- Joined
- Jun 9, 2016
- Messages
- 2,528
- Reaction score
- 618
that guy likely streamed it for freeWard and his team presumably? They like money?
that guy likely streamed it for freeWard and his team presumably? They like money?
let me shorten your wall of textIt could take far more to develop a well rounded game. Also, remember that we are not comparing particular representatives of boxing vs that of MMA. We are making an abstract comparison of the set of boxing, with all its elements, vs the set of MMA, which is the power set of the set of boxing. This entails that MMA requires more education and has more subtlety than the set boxing. Whether some particular persons uses all or some of the elements of the set of boxing is irrelevant.
I've been an amateur boxer and kick boxer since I was 17.
If it is the case in theory, if the theory is correct or true, then in practice it is the case, it is true in practice.huh? in theory you could have more subtle techniques in mma. In practice, you rarely see that. A perfect example is Ronda Rousey. She didn't have to feint, and hand fight a bunch to hit a trip in MMA like she did in judo. She just dumped bitches who didn't know what what coming at them.
Let me.shorten yours: "I can't refute your argument so I will construct a strawman and refute it instead".let me shorten your wall of text
"I am talking in fantasy since I don't have an argument in real life "meauneau
um yeah if that was true, then we wouldn't need scientific method. You sound like one of those internet economists.If it is the case in theory, if the theory is correct or true, then in practice it is the case, it is true in practice.
As I said, don't compare particular examples of the arts and conclude that MMA requires less education or that it has less subtly. If the arts are subsets of the set MMA then logically, ie, necessarily, MMA requires more education and has more subtlety. That we don't see it that often is irrelevant.
Straw man ? Be a man or act like oneLet me.shorten yours: "I can't refute your argument so I will construct a strawman and refute it instead".
If it works in theory then it works in practice. Then by modus tollens, if it does not work in practice, then it does not work in theory.um yeah if that was true, then we wouldn't need scientific method. You sound like one of those internet economists.
So? You think abstract is the same as fantasy?Straw man ? Be a man or act like one
You admit to only speaking on abstract did you not ?
Let's set the conversationSo? You think abstract is the same as fantasy?
Yes I did.Let's set the conversation
Did you or did you not say "We are making an abstract comparison ?"
um no dude- theories need to be proven.If it works in theory then it works in practice. Then by modus tollens, if it does not work in practice, then it does not work in theory.
That is one of the oldest tricks in the book to say that it works in theory but not in practice. Thats like saying that in theory the planets revolve around the sun, but not in practice. Or that in theory we need oxygen, but not in practice.
When you say "we" whom are you including ?Yes I did.
I think you mean hypotheses. And you mean confirmed not proven. You cannot prove a theory but you can confirm it.um no dude- theories need to be proven.
Could a high level MMA fighter spend countless hours learning to set up a left hook (if that was his big weapon) in the myriad of ways like Ray Mercer did as a boxer? Sure, but you hardly even see that because high level MMA fighters need to spend a lot of time being competent fighting from the clinch, wrestling and boxing as well. Which is why you almost always see "ultimate boxing" on the feet where two guys throw limbs at each other at a much lower skill level than you see at similar levels of the sport in boxing.
Myself and JSN. But also anyone who is taking part in this particular discussion.When you say "we" whom are you including ?
Also
Abstract - c: insufficiently factual
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abstract
dude you're just into semantics now. And a theory (whether a formal scientific theory or used in the colloquial sense) certainly can be disproven no matter what terminology you choose to use.I think you mean hypotheses. And you mean confirmed not proven. You cannot prove a theory but you can confirm it.
He doesn't have to spend countless hours. If he could get it down and can use it in a fight then that is all that matters. It doesn't have to be perfect. It merely needs to work.
You said proven not disproved. Actually, theories are falsified.dude you're just into semantics now. And a theory (whether a formal scientific theory or used in the colloquial sense) certainly can be disproven no matter what terminology you choose to use.
Now that you admited to not speaking in sufficient factual and speaking theoretical terms , Not real lifeMyself and JSN. But also anyone who is taking part in this particular discussion.
Also:
- 1.
consider something theoretically or separately from (something else).
"to abstract science and religion from their historical context can lead to anachronism"- 2.
extract or remove (something).
"applications to abstract more water from streams"
synonyms: extract, pump, draw (off), tap, suck, withdraw, remove, take out/away