However alcohol famously inhibits certain functions so prevents breeding..... ie 'not getting it up'. Imbibe too much too often and you end up with a low sperm count in men and reduces the chances of women getting pregnant as it reduces fertility.
MMA fighter kills weightlifter
- Thread starter PhotonGuy
- Start date
However alcohol famously inhibits certain functions so prevents breeding..... ie 'not getting it up'. Imbibe too much too often and you end up with a low sperm count in men and reduces the chances of women getting pregnant as it reduces fertility.
jobo
Grandmaster
that rather depend how much you take, there is quite a big area between lowered inhibitions and being incapable, the incapable bit obviously only applies to one half of the coupling. Thee seems a very large number of births were one or both had had a bit to drink,
Seeing the state of most of our city and town streets on a weekend most people aren't taking just a few drinks, they are getting bladdered. Not just incapable of having sex but drunk to the point of unconsciousness ( if they are lucky..haven't got into fights or been attacked/raped), not just one weekend every so often but most weekends.
It appears there are two advantages (from a procreation standpoint, certainly many disadvantages from other standopoints) to be had: learning to find people who have imbibed, and imbibing in an environment where you can be found. Both have a chance to pass along their DNA.
You forgot the getting consent bit which more often than not isn't given.
Well, that's not a Darwinian concept, but a legal one. Important, mind you.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 23,419
- Reaction score
- 8,142
No. Darwinism isn't survival of the coolest.
The fitness to survive is determined by the ability to breed.
jobo
Grandmaster
no the ability to breed means the survival of your dna
It is in my world. Just saying.
As it should be.
That's the survival that matters for Darwinian theory.
Skullpunch
Green Belt
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2015
- Messages
- 121
- Reaction score
- 49
It's the referee's job to stop the fight, not the fighters.
If you're hitting a guy and you decide to stop there's a good chance - against some opponents a dangerously high chance - that he's going to get up and attack you again and the fight is still on.
Agreed. It's a conundrum. If you want to create the minimum of injury necessary to win, you have to stop as soon as you think you've done enough. But if you stop, you might stop too early.
Skullpunch
Green Belt
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2015
- Messages
- 121
- Reaction score
- 49
Is it a conundrum? As a fighter, you do not get paid to do the referee's job. To me that's pretty black and white.
Also, if you let him recover and have to hit him another hundred or so times to get the win, you're probably doing more damage than if you had simply kept going and put him away in the first place. It's far from a guarantee that self-refereeing is doing the least minimum of injury necessary to win, and then take into account additional damage you yourself might sustain should you allow the fight to go on.
If we want the sport to be safer the best thing we can do is take the gloves away - those things do nothing to protect the person being punched, they only protect the puncher's hands which enables him to tee off full-tilt. Before gloves, the prospect of MMA fighters fearing brain damage seemed laughable. Now it's on pace to possibly overtake boxing as the worst sport for your brain.
It's only black and white if you are able to set aside (as some can do, and they likely become better competitors for it) concern for the other person. This is one of the reasons I don't compete in anything like this. I simply am not interested in causing injury unless my safety is at stake (as in a self-defense situation), so I would tend to back off too early in competition. To be effective, you have to at least be willing to push that envelope.
Skullpunch
Green Belt
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2015
- Messages
- 121
- Reaction score
- 49
I'm not even convinced of that first sentence. If you stop early, he might get up, then you might have to hit him a hundred more times and end up doing much more damage than you would have if you had just done it the right way to begin with. Or take that damage yourself, depending on how it all plays out.
I agree on not wanting any part of it personally though, it's why I love the grappling game so much. It's the only kind of combat sport where you can (relatively) safely go 100% full tilt until there is a decisive victor.
MA_Student
Black Belt
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2017
- Messages
- 577
- Reaction score
- 370
What a pair of morons....arguing over weightlifting v mma...they're totally different sports. Weight lifting is a good supplement for martial arts and can be good for martial artists but being a weight lifter doesn't make you a good fighter no different to being good at tennis doesn't make you good at fighting. Just totally dumb
Yes. Thus it is not black and white. For those trying to minimize injury, stopping too early may mean more injury. If I don't try to find that minimum, I can just keep going until I'm certain - meaning until the ref says it's enough. I remember seeing one MMA fighter get upset with the ref over that - he was hitting the other guy fairly slowly (with power, but a pause between blows) to give the ref a chance to stop the fight. The ref let him land about 4 more shots before he stopped him.
Agreed. And they typically do a good job of removing the more dangerous moves to make it even safer, so you can attack more freely. You only have to hold back at those moments when it's getting near submission, to give them a chance to tap out.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2015
- Messages
- 14,110
- Reaction score
- 6,029
If you are hitting a guy and he's unconscious then there's very little chance that he's going to get up and attack again. I'm not saying to stop hitting I'm just saying be aware of when the opponent is out vs waiting for a referee to come in and tell the fighter what he or she should already be aware of (my opponent is unconscious).
If a fighter can tell when his opponent is injured or stunned. Then he should be able to tell when his opponent is out. As someone who puts a lot of value in being able to sense my opponents intention. It's just beyond me that one can since when their opponent is hurt and but can't sense when their opponent no longer responding. To quote you. "It's the referee's job to stop the fight, not the fighters." brings it back to my original statement about fighters getting those last licks in when the opponent is unconscious simply because the referee has not stopped the fight.
I don't believe it's the refs job to stop the fight, I believe it's the refs job to be aware and monitoring at all times the well being of the fighters.
As MMA is still a new sport officials and the fighters haven't been trained to a sufficiently high standard of understanding when fights should be stopped. Fighters want to fight and can get carried away, they don't always understand that they shouldn't be carrying on whether they are defending or attacking. I stopped a fight because the arm bar was on, the fighter didn't tap so I did it for him, he was furious because he didn't feel his arm hurting and thought he should have carried on, there was no way he was getting out of that arm bar and his arm was at an angle where it would have broken shortly. At the end of the night he came and apologised, by that time the adrenaline and excitement had drained away and the arm was very sore, he agreed I was correct to stop the fight.
When fighting there is no sense of time, tunnel vision and various physiological changes that mean it's not always easy to tell whether your opponent is out or not, easy enough in practice but in the cage/ring not so much, that's why the ref must be hyper aware. the fighter isn't 'getting his last licks in' as a cynical calm action but is likely ramped up by adrenaline etc. MMA fighters don't fight enough for this to be ramped down and control as people who are used to dangerous and high pressured situations are such as fire fighters, spec services etc. The fight or flight responses kicks in big style and I have seen the flights as well as the fights. people walking out of the cage before the fight or not even getting in.
"When our fight or flight response is activated, sequences of nerve cell firing occur and chemicals like adrenaline, noradrenaline and cortisol are released into our bloodstream. These patterns of nerve cell firing and chemical release cause our body to undergo a series of very dramatic changes. Our respiratory rate increases. Blood is shunted away from our digestive tract and directed into our muscles and limbs, which require extra energy and fuel for running and fighting. Our pupils dilate. Our awareness intensifies. Our sight sharpens. Our impulses quicken. Our perception of pain diminishes. Our immune system mobilizes with increased activation. We become prepared—physically and psychologically—for fight or flight. We scan and search our environment, "looking for the enemy.
When our fight or flight system is activated, we tend to perceive everything in our environment as a possible threat to our survival. By its very nature, the fight or flight system bypasses our rational mind—where our more well thought out beliefs exist—and moves us into "attack" mode. This state of alert causes us to perceive almost everything in our world as a possible threat to our survival. As such, we tend to see everyone and everything as a possible enemy" The Fight or Flight Response - NeilMD.com
