Media Robert Whittaker Visibly Upset Argues That "Any Kangaroo Beats/Does In Any Fighter"

[Volador]

According to his facebook page, this "expert" is an "architect, designer and writer" with no special knowledge of animals. On his website "Animal World Facts," he claims to "enjoy researching and writing about pets, animals and nature." So he's a random bro who likes to shitpost online.

That said, I think he's on the mark here. The average dude has zero chance against the average adult male chimp if it's reared in the wild and is pissed off at you. But a large, trained pro fighter (or physical equivalent) probably has a chance though he'd still be the underdog if he's unarmed.



LMFAO this is the best intro for a man vs. chimp match I've ever seen. I'm with you that Ngannou probably hulk smashes the average male chimp but he still takes some damage in the process. And you've acknowledged this isn't really a fair fight. Ngannou is if not the best, then among the most formidable combatants of 8 billion humans on this planet. And whether he's juiced or clean, he's attained a level of strength, explosion and physicality that rivals or exceeds elite pro HW fighters on gear.

But much like average vs. average, I think if you find the biggest, craziest, most alpha chimpanzee in the world, that one probably murks Ngannou.

Chimps are wild animals and are much more aggressive by nature. In the wild they're gigantic assholes and will disembowel and maim rivals and gang rape females of rival tribes. They deal with life and death situations on the regular and have much more fast twitch muscle than humans so will be very dangerous in a brief scuffle. And they also have huge fucking fangs.

So we're talking an idiot with retard strength, edmund-level head movement and fight IQ of Rousimar Palhares but twice as explosive as prime Kevin Randleman. So basically Hodor with fangs and he's ready to die holding that door. THAT chimp makes Ngannou his bitch.

Chicken, you do get it. I agree for the most part with everything you said. My argument was that chimps are not invincible the way grizzly bears or lions are. There is simply no chance with those. People seem to think no human being alive could take one in any way, shape, or form in unarmed combat. I don't agree, that's all.

My argument was always based on a very above average, professionally trained, much larger than normal, human male, vs a regular chimp. They send a regular one, we send our best. If you get the most alpha chimp out there with banana flavored dianabol in his blood, then things change, I agree. I heard someone say that "Brian Shaw would have literally zero chance against a chimp". Brian Shaw is about 350lbs, and literally one of the strongest humans to ever live. He's 3 times heavier, 2 times stronger, 1.5 times as tall. Give me any setting with concrete and the chimp is possibly getting slammed and broken in pieces and stomped full force in the neck, they would have no physical strength against someone like that outside of the teeth.

Not saying our guy wouldn't take damage, you have to watch out for the teeth and their agility. But fight to the death, there's some highly trained humans I'd put money one vs a regular adult chimp. They aren't stronger than a large man, their bite force is barely above a human's, and they have no claws. That's all I'm saying.

You said (1) Chimps were in the homo genus and (2) that they were hominins. When I informed you that that wasn't true, you quoted something which you really didn't understand, which I corrected you on. You had your chance to read up on it.

You can backtrack all day and say you were joking, but again, you didn't get it even AFTER you read it and quoted it to me.

You brought up taxonomy in your post (you identified the taxonomy incorrectly), so as far as what that has to do with our discussion, you will have to ask yourself about that. It's all in writing, I don't know why you would try this silly defense.

You don't have to like my sense of humor, but as far as my English comprehension, I will guarantee you that you don't want to compare educational credentials with me. You could not understand the literature on taxonomy because you don't have the knowledge.

Brother, I told you you were correct about that, but you're sounding half-retarded at this point. I looked up hominin to check what exactly was in the group, since I'm not a biologist. The first wiki result comes up saying the Hominini includes chimps and humans. I assumed hominin is the name given to a member of Hominini, which isn't exactly far-fetched. It turns out that the word for this is hominine instead of hominin. Who cares? It doesn't mean anything. I overlooked a letter; of course I didn't read the whole giant Wikipedia article, because the discussion wasn't about that. Actually, it was reasonable to make the assumption, because this nomenclature changed only recently. Let's see if you understand this paragraph:

By convention, the adjectival term "hominin" (or nominalized "hominins") refers to the tribe Hominini, whereas the members of the subtribe Hominina (and thus all archaic human species) are referred to as "homininian" ("homininians").[7][8][9] This follows the proposal by Mann and Weiss (1996), which presents tribe Hominini as including both Pan and Homo, placed in separate subtribes. The genus Pan is referred to subtribe Panina, and genus Homo is included in the subtribe Hominina (see below).

Let me repeat that for you, because your reading skills aren't all there:

By convention, the adjectival term "hominin" (or nominalized "hominins") refers to the tribe Hominini.
This follows the proposal by Mann and Weiss (1996), which presents tribe Hominini as including both Pan and Homo.

You see? So until 1996 hominin could refer to any member of Hominini, which includes chimps and humans. If you wanted to exclude chimps, you had to call them "homininians" until recently. Then they changed the convention, so now hominin excludes chimps. The question is, who gives a fuck about this?

If you can't see this was a reasonable assumption, you simply lack intelligence, or you're being disingenuous. When you clarified, I conceded, and that was all. You then insisted on this minor point, which had no bearing on the discussion. So, to you, when I wrote about hand to foot combat and chimps jumping with drop kicks from a rooftop, I was trying to write a scientific article fully researched with correct taxonomy? Again, you do lack reading comprehension or haven't been socialized enough as a child. I can guarantee you that your credentials mean very little (let me guess... in the humanities? ), when I can see what you actually write in this thread, how poorly you process tone and context, and how you claimed a blog writer was a subject matter expert, which was laughable research.

 

[Quietus]

You can tell Rob's been playing more video games than training cause he keeps using gaming slang in this conversation which goes over everyone else's head. Costa by TKO.

 

[Robbocop]

The two kills supposedly by Kangaroos in the last 100 years in Australia there are basically no details about, and the guys could well have fallen over and hit their head in a scuffle. There are plenty of videos of adult human males fighting kangaroos and the humans usually give em one to the face and they back off. The persistent tale that kangaroos can disembowel you with the claws on their hind legs does not seem to be borne out by reality. I have been hunting kangaroos in the past and they are incredibly dumb. That's my 5c.

 

[Portland8242]

The two kills supposedly by Kangaroos in the last 100 years in Australia there are basically no details about, and the guys could well have fallen over and hit their head in a scuffle. There are plenty of videos of adult human males fighting kangaroos and the humans usually give em one to the face and they back off. The persistent tale that kangaroos can disembowel you with the claws on their hind legs does not seem to be borne out by reality. I have been hunting kangaroos in the past and they are incredibly dumb. That's my 5c.

That's because if they have the option of fleeing they will do so.

Fight an animal who's cornered and has no choice but to fight and it's a different story.

Humans are truly pathetic at fighting and have zero natural weaponry. a 45LBS wolverine from the Tundra would give any large athletic human a fatal ass whooping.

 

[Levi_]

Chicken, you do get it. I agree for the most part with everything you said. My argument was that chimps are not invincible the way grizzly bears or lions are. There is simply no chance with those. People seem to think no human being alive could take one in any way, shape, or form in unarmed combat. I don't agree, that's all.

My argument was always based on a very above average, professionally trained, much larger than normal, human male, vs a regular chimp. They send a regular one, we send our best. If you get the most alpha chimp out there with banana flavored dianabol in his blood, then things change, I agree. I heard someone say that "Brian Shaw would have literally zero chance against a chimp". Brian Shaw is about 350lbs, and literally one of the strongest humans to ever live. He's 3 times heavier, 2 times stronger, 1.5 times as tall. Give me any setting with concrete and the chimp is possibly getting slammed and broken in pieces and stomped full force in the neck, they would have no physical strength against someone like that outside of the teeth.

Not saying our guy wouldn't take damage, you have to watch out for the teeth and their agility. But fight to the death, there's some highly trained humans I'd put money one vs a regular adult chimp. They aren't stronger than a large man, their bite force is barely above a human's, and they have no claws. That's all I'm saying.


Brother, I told you you were correct about that, but you're sounding half-retarded at this point. I looked up hominin to check what exactly was in the group, since I'm not a biologist. The first wiki result comes up saying the Hominini includes chimps and humans. I assumed hominin is the name given to a member of Hominini, which isn't exactly far-fetched. It turns out that the word for this is hominine instead of hominin. Who cares? It doesn't mean anything. I overlooked a letter; of course I didn't read the whole giant Wikipedia article, because the discussion wasn't about that. Actually, it was reasonable to make the assumption, because this nomenclature changed only recently. Let's see if you understand this paragraph:

By convention, the adjectival term "hominin" (or nominalized "hominins") refers to the tribe Hominini, whereas the members of the subtribe Hominina (and thus all archaic human species) are referred to as "homininian" ("homininians").[7][8][9] This follows the proposal by Mann and Weiss (1996), which presents tribe Hominini as including both Pan and Homo, placed in separate subtribes. The genus Pan is referred to subtribe Panina, and genus Homo is included in the subtribe Hominina (see below).

Let me repeat that for you, because your reading skills aren't all there:

By convention, the adjectival term "hominin" (or nominalized "hominins") refers to the tribe Hominini.
This follows the proposal by Mann and Weiss (1996), which presents tribe Hominini as including both Pan and Homo.

You see? So until 1996 hominin could refer to any member of Hominini, which includes chimps and humans. If you wanted to exclude chimps, you had to call them "homininians" until recently. Then they changed the convention, so now hominin excludes chimps. The question is, who gives a fuck about this?

If you can't see this was a reasonable assumption, you simply lack intelligence, or you're being disingenuous. When you clarified, I conceded, and that was all. You then insisted on this minor point, which had no bearing on the discussion. So, to you, when I wrote about hand to foot combat and chimps jumping with drop kicks from a rooftop, I was trying to write a scientific article fully researched with correct taxonomy? Again, you do lack reading comprehension or haven't been socialized enough as a child. I can guarantee you that your credentials mean very little (let me guess... in the humanities? ), when I can see what you actually write in this thread, how poorly you process tone and context, and how you claimed a blog writer was a subject matter expert, which was laughable research.

Let it go pal. You are spending way too much time on it. Process your emotions. Some of us actually have a life.

 

[Guy LeDouche]

You are the kangaroo of humans
What? lol

 

[Robbocop]

That's because if they have the option of fleeing they will do so.

Fight an animal who's cornered and has no choice but to fight and it's a different story.

Humans are truly pathetic at fighting and have zero natural weaponry. a 45LBS wolverine from the Tundra would give any large athletic human a fatal ass whooping.

There are other smaller Australian animals which could give you some problems like a dingo, or a Tasmanian Devil, especially if we're talking about a so called 'cornered' situation. It's very hard to imagine how you would ever corner a Kangaroo in Australia full of open land, but I guess if you really tried hard to achieve it you could do so. You kind of have to appreciate they are large dumb herbivores who have no predators ergo they are never fighting anything except other kangaroos where they are just posturing.

 

[Volador]

Let it go pal. You are spending way too much time on it. Process your emotions. Some of us actually have a life.

… he says after he argued for 10 pages about chimps and bears, lol. I do have a life, which is why I logged off last night. It’s Saturday and it’s snowing here; it’s all in good fun. It was a good discussion though my money is still on the large human

 

[Levi_]

… he says after he argued for 10 pages about chimps and bears, lol. I do have a life, which is why I logged off last night. It’s Saturday and it’s snowing here; it’s all in good fun. It was a good discussion though my money is still on the large human

It stops being fun when you reach the point where you are going in circles and no one will change anyone else's mind. I debated yesterday when I had time. I don't have the time or the desire to go in circles today.

 

[Volador]

It stops being fun when you reach the point where you are going in circles and no one will change anyone else's mind. I debated yesterday when I had time. I don't have the time or the desire to go in circles today.

Then don’t participate, it’s all good bro.

 

[VonSupervillain]

Kangaroos are pussys and can't actually fight. If you stand your ground and actually connect with a solid punch straight to its face, it'll back down.
Also, don't go around hitting animals unless you're required to defend yourself.

 

[ChickenBrother]

If you get the most alpha chimp out there with banana flavored dianabol in his blood, then things change, I agree. I heard someone say that "Brian Shaw would have literally zero chance against a chimp". Brian Shaw is about 350lbs, and literally one of the strongest humans to ever live. He's 3 times heavier, 2 times stronger, 1.5 times as tall. Give me any setting with concrete and the chimp is possibly getting slammed and broken in pieces and stomped full force in the neck, they would have no physical strength against someone like that outside of the teeth.

Not saying our guy wouldn't take damage, you have to watch out for the teeth and their agility. But fight to the death, there's some highly trained humans I'd put money one vs a regular adult chimp. They aren't stronger than a large man, their bite force is barely above a human's, and they have no claws. That's all I'm saying.

Let's talk more about that most alpha chimp. Not only is he pulsing banana flavored dianabol, he spent his entire childhood pushing the wheel of pain somewhere in Sub-Saharan Africa:

In time, his victories could not easily be counted and he also came to know the pleasures of women when he was bred to the finest stock. Now he's a sherdog'er who eats pieces of shit for breakfast and only bangs Yaounde 10's. THAT chimp might actually have a chance vs. a beta lion with downs syndrome.

 

[Royce's Gi]

You can tell Rob's been playing more video games than training cause he keeps using gaming slang in this conversation which goes over everyone else's head. Costa by TKO.

What terms/slang is gaming in that interview?

 

[Royce's Gi]

Kangaroos are pussys and can't actually fight. If you stand your ground and actually connect with a solid punch straight to its face, it'll back down.
Also, don't go around hitting animals unless you're required to defend yourself.

 

[Royce's Gi]

There are other smaller Australian animals which could give you some problems like a dingo, or a Tasmanian Devil, especially if we're talking about a so called 'cornered' situation. It's very hard to imagine how you would ever corner a Kangaroo in Australia full of open land, but I guess if you really tried hard to achieve it you could do so. You kind of have to appreciate they are large dumb herbivores who have no predators ergo they are never fighting anything except other kangaroos where they are just posturing.

 

[Bearknuckle]

Yes, this garbage myth powered by Rogan needs to end. They are about 1.5x stronger than the average man POUND FOR POUND. BUT THESE FUCKS WEIGH 130LBS AT MOST THEMSELVES, THEY'RE SMALL MOTHERFUCKERS. AND THEY CAN'T KICK FOR SHIT.

So a normal, larger than average, male chimp is about as strong as, let's say, an athletic 200lbs man AT MOST, and much shorter, and also, they are not bipedal. In the chimp world 5'5" is Yao Ming status, you understand? And lest you forget, they are about as smart as a literal RETARD, so their game planning is Edmund-level. Maybe not 9/10, but many large trained fighters and just big strong guys could outmaneuver and overpower a single chimp one vs one, hand to foot combat, especially if the scenario is a place with no trees. The horror stories you hear about are of groups of chimps eating some senior citizen's face; not a fair fight. Enough of the goddamn invincible chimp myth.

And don't give me some bullshit about some turbo chimp weighing 165lbs and coked to the gills. I'm talking chimps, regular chimps you'd find in your average back-alley in Congo.

I also agree, chimps are so overrated. They’re limbs are strong for climbing, but so is a squirrels.

I would punt the shit and stomp a chimps head in. Assuming im also bloodlusted, since these wimps think somehow they can also activate a chimp to go hulk smash. Put a chimp in a cage with me and it will run and climb away. Thats if it doesn’t get soccer kicked and ko’d first.

Also, i think a rear naked choke could work on a chimp, but i would fear the eye gouging n biting. So i would stick with the front kicks, soccer kicks and stomps.

The reason a lion, tiger etc would kill a human is because of the sheer size and the fact that they kill giant buffalos on a daily, but a chimp eats fruits and bugs, they dont have the skills to finish.

 

[CasualBot]

Anyone who has seen 8 foot roo at 200lbs,

would shut up real quick on this topic.



Fuckin casuals, confirmed

 

[CasualBot]

Thankfully that is a baby roo

If that was an 8 foot adult...
a 6ft man would end up like the dog.

 

[xhaydenx]

I don't think he was that upset, he just went with it. Made himself look serious when he was not really.

Yep. Pretty normal behavior for us Aussies. I feel like yanks don't get this at all and really think Rob was serious. He was totally fucking around.

 

[Volador]

a beta lion with downs syndrome

Keep in mind that a beta lion with downs syndrome is about as strong as an alpha lion without the 'drome, assuming the special strength carries over in felines. However, what you're talking about is a thick, juicy, tight barbarian class chimp, selected Kumite style from the Tanzanian rainforest prison system, bred for war and fully blood-lusted in the tradition of Dr. Zaius, with a thirst for revenge for the crimes against ape kind, that nasty chimp who used give to give Tarzan wedgies and pimp slap Jane's ass full force as entertainment, and yes, that chimp would be formidable. A regular lion may still win due to larger teeth and claws, but if this happened and he got the back mount I'd be unsure of the outcome:

Although there is the mane and the uninhibited behavior of our Goofasa character to keep in mind.