# MMA fighter kills weightlifter



## PhotonGuy (Aug 23, 2017)

An MMA fighter apparently killed a weight lifting champion in a street fight where the weight lifter ended up dying from his injuries. Here is the fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 23, 2017)

I saw this yesterday. It looks like another case of head hitting pavement. The fight apparently was about whose sport was better. Now one is dead and the other arrested.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 23, 2017)

Is it normal for the video of the incident to be out in the public domain when a potential criminal court case could be pending? Is there no sub judice law?


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Aug 23, 2017)

Another sad case of ego's costing people's lives.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 23, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Is it normal for the video of the incident to be out in the public domain when a potential criminal court case could be pending? Is there no sub judice law?


This is in Russia, I believe. I have no idea what their laws would be.


----------



## pgsmith (Aug 23, 2017)

Another sad case of Darwin in action.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Aug 23, 2017)

pgsmith said:


> Another sad case of Darwin in action.



Who is the more evolved specimen in this case?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 23, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Who is the more evolved specimen in this case?


The ones who stayed out of the fight.


----------



## Headhunter (Aug 23, 2017)

Pair of idiots getting into a fight over something so stupid. Who won? Neither of them, ones dead and ones facing years in prison. That's truly worth it for their ego isn't it


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 23, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I saw this yesterday. It looks like another case of head hitting pavement. The fight apparently was about whose sport was better. Now one is dead and the other arrested.


Really.. MMA vs Weight lifting.  Those aren't even the same type of sports.  MMA vs Track, MMA vs Tennis.  One would think these would be easy arguments.  Why would anyone expect a professional weight lifter to be a good fighter?  

I really don't like the ground and pound, and I like it even less when the other person is knocked out.  Not knowing that you (general) have won or even caring that you won so long as you get in some extra licks is really horrible. MMA has a bad reputation for that.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 23, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I really don't like the ground and pound, and I like it even less when the other person is knocked out. Not knowing that you (general) have won or even caring that you won so long as you get in some extra licks is really horrible. MMA has a bad reputation for that.



I'm afraid you are quite wrong. There is no 'ground and pound' when the person is KO'd, in that respect it's actually better than boxing where someone can be knocked to the ground, get up dazed on 8, carry on, get knocked down again and again getting progressively more concussed. In MMA rules the fight is stopped when a fighter can no longer intelligently defend themselves. The rules also allow for a fighter to tap out to punches as well as submission holds, they can do so verbally or literally tap out.
I know of no fighter, and I know a great many fighters, who will carry on attacking an unconscious fighter, they also do care whether they win and they do not relish the injuries they opponents may get, it's very much a situation of there but for the grace of G-d go I. There is a huge lot of respect for opponents in MMA fights and if you are getting your info on MMA from films and gossip it will surprise you to know there's a huge amount of good sportsmanship. Fighters often get out of the ring/cage together and can be found discussing their fight, comparing techniques and I've even seen them teaching each other favourite moves.
Just because some alleged 'MMA fighter' in a video from the back of beyond is acting like a prat and causes a death you cannot blame all MMA people or MMA. I've seen all sorts of people acting stupidly, martial artist included.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 23, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> I'm afraid you are quite wrong. There is no 'ground and pound' when the person is KO'd, in that respect it's actually better than boxing where someone can be knocked to the ground, get up dazed on 8, carry on, get knocked down again and again getting progressively more concussed. In MMA rules the fight is stopped when a fighter can no longer intelligently defend themselves. The rules also allow for a fighter to tap out to punches as well as submission holds, they can do so verbally or literally tap out.
> I know of no fighter, and I know a great many fighters, who will carry on attacking an unconscious fighter, they also do care whether they win and they do not relish the injuries they opponents may get, it's very much a situation of there but for the grace of G-d go I. There is a huge lot of respect for opponents in MMA fights and if you are getting your info on MMA from films and gossip it will surprise you to know there's a huge amount of good sportsmanship. Fighters often get out of the ring/cage together and can be found discussing their fight, comparing techniques and I've even seen them teaching each other favourite moves.
> Just because some alleged 'MMA fighter' in a video from the back of beyond is acting like a prat and causes a death you cannot blame all MMA people or MMA. I've seen all sorts of people acting stupidly, martial artist included.


The overkill is by no means limited to MMA folks - it's something that happens to many humans. The reptile brain takes over and just keeps fighting, not noticing the that fight is over. It happens sometimes in MMA fights, and more often (from the video evidence) in street altercations. Unlikely in boxing, only because they're trained not to follow the person down. Some folks (in the street) hit an extra time or two just because they are so angry.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 23, 2017)

Why is this an "MMA fighter"?  Is there some type of documentation of that, or is it just easier to call it that since it is popular?  The reason I ask is, the guy does a spinning high kick right after another high kick attempt.  Usually, not a strategy you see from MMA type fighters as their opening moves.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 23, 2017)

punisher73 said:


> Why is this an "MMA fighter"?  Is there some type of documentation of that, or is it just easier to call it that since it is popular?  The reason I ask is, the guy does a spinning high kick right after another high kick attempt.  Usually, not a strategy you see from MMA type fighters as their opening moves.


He was a professional MMA fighter, as I recall.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 23, 2017)

punisher73 said:


> Why is this an "MMA fighter"?  Is there some type of documentation of that, or is it just easier to call it that since it is popular?  The reason I ask is, the guy does a spinning high kick right after another high kick attempt.  Usually, not a strategy you see from MMA type fighters as their opening moves.


http://nypost.com/2017/08/22/mma-fi...legedly-killing-weightlifter-in-street-fight/


----------



## drop bear (Aug 23, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> I'm afraid you are quite wrong. There is no 'ground and pound' when the person is KO'd, in that respect it's actually better than boxing where someone can be knocked to the ground, get up dazed on 8, carry on, get knocked down again and again getting progressively more concussed. In MMA rules the fight is stopped when a fighter can no longer intelligently defend themselves. The rules also allow for a fighter to tap out to punches as well as submission holds, they can do so verbally or literally tap out.
> I know of no fighter, and I know a great many fighters, who will carry on attacking an unconscious fighter, they also do care whether they win and they do not relish the injuries they opponents may get, it's very much a situation of there but for the grace of G-d go I. There is a huge lot of respect for opponents in MMA fights and if you are getting your info on MMA from films and gossip it will surprise you to know there's a huge amount of good sportsmanship. Fighters often get out of the ring/cage together and can be found discussing their fight, comparing techniques and I've even seen them teaching each other favourite moves.
> Just because some alleged 'MMA fighter' in a video from the back of beyond is acting like a prat and causes a death you cannot blame all MMA people or MMA. I've seen all sorts of people acting stupidly, martial artist included.



There is s definitely ground and pound on unconscious opponents in MMA.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Aug 23, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> The ones who stayed out of the fight.



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.....


----------



## drop bear (Aug 23, 2017)

punisher73 said:


> Why is this an "MMA fighter"?  Is there some type of documentation of that, or is it just easier to call it that since it is popular?  The reason I ask is, the guy does a spinning high kick right after another high kick attempt.  Usually, not a strategy you see from MMA type fighters as their opening moves.



Not that uncommon.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 23, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> There is a huge lot of respect for opponents in MMA fights and if you are getting your info on MMA from films and gossip it will surprise you to know there's a huge amount of good sportsmanship


I'm getting my information from some of the MMA fights I've seen in the UFC where the fighter has to be pulled off the guy who is laying unconscious.  And I'm not saying that ALL MMA people are like this, but there is a quite a bit of it in the sport.



gpseymour said:


> It happens sometimes in MMA fights, and more often (from the video evidence) in street altercations.


Street fights are really bad about hitting an unconscious person simply because those aren't "challenge fights" where 2 people are trying to prove who has the better skills.  Street fights usually have more emotion involved where someone dislikes or hates someone to the point that they do want to cause grave injury and to let their anger go uncheck.  To me if the argument is to see who is tougher or which system is better is a challenge fight where pounding someone in the ground isn't necessary to show who has the better skills.   Fights like this can usually be taken care of fairly quickly since arguments like this are usually between 2 hot heads with one of them being way more skilled than the other.  

If both of the guys were just having a good ole fashion street fight then stuff like is expected, along with weapons if anyone has one.   But if it was really a challenge match between 2 people then it doesn't take much to prove the point that one person is more skilled than the other.  A friendly sparring match is more than enough to highly a person's weaknesses and skill level.  It was clear to me after the 1st knock down who had the better skills.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 24, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> MMA fights I've seen in the UFC



So you base your opinion of MMA on a business rather than the sport. MMA is more than the UFC which is basically a circus for making money. Even in the UFC though a fighter isn't often struck while unconscious, and when it does happen there is a tremendous amount of criticism from MMA people, not the fanboys, of the poor refereeing that will have caused this.
I have watched thousands of fights, most live, and the times a fighter has been in danger of being beaten while unconscious have been very few and far between, I can also tell you that the other fighter has never been happy or pleased when it's happened. It's never a deliberate act. I think you fundamentally misunderstand what MMA fighters are actually like and misunderstand what MMA actually is. We've had a lot of discussion about style bashing recently, and your comments are an example of this.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 24, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Unlikely in boxing, only because they're trained not to follow the person down



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.

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

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.


----------



## Headhunter (Aug 24, 2017)

drop bear said:


> There is s definitely ground and pound on unconscious opponents in MMA.


Agreed I can think of about 5 or 6 examples off my head right away


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 24, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> Agreed I can think of about 5 or 6 examples off my head right away



Not saying it doesn't happen but it's not the purpose of ground and pound, it's down to the ref to be watching close enough to stop the fight the minute a fighter is out. It doesn't happen by design where a fighter goes into the cage with the intention of beating up an unconscious opponent.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 24, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> So you base your opinion of MMA on a business rather than the sport. MMA is more than the UFC which is basically a circus for making money. Even in the UFC though a fighter isn't often struck while unconscious, and when it does happen there is a tremendous amount of criticism from MMA people, not the fanboys, of the poor refereeing that will have caused this.
> I have watched thousands of fights, most live, and the times a fighter has been in danger of being beaten while unconscious have been very few and far between, I can also tell you that the other fighter has never been happy or pleased when it's happened. It's never a deliberate act. I think you fundamentally misunderstand what MMA fighters are actually like and misunderstand what MMA actually is. We've had a lot of discussion about style bashing recently, and your comments are an example of this.


Not sure how I'm style bashing when even in your post you admit that it sometimes happens.  If I show a video of it actually happening would that be style bashing too?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 24, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Not saying it doesn't happen but it's not the purpose of ground and pound, it's down to the ref to be watching close enough to stop the fight the minute a fighter is out. It doesn't happen by design where a fighter goes into the cage with the intention of beating up an unconscious opponent.


But for many it's their intent and training to keep hitting until the referee stops the attack. Because of this the trigger to stop is the referee identifying a fighter who can't continue, who then interacts with the attacker to get the fighter to stop.  So fighters for the most part wait for the referee to end the fight during the pounding.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 24, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Not sure how I'm style bashing when even in your post you admit that it sometimes happens.  If I show a video of it actually happening would that be style bashing too?



It's style bashing because you accuse MMA people of *wanting* to actually hit people while they are unconscious. It's not because it's happening it's because you accuse us of doing it deliberately.




JowGaWolf said:


> But for many it's their intent and training to keep hitting until the referee stops the attack. Because of this the trigger to stop is the referee identifying a fighter who can't continue, who then interacts with the attacker to get the fighter to stop.  So fighters for the most part wait for the referee to end the fight during the pounding.


 

Incorrect. KO's happen in boxing, kick boxing and MT all the time, the difference is everyone can tell when the fighter is unconscious, with MMA it's not actually as easy as that. I didn't say the fighters wait for the referee to stop the fight I said it's up to the referee to be aware enough that when the fighter has lost unconsciousness the fight is stopped. I can you decide what the intent is of fighters you don't know? It's not fighter's intent to batter an unconscious person but often what is happens they don't actually see the other fighter for a number of reasons there fore the onus is on the ref. However you have made your mind up and are on the side of those who consider MMA to be nothing more than dog fighting therefore beneath you and only fit for thugs so there's little point in trying to explain to you.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 24, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> It's style bashing because you accuse MMA people of *wanting* to actually hit people while they are unconscious. It's not because it's happening it's because you accuse us of doing it deliberately.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Go back and read my post original post and you'll see I said none of that.  Second are you telling me that MMA fighters aren't intentionally striking?


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 24, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Not knowing that you (general) have won or even caring that you won so long as you get in some extra licks is really horrible. MMA has a bad reputation for that.



that's not style bashing? Er yeah it is.



JowGaWolf said:


> Second are you telling me that MMA fighters aren't intentionally striking?



Are you being serious? I think you need to re-read everything.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 24, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> But for many it's their intent and training to keep hitting until the referee stops the attack. Because of this the trigger to stop is the referee identifying a fighter who can't continue, who then interacts with the attacker to get the fighter to stop.  So fighters for the most part wait for the referee to end the fight during the pounding.



Yeah second one in 





My coaches last fight he was ground and pounding the guy who wasn't out but wasn't defending and the ref wasn't really doing much. He actually had to tell the ref to end the fight.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 24, 2017)

drop bear said:


> He actually had to tell the ref to end the fight.



All credit to him and the ref should be ashamed. It goes to show though that MMA fighters do not go into the cage to batter unconscious people, they do have a care for their opponents.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 24, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> All credit to him and the ref should be ashamed. It goes to show though that MMA fighters do not go into the cage to batter unconscious people, they do have a care for their opponents.



Everybody has their own motivation. My guess is that if you are engaging in street MMA you probably are not too concerned with safety.

But yeah it happens a bit off a head kick. They go unconscious and get beat up on rhe deck.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 24, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Everybody has their own motivation. My guess is that if you are engaging in street MMA you probably are not too concerned with safety.
> 
> But yeah it happens a bit off a head kick. They go unconscious and get beat up on rhe deck.



However fighters don't train to beat up unconscious people, they don't think beating up an unconscious person is great or they've managed a great victory because they've hit someone who is already out. It's the opposite of macho, carry on beating up an unconscious opponent and people will think you're just a saddo.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 24, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> However fighters don't train to beat up unconscious people, they don't think beating up an unconscious person is great or they've managed a great victory because they've hit someone who is already out. It's the opposite of macho, carry on beating up an unconscious opponent and people will think you're just a saddo.



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.


----------



## JP3 (Aug 24, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Who is the more evolved specimen in this case?


According to Charles' thoughts, the MMA guy.

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


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 24, 2017)

drop bear said:


> 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 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.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 24, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> http://nypost.com/2017/08/22/mma-fi...legedly-killing-weightlifter-in-street-fight/



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".


----------



## drop bear (Aug 24, 2017)

punisher73 said:


> 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.



Correct.

Young Sean here copping a KO and then just springing back up.





The ref we use is fantasic by the way.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 24, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Yeah second one in
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 24, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Correct.
> 
> Young Sean here copping a KO and then just springing back up.
> 
> ...


wow.  I'm not sure if it's my phone but it sounded as if bone broke. Was he ok after the knock down?


----------



## drop bear (Aug 25, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> wow.  I'm not sure if it's my phone but it sounded as if bone broke. Was he ok after the knock down?



A bit upset he lost. Otherwise yeah.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 25, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> 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 (Aug 25, 2017)

punisher73 said:


> 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 (Aug 25, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> 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 (Aug 25, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> 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 (Aug 25, 2017)

drop bear said:


> 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 (Aug 25, 2017)

JP3 said:


> 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 (Aug 25, 2017)

punisher73 said:


> 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 (Aug 25, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> 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 (Aug 25, 2017)

jobo said:


> 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 (Aug 25, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> 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 (Aug 25, 2017)

jobo said:


> 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 (Aug 25, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> 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 (Aug 25, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> 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 (Aug 25, 2017)

jobo said:


> 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 (Aug 25, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> 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 (Aug 25, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> 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 (Aug 25, 2017)

jobo said:


> 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 (Aug 25, 2017)

jobo said:


> 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 (Aug 25, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> 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 (Aug 25, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> 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


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 25, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> If alcohol provides opportunities, then those who imbibe in that environment will thrive.





jobo said:


> no you don't need to use alcohol to get laid, you just need to find someone who does



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 (Aug 25, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> 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.


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,


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 25, 2017)

jobo said:


> 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.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 25, 2017)

jobo said:


> 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


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.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 25, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> 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.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 25, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> 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 (Aug 25, 2017)

jobo said:


> 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



No. Darwinism isn't survival of the coolest. 
The fitness to survive is determined by the ability to breed.


----------



## jobo (Aug 25, 2017)

drop bear said:


> No. Darwinism isn't survival of the coolest.
> The fitness to survive is determined by the ability to breed.


no the ability to breed means the survival of your dna


----------



## Buka (Aug 25, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> You forgot the getting consent bit which more often than not isn't given.



It is in my world. Just saying.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 25, 2017)

Buka said:


> It is in my world. Just saying.



As it should be.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 25, 2017)

jobo said:


> no the ability to breed means the survival of your dna


That's the survival that matters for Darwinian theory.


----------



## Skullpunch (Aug 28, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm getting my information from some of the MMA fights I've seen in the UFC where the fighter has to be pulled off the guy who is laying unconscious.  And I'm not saying that ALL MMA people are like this, but there is a quite a bit of it in the sport.



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.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 28, 2017)

Skullpunch said:


> 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 (Aug 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 28, 2017)

Skullpunch said:


> 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 (Aug 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> 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.



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 (Aug 28, 2017)

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


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 28, 2017)

Skullpunch said:


> 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.


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.



> 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.


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.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 28, 2017)

Skullpunch said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 28, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> 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


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 28, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> 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.


I feel the same way as well.


----------

