- Joined
- Apr 23, 2011
- Messages
- 8,951
- Reaction score
- 24,052
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.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.
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: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.
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.
Last edited: