judge intention, but they of course cannot even when being practically in the action themselves. So I know your enormous ego thinks you can judge intention through "body mechanics" by watching a fight on screen,but you cannot, and its this clause in the rules that allows fouls to go unpunished, and should be removed. Your mind palace of trying to breakdown at what moment what kind of foul is "pure evil" or 'strategy" or what flick of the finger that lands in the eyes is "intentional" or not is irrelevant to my point, and furthermore there is no "metric evidence" that we are discussing here, you've simply made up statistics, and fouls that aren't counted by the ref so they aren't logged, and therefore we dont have said metrics.

 

[PrideNverDies]

Don't expect anything less from UFC cage fighters

 

[TheMMAnalyst]

My god dude you really are the king of tedium, I literally said over and over that of course individuals including fighters have morality and feelings like empathy like every other person does perhaps outside of the few sociopaths or other mental defects here and there, go back and read my previous posts before repeating such elementary none sense.
That being said very few people outside of deeply pious people have some written code that they follow precisely and guid their lives with.

Yeah and my point as that what separates the two is regulation itself, this idea that fighters have some kind of principled code outside of basically simply being a human being is quite literally all in your head, (like you tried to say previously that there is a code that "we" follow) I'm genuinely wondering if you are neurotic at this point.

You can not tell what is and isnt an intentional foul through "body mechanics" . The same motion for intentional groin strike would exist along side a misguided low kick that hits the groin, the same goes for extending ones fingerings when evading a punch and having it land in the opponents eye, which we see over and over again in fights. Both would look virtually the same whether it was "intentional or not", i.e. the physical acts of motion would be virtually identical.
Thats why Jon Jones eye pokes have never been called intentional by an official, because he will always have plausible deniability, and we have literally seen people foul 3 times in a row and no ref declares it "intentional" . The clause should be removed from the ruleset, any rational person would have the ability to see this.

You cant tell intention and you are again just making statistics on the spot so this entire paragraph is redundant and utterly pointless. And again no fighters dont have a "moral code" in the real world, its all in your head bud.

You are now just outright contradicting yourself, previously you stated that "If you can't tell when a foul is obviously unintentional then you clearly just completely lack significant perceptive abilities in how technique and the human body works." Which does not at all imply subjectivity, in fact you made a declarative statement (a ridiculous one at that). Now you are saying that "of course it is subjective". Sense you've admitted intention in a foul is subjective though, then it is clear it should be removed from the rule clauses.
It doesnt matter how many fights you've seen, or how inflated your own opinion of yourself is, you cant tell whether a fighter extending their fingers that land in the eye is intetnional or not, hence why a foul is virtually never called to be intentional.

You truly are the king of tedium, a real dunce, its almost impressive. Yes the rules are the framework, said rules are separate from this made up moral code you have. Notice how far you have back tracked, first it was "bushido" and a special nebulous "code" that "we" follow, now you are just conceding that in fact this entire time this "moral code" you were talking about is interchangeable with the official rule set.
Commission rules arent the ten commandments, they are separate from some personal moral code, you are delusional.
Again i stated over and over again that I do not think fighters are mindless killer robots, so it is not a reflection on what I think about "human nature". Your childish maximalist little diatribes have nothing to do with what I actually wrote.
Obviously fighters vary in what they'll do to win a fight, again you've backpedalled so far that you are no longer making any sort of coherent argument, sure just like you say some will cheat to win a fight, some wont, that aligns with my entire point.

No we shouldnt, made up statistics aren't relevant to this conversation, nor is your subjective view of intention (which we are seemingly going about in circles endlessly), we see plenty of fouls though regardless of making up some exact numbers, we see fouls ever fight, and we would see much less fouls if a point was taken after the first infraction.
No I ONCE AGAIN I dont think fighters are "blood-money killers with no moral compass" (how many times do I have to repeat myself?) I do think they primarily fight for money though yes, often because MMA has a lower entry level compared to other sports, they often also fight for redemption and things like sobriety. Prize fighting is a buisness, fighting is a job, yes its mostly about money, I'm sorry that this clearly bursts some kind of idealist bubble of yours but its true.
And also yes plenty of MMA fighters are not good people, and surround themselves with even worse people, thats a fact, like it or not, take it or don't.

Of course morality exits in every type of culture, my point was that the term "culture" when discussing history is loaded with other baggage, and more importantly ideas of "morality" fluctuate with time and space, what can be considered wrong and evil in one place at one time can be considered virtuous in another. There is a limit to this fact, human beings are not completely malleable, but it is a truism, a basic point that any historian or philosopher could tell you.


So now we've come fully into the mouth of pure tedium. Yes some fighters foul for money some don't, what a breakthrough.

Nothing you've said has been "over my head" in fact you are twisting yourself up in knots. Fighters go in according to you "trying to kill eachother" , yes obviously at a high level they are trained professionals and with very few exceptions won't fight after the bell, but rules and regulations enforced are the only thing that even stops, say striking the back of the head, or grabbing a glove being a "foul" in the first place. If there weren't said rules, fighter would conduct such actions in spades, thats a truism and if you can't see that then you lack the ability to see cause and effect and incentive.

I wanted to highlight this because with this sentence you truly boxed yourself into a corner with whatever this substance this overall pointless debate has left. Refs are suppose to be able to judge intention, but they of course cannot even when being practically the action themselves, so I know your enormous ego thinks you can judge intention through "body mechanics" by watching a fight on screen, you cannot, and its a clause in the rules that allows fouls to go unpunished, and should be removed. Your mind palace of trying to breakdown at what moment what kind of foul is "pure evil" or 'strategy" or what flick of the finger that lands in the eyes is "intentional" or not is irrelevant to my point, and furthermore there is no "metric evidence" that we are discussing here, you've simply made up statistics, and fouls that aren't counted by the ref aren't logged, so we dont have them.

Since you failed to answer the questions of "do you actually know any prize fighters? Do you actually train any combat sport/martial arts? Or is this all just opinion you've gleaned from your nihilistic worldview?" I know everything I ultimately need to know about your perspective and don't feel continuing the discussion is warranted (don't want to waste any more of either of our time with this "tedium" as you put it).

Have a great day posting, I'm going to go train.

 

[Carrotman23]

Now you want to do a thought experiment where we compare Modern MMA to Gladiatorial blood sports of ancient history that had no rules/regulations and existed at a time when human life was treated with almost no regard whatsoever (especially if it was slaves or participants in death sports)? Pretty retarded thought experiment to extrapolate anything from that is relevant to this discussion.

Human life is considered just as cheap nowadays in many ways in various slums, sweat shops and modern day forms of slavery (one could make a real argument that slavery is more widespread today then it ever has been), genocidal wars often against a technologically inferior adversary and mass death from migration and ecocide, so dont be all triumphant about modernity.
In any case I was trying to show you how there is no set morality, that it is metaphysical and can change overtime, and that what separates modern MMA to those blood sports is changes in norms, and the rules that enforces those norms.

Culture gives us morality, it's something that is perceptively developed and cultivated over time, constantly changing and shifting - I'd say that today more so in the past it's clear that fighters cheat/fight dirty far far less than they did when regulated combat sports were first popularized in modern society. That has to do with many reasons, but the end result is the same - the vast majority of fighters not committing grossly intentional fouls merely for the sake of "winning."

Culture does not give us morality per say, what is considered "moral" can be subordinate to the state,a tribal hierarchy, or a theocratic elite. Culture can then be the language and medium in which these enforced moral norms are expressed. That being said culture can also be separate from these institutions, and therefore defined by its opposition to any given one at certain periods of time.
Again the very concept of what is "cheating" in a fight is only defined by what is the given ruleset, so you are missing the underlining point in all this, the foundation if you will.
So yes modern society's norms and the rules that enforce them are why we are even discussing "fouls" in the first place. Again you truly are the king of circular logic and tedium.

You can't seem to abstract a moral code from anything in this world it would seem, you're just a pure nihilist in your view of human nature and believe people are fully compelled by greed to justify any behavior as long as it leads to their personal enrichment. Pretty fucked up way to view the world I will say, I don't even see why you would want to take part or participate in any part of society or culture with that take on humanity, everyone is just a piece of shit doing whatever they need to do in order to enrich themselves at the expense of others, consequences be damned.

No, there are various moral codes, your beloved Bushido being one of them. My point is that moral codes that are worth a damn at all are written and discussed and debate with precision, and are enforced in some material way, they are not worthy of anything but contempt -in fact said code doesnt exist at all- by just declaring it so and stomping your feet exclaiming that certainly others follow this ill-defined none doctrine.
I dont think everyone is a piece of shit or that personal enrichment is the be all and end all of human experience. But I do think that material necessity and desires are what dominates most individuals, especially in our current age of capitalism. Just like I dont think "might makes right" , but I do think that might is the core principle of relations between nation states, or of the empires and city states of the past.
Consequences dont be damned though, consequences are what can be harnessed to sculpt anything that could remotely be referred to as common humanity or "society".

I just don't understand why you feel the need to pretend to fake your feelings saying shit about how you are trying to be polite - either just be polite or don't, but to preface your posts with that type of inordinate reference to behavior just makes it seem like you think you are above the level of the discussion you are having.

I said that rules and regulations are the framework from which morality is gleaned in the context of regulated combat sports. You can keep being obtuse and pretending to not understand (or actually understand and just not want to admit you didn't use reading comprehension).

Rules are a framework of a process; Morals are an individual's interpretation of how and why one should follow said rules.

To be honest yes I do think in an intellectual sense I am above the level that this discussion has become, but sense I simply lack the ability to give up on virtually any internet argument until the last point is absolutely drilled down to infinity no matter how agonizing and tedious said argument is here I am.

So now you are saying rules and regulations come first, and therefore the punitive enforcement that comes with them as well, therefor your precious morality is subordinate to them. Rhetorically speaking you have bended the knee to my entire point.
Rules are indeed the framework of a process, but morals are far beyond the individuals interpretation of said rules, and following any given set of rules or laws is also in relation to how punitively they are enforced. This isnt "nihilism", its a simple fact, "rules" and "laws" inherently have punitive outcomes when transgressed, or they have no legitimacy. Even most religions understand this given the concept of hell and karma.

We're not talking about the rule set or the application by referees to give distinction on how to apply punishment - we are literally discussing subjective intent and you want to exist in a world where we pretend we don't know if Jon Jones is intentionally sticking his fingers in peoples eyes if he does it 100 times or we pretend that a groin shot didn't unintentionally land when someone throws a body kick at the exact same time as another guy throws a leg kick and it happens to slide up his thigh into the dudes groin.

A Jon Jones foul has never been called intentional, despite him admitting he commits fouls intentionally, he does so because he knows he has plausible deniability, so it is not about what world I want to exist in, it is simply the current world we exist in.
And the example you've given is facile, you could easily throw a kick to the upper thigh and have it land accidently on the groin, and mechanically it would look identical to an intentional shot.
But of course you yourself said "intention is subjective" so you've already conceded this whole point, that us even discussing this is inevitably going to circle a drain endlessly.
Intention shouldnt be a clause in the ruleset, as it is not a clause in other sports. Simple as that.

Anyone with a grain of objectivity would be able to infer from these situations what is and isn't intentional fairly accurately, but you want to pretend that there is literally no ability to have any subjective analysis of timing/technique/history/tactics/etc. in a fight and it all just exists in a vacuum, which is absolutely absurd.

I think it's not possible to know in all instances, which is why I said some exist in a grey area, but even using fake stats we could easily say that 1/3rd of fouls are pretty obviously intentional, 1/3rd of fouls are pretty obviously not, and 1/3rd exist in a grey area where it's impossible to know.

You just want to say we can't know 100% of the time no matter what variables are at play and without having used our own eyes and knowledge from watching thousands of hours of fighting to make these deductions. You seem to watch enough fights and be smart enough to make these realistic deductions, but it seems your preference to view the fight game through your nihilistic world view has led you to a path where everything exists in an unknowable vacuum where only through telepathy could we ever really know for certain, so why even make educated guesses.

Notice how you are now confusing and interchangeably using "subjective" and "objective" , and then again proceeding with fake states.
Yes we literally cannot know 100% of the time because by the very definition of subjective no objective concensus can ever be established.
Seriously, try and take a deep breath and understand the words you are actually using and the basic logical outcome of said statements. But because you are unable to make such elementary judgments in logic you frantically jump to "nihilism" and ridiculous statements like therefore I am saying "everything exists in a vacuum".

I'm merely expressing the logical point concerning subjective matters, and how such subjectivity has no place in defining fouls.

So you readily admit there are morals at play, just that ethics shape the morality to begin with, which is basically a tacit admission that of course fighters use the framework of the rules to then create their own moral code to live/fight by.

I merely stated morals are a human creation and therefore come from material reality. I was pointing out how facile your understanding of materialism and meta physics was, that they are in relation, a point beyond declaring that merely "both are at play".

And no haha fighters dont create a moral code/framework from commission rules haha, most fighters barely follow such things, and merely have the acts of a fight drilled into them through practice, utterly bizarre to to think fighters use commission rules to LIVE and fight by lol. What are even talking about now, commission rules dont have anything to do with how a fighter LIVES generally speaking , thats up to what they perceive to be the teachings of Jesus Christ for most of them,not the Nevada Athletic commission haha.

I definitely gleaned that from your posts that you don't like my attitude, though I wouldn't call it "posh" I can definitely see why it rubs some people the wrong way. It's pretty difficult to have a complex argument with someone when they take all your examples and attempts to use framework and philosophy as "trying to sound intelligent" but that's the nature of heated discussion on internet message boards I suppose.

Anyways I again do actually enjoy your perspective and as this has progressed think you've managed to make your points much more clear, even if I patently disagree with the majority of it, I can't argue that you have your own logic to things (even if I find it based in a complete disregard for subjective interpretation based on scientific metrics and actual experience with fighting/knowing fighters).

Out of curiosity, since you never responded earlier - do you actually know any prize fighters? Do you actually train any combat sport/martial arts? Or is this all just opinion you've gleaned from your nihilistic worldview?

What I meant by posh is your inflated rhetoric, I your examples of philosophy were deployed half hazardly, and from my understanding you were the one to pivot more to a maximist framework rather then "complex arguments", such as repeating ad nauseam that I think all fighters are blood sucking vampires, or that I'm a nihilist that thinks everything exist in a vacuum and so on and so on.
Your loaded and condescending latter question is actually exemplary of that fact.

 

[Carrotman23]

Since you failed to answer the questions of "do you actually know any prize fighters? Do you actually train any combat sport/martial arts? Or is this all just opinion you've gleaned from your nihilistic worldview?" I know everything I ultimately need to know about your perspective and don't feel continuing the discussion is warranted (don't want to waste any more of either of our time with this "tedium" as you put it).

Have a great day posting, I'm going to go train.

I'm going to work.
Peace and thank god this exchange is over, I learned nothing and nothing came from this, although I do love arguing.