MMA fighter kills weightlifter

[drop bear]

I've seen similar cases. I think I've seen 2 total where the fighter was more aware than the referee that his opponent was out. I can't remember who was fighting but one was a submission and the other was a strike from the mount, which took 2 punches and the guy was out. It was one of those moments where the fighter looks at the referee as if ask "what are you waiting for? Are you going to call the fight?" while the referee is just waiting for an onslaught of punches.

A guy called big show famously kicked the ref for that.

 

[Tez3]

Thanks for the link. Working in law enforcement for 20 years, it used to be all the wanna be's would claim that they were kickboxers or some type of MA expert (not including all the "special forces" guys), now they all come in and claim that they are "mma" guys. So, it's a bias I have when I hear that term thrown around until I actually talk to someone about their training or see some kind of "proof".

The 'my boyfriends a kickboxer' thing, still very common. I had occasion to talk to a female and she told me her husband was an MMA fighter and had lots of fights on big shows to his name. At the time we were looking for fighters to match on an upcoming show ( combining work and pleasure lol) so when he came over I asked him about it, he did a lot of 'Oh I'm injured/retired/don't have the time' thing, she was insistent he fight, he was getting more and more uncomfortable so we left them to it. Quite clearly her 'hero' wasn't what he said he was.

 

[Tez3]

I've seen similar cases. I think I've seen 2 total where the fighter was more aware than the referee that his opponent was out. I can't remember who was fighting but one was a submission and the other was a strike from the mount, which took 2 punches and the guy was out. It was one of those moments where the fighter looks at the referee as if ask "what are you waiting for? Are you going to call the fight?" while the referee is just waiting for an onslaught of punches.

Training for referees is almost non-existent, yet they are vital for fighter's safety. MMA fighters have to be able to trust refs, fighters get tunnel vision in a fight, there's a lot to concentrate on as well as being able to defend and attack, often when on the ground a fighter cannot tell his opponent is out, most times they can it depends on position but the ref is the cool calm person who can see at all times what is happening and more important knows the game well enough to anticipate what can happen. fighters despite what many think don't go out to 'kill' or maim an opponent, an MMA fight is as much about the struggle with yourself than the struggle with an opponent. thee is no intent in the vast majority to actually hurt an opponent, those who do have that intent don't last long, they simply aren't matched because coaches won't match their guys against them.

MMA isn't for those who don't like full contact, you do have to be brave to get into the cage/ring and you do have to have aggression, you do have to be able to strike your opponent but it's not inhumane or deliberately nasty. Most fights are skilful and it's great to watch two people playing out the game of physical chess. BUT referees need to be trained, knowledgeable and quick to stop a fight, many I know are, I know some great ones who pass on their skills but even in some of the big shows the refereeing is suspect.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

My point about boxing was not that they follow the opponent down but that the opponent in a bout is allowed up time and time again when they shouldn't be. MMA doesn't have a standing or lying count, you go down KO'd the fight is finished, no one continues fighting when they are unable to.

Agreed. My point was just that the rules of boxing - and their training to step back and let the ref in - make it less likely they instinctively follow the guy down. It's simply not in their training to ground and pound, whether the other guy is conscious or not.

I've seen a boxer in a fight in a pub kick a man in the face he'd just dropped.

I was speaking more of in the ring, though I'd expect that to be less likely in bar fights for boxers, as well. But "less likely" certainly isn't "impossible" by any stretch.

When ;overkill' happens in MMA which isn't as often as you'd think given the publicity, it's the refs job to stop it so often it's poor refereeing to blame as much as anything. An MMA fighter who allows himself to get carried away is not a good fighter and will, like an angry fighter, soon lose their fights and be out of the game. Promoters don't want that type, because others don't want to match with them, and they will soon be dropped.

I think it's rarely a true case of overkill. Because ground fighting is part of the game, they have to follow up the advantage when they knock the other guy down. Sometimes it's difficult to differentiate (psychological term) properly in the speed and focus of the moment, so they end up hitting someone they "shouldn't". Usually a good ref is in there to intervene before more than a couple of shots land (even the ref sometimes can't tell until the competitor hits the canvas). Some folks are more aggressive, and always follow up to finish, and others are more conservative and move in slowly, so have a chance to see if the guy is still competent before they start punching (but give up part of their advantage if he's not dazed from the knockdown shot).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Some do some don't. I don't think following up with punches after a ko head kick is considered too extreme in a MMA setting.

So trained to do it? Yeah sorta.

It's mostly a lack of recognition the other guy is already out. Some of them seem pretty obvious in the video you linked, but maybe not so obvious to the very (over-?)focused competitor, from their vantage point. And they don't really get to see hundreds of people KO'd from that perspective, so their mind doesn't necessarily automatically recognize the fight is already over. So, they follow their training and keep going until they know it's over.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

According to Charles' thoughts, the MMA guy.

According to me/you/us... that is very debatable.

Not entirely. That guy's ability to pass along his DNA is going to be limited if he's in prison. Remember it's not "survival of the strongest", but "survival of the fittest" - which is probably better expressed as "survival of the best adapted".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's a fine line. Professional fighters (profession as in their ethics not necessarily their pay) don't train to purposely go out and injure their opponent. But, many times a guy can recover very quickly from a flash stun where it looks like he's out and that is why they follow up with punches. It is VERY important to have highly trained referees to keep both fighters safe and not stop it too soon if it is just a quick stun and not allow it to continue when the other fighter can't intelligently defend himself.

As with ANY contact sport, not just combat sports, you get "bullies" who do just want to hurt someone. It only takes a couple to give it a bad name. Especially when you have a large organization like the UFC promote idiots to fight for them that don't have a professional attitude.

I think we can also see in the video DB linked that many of the fighters draw on their anger in the fight (some are even yelling at the KO'd opponent) - it gives them an advantage to dig into the "fight" area of the limbic system. It also makes them likely to continue until stopped. Some of those may be bullies, and some are just doing what they think it takes to win the fight.

 

[jobo]

Not entirely. That guy's ability to pass along his DNA is going to be limited if he's in prison. Remember it's not "survival of the strongest", but "survival of the fittest" - which is probably better expressed as "survival of the best adapted".

darwinism doesnt apply to developed human society as it has remove the basic requirements of survival. Lot of very stupid and and weak people get to breed, it will take a major event to make it applicable

 

[Gerry Seymour]

darwinism doesnt apply to developed human society as it has remove the basic requirements of survival. Lot of very stupid and and weak people get to breed, it will take a major event to make it applicable

We've changed parts of it for the individuals, but Darwinian principles apply to groups in social species as much as to individuals. Even so, what has actually happened is that the rules for "fitness" to the environment have changed, so Darwinian principles still apply. Those who adapt to the social environment they find themselves in are most likely to thrive and pass along their DNA - though that latter changes as more people choose not to have children, or to have smaller families. This latter part is likely a true skewing of Darwinian outcomes.

 

[jobo]

We've changed parts of it for the individuals, but Darwinian principles apply to groups in social species as much as to individuals. Even so, what has actually happened is that the rules for "fitness" to the environment have changed, so Darwinian principles still apply. Those who adapt to the social environment they find themselves in are most likely to thrive and pass along their DNA - though that latter changes as more people choose not to have children, or to have smaller families. This latter part is likely a true skewing of Darwinian outcomes.

but we have changed the environment, that what had made us a dominant species ,

how has the,structure of our society made it difficult for stupid people to breed, they only have to find another,stupid person to breed with and ,,,,,

 

[Gerry Seymour]

but we have changed the environment, that what had made us a dominant species ,

Yes, that was our adaptation. A few other species change their environment significantly, though none to the extent we do.

how has the,structure of our society made it difficult for stupid people to breed, they only have to find another,stupid person to breed with and ,,,,,

That assumes that "stupid" is not "adapted". If they work within the social structure (and there are some pretty stupid social structures out there), then they are adapted. Unfortunately, this process doesn't always favor the objectively "better" specimen - it just favors adaptation over a lack thereof. So, among the stupid people, those who adapt to their environment (or control it) are more likely to thrive than those who do not.

 

[jobo]

Yes, that was our adaptation. A few other species change their environment significantly, though none to the extent we do.


That assumes that "stupid" is not "adapted". If they work within the social structure (and there are some pretty stupid social structures out there), then they are adapted. Unfortunately, this process doesn't always favor the objectively "better" specimen - it just favors adaptation over a lack thereof. So, among the stupid people, those who adapt to their environment (or control it) are more likely to thrive than those who do not.

you going to have to explain the last bit, you have taken to using the word thrive, that don't need to thrive, they just need to breed and their off spring survive to sexual maturity and then repeat

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Yes, that was our adaptation. A few other species change their environment significantly, though none to the extent we do.


That assumes that "stupid" is not "adapted". If they work within the social structure (and there are some pretty stupid social structures out there), then they are adapted. Unfortunately, this process doesn't always favor the objectively "better" specimen - it just favors adaptation over a lack thereof. So, among the stupid people, those who adapt to their environment (or control it) are more likely to thrive than those who do not.

Yep. Contrary to what many people think, evolution doesn't necessarily favor the stronger/faster/smarter/(insert superlative here) organism. It favors the organism better suited for survival in its particular environment. Sometimes the factors which favor survival in a given context are rather non-intuitive.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

you going to have to explain the last bit, you have taken to using the word thrive, that don't need to thrive, they just need to breed and their off spring survive to sexual maturity and then repeat

In a social group, "thriving" (doing well) usually leads to opportunities to breed, so it's not precisely the same thing, but leads to the same end usually.

 

[jobo]

Yep. Contrary to what many people think, evolution doesn't necessarily favor the stronger/faster/smarter/(insert superlative here) organism. It favors the organism better suited for survival in its particular environment. Sometimes the factors which favor survival in a given context are rather non-intuitive.

its not about,survival, only about survival to a point were they can pass on their dna, if people,are not,staving to death or dieing of diseases that only kill the less able, then that is always going to occur,

 

[jobo]

In a social group, "thriving" (doing well) usually leads to opportunities to breed, so it's not precisely the same thing, but leads to the same end usually.

really, round here all it takes is alcohol, it not only successful people who get layed,

 

[Gerry Seymour]

its not about,survival, only about survival to a point were they can pass on their dna, if people,are not,staving to death or dieing of diseases that only kill the less able, then that is always going to occur,

Survival is a species/DNA-line consideration. If an individual dies early, their DNA line ceases. If they survive longer, they have more opportunities to pass it along. But that's only part of it, as you rightly suggest. The DNA line doesn't automatically survive just because the individual, does - that's where social thriving plays an important role, because it creates more opportunities (or at least more consistent ones) to pass along DNA.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

really, round here all it takes is alcohol, it not only successful people who get layed

If alcohol provides opportunities, then those who imbibe in that environment will thrive. Thriving isn't about financial or occupational success - it's the term for an individual doing well (from a survival and DNA-line standpoint) in their social environment.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

The same ones who didn't attempt to stop the fight until it was too late, and also reportedly warned a local security guard not to interfere when he approached? Yeah, those idiots are definitely at the top of the evoluntionary chain.....

The bystanders who encouraged the fight certainly aren't moral exemplars, but from an evolutionary standpoint they're doing better on the survival front than the guy who got himself killed and the guy who's going to prison for murder.

The ones doing best, however, are the ones who weren't involved in the mess to begin with and therefore aren't anywhere in that footage.

 

[jobo]

If alcohol provides opportunities, then those who imbibe in that environment will thrive. Thriving isn't about financial or occupational success - it's the term for an individual doing well (from a survival and DNA-line standpoint) in their social environment.

no you don't need to use alcohol to get laid, you just need to find someone who does, finding someone to have sex with is a basic human drive that very nearly everyone has managed, finding people who don't have children is quite a difficult task, unless they have medical issue or have chosen that