MMA "Fouls"

[Gerry Seymour]

Since none of you seem to get the issues here (Steve excluded)

Indian burn: self explanatory

Gypped: Assuming that someone who takes advantage is a gypsy

Jewed someone: fairly certain this comes from nazis, that a jew takes advantage of others money-wise

shortbus/tard: making fun of someone for having below average intelligence.

In my profession, I have seen people be upset by all 4/5 of those, and in some cases exacerbating the issues. It's the same as using the N-word or the C-word, but because they're not for 'minority' groups, it's considered okay.

The two big ones that people have directed towards me are 'fake paddy', and either 'spic' or 'spicorican'. Those offend me for different reasons (I am Irish/cuban), and as far as people are concerned I don't fit in with either group. There really is no reason to use a term that offends people, and the idea that it is the fault of the offended is ridiculous.

That would be like me saying someone being punched in the face being upset by that is being a baby. I'm okay with it, and most likely if I met one of you and you punched me in the face, I wouldn't care all that much (it happens often enough in sparring). But if you punched a random person in the face (In NY at least) you could get arrested for assault. Just because you're okay with something doesn't mean everyone else is, nor does it mean that they should be okay with it.

Where did you get the idea that none of the rest of us understood those references?

 

[Steve]

Most of us, if we admit it, are that way. It's why black comedians in the US can get away with saying things white comedians often cannot.

A friend of mine who was black (he still is black, we just lost touch) understood this well, and he and I often made "racist" comments at each other - usually backwards, making fun of the stereotypes. I had a couple of friends like that in high school. We'd pass each other in the hall, and they'd call me some nasty epithet usually reserved for blacks, and I'd return the favor with some nasty epithet usually reserved for whites.

Trust and context make all the difference. One of my good friends is Samoan, and I can make jokes with him I could not with most. Also, saying something intentionally to a friend as a gesture of good natured, and mutually understood, camaraderie is very different from carelessly using a term, like the ones I and others mention above. As with most things, mindfulness makes a big difference.

Or, how about this? If you’re going to say something that is racist, at least do it on purpose.

 

[JR 137]

Here’s how out of control people calling out racism goes...

Me: Did you see Jose?
Idiot: Who’s Jose?
Me: The Puerto Rican guy on the basketball team.
Idiot: That’s racist.
Me: How’s that racist?
Idiot: You called him Puerto Rican.
Me: He’s from Puerto Rico. And he’s on the basketball team. And he’s 6’7, so you really can’t miss him if he was in the hallway.
Idiot: But calling someone Puerto Rican is racist.

Jose walks in the room; perfect timing.

Me (to Jose): Is calling you Puerto Rican racist?
Jose: How?
Me (pointing to the idiot): Ask this clown over here; he told me it was.
Jose (to the idiot): What the f$&k is the matter with you?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Getting back to the original subject of the thread ...

Many people assume that if a particular technique or tactic is outlawed in a given combat sport then the competitors in that system don’t know how to use or defend against the forbidden moves. Often the correct assessment is that they know how not to let the ref see them using the tactic.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Getting back to the original subject of the thread ...

Many people assume that if a particular technique or tactic is outlawed in a given combat sport then the competitors in that system don’t know how to use or defend against the forbidden moves. Often the correct assessment is that they know how not to let the ref see them using the tactic.

I expect that's true (it happens in non-combat sports, too). And it crawls all over me that people do that.

 

[Steve]

Here’s how out of control people calling out racism goes...

Me: Did you see Jose?
Idiot: Who’s Jose?
Me: The Puerto Rican guy on the basketball team.
Idiot: That’s racist.
Me: How’s that racist?
Idiot: You called him Puerto Rican.
Me: He’s from Puerto Rico. And he’s on the basketball team. And he’s 6’7, so you really can’t miss him if he was in the hallway.
Idiot: But calling someone Puerto Rican is racist.

Jose walks in the room; perfect timing.

Me (to Jose): Is calling you Puerto Rican racist?
Jose: How?
Me (pointing to the idiot): Ask this clown over here; he told me it was.
Jose (to the idiot): What the f$&k is the matter with you?

Did that happen? Lol.

 

[Reedone816]

There are currently new rules added in ABC meeting several days ago.
And those currently quite interesting.
Fight night weight in penalty.
Reff as the sole arbitrator even after fight end as long as no official step in the ring after the fight.

I'm just still wondering with the reverse result made by ONE FC several times several days after the fights by giving winning to the one that lost after reff stop the fight and award the opponent the win by tko.
But to be fair, their weight in policy is really good.

Sent from my BV8000Pro using Tapatalk

 

[JR 137]

Did that happen? Lol.

Yes. I’m not good enough to make that up.

 

[Steve]

Yes. I’m not good enough to make that up.

Had a guy tell me that Puerto Rican’s can’t vote. Not sure of that was ignorant or racist. Hard to tell sometimes.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Had a guy tell me that Puerto Rican’s can’t vote. Not sure of that was ignorant or racist. Hard to tell sometimes.

Specifically because its puerto rican, my momey would be on ignorant.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Had a guy tell me that Puerto Rican’s can’t vote. Not sure of that was ignorant or racist. Hard to tell sometimes.

It can be two things.

 

[punisher73]

I think they should repeal the throwing the opponent out of the cage. If you can pull that off, on a conscious opponent anyway, you deserve the win. Just saying.

No no purple nurples, Indian burns, or smurf bites? Well, good thing I never got into the cage. The rules are obviously stacked against me.

Watch Tank Abbot in one of the early UFC's he fought in. He tried to do just that and that is when they raised the height of the fence.

Behind every weird rule, there is a person behind it. LOL

 

[Reedone816]

Watch Tank Abbot in one of the early UFC's he fought in. He tried to do just that and that is when they raised the height of the fence.

Behind every weird rule, there is a person behind it. LOL

In ganryujima mma, throwing opponent outside is legal.
Taken that they use the sumo like platform with no ring nor cage.

Sent from my BV8000Pro using Tapatalk

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Watch Tank Abbot in one of the early UFC's he fought in. He tried to do just that and that is when they raised the height of the fence.

Behind every weird rule, there is a person behind it. LOL

I'm picturing the exhibition match in one of the Rocky movies, with the wrestler.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

In ganryujima mma, throwing opponent outside is legal.
Taken that they use the sumo like platform with no ring nor cage.

Sent from my BV8000Pro using Tapatalk

I had not heard of Ganryujima before, so I had to look it up. Pretty interesting.

 

[JR 137]

I'm picturing the exhibition match in one of the Rocky movies, with the wrestler.

Rocky 3 - Rocky vs Thunder Lips, aka hulk hogan

 

[punisher73]

I'm picturing the exhibition match in one of the Rocky movies, with the wrestler.

Clip of the Day: Tank Abbott tries to throw opponent out of the Octagon | BJPenn.com

here is a clip of it. I was wrong though. The fence was the higher level and not the lower level like I thought.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Dont you have to actually face claw people to be good at face clawing people? the bio mechanics might be similar to a certain degree , but you need to actually use the striking area actively to be good at using it.

Im not really fond of watching MMA anyway, i dotn view it as special or a pinnacle of anything. Plus the annoying gaming of the rules and the segments where you could easily end a actual fight if you did a illegal move are annoying.

Its a pretty good media to look at how effective groin shots are, a good one usually results in the receiver getting the fight taken out of them. should make them pursue a guard more fit for stopping them in the future i imagine. (and thats with cups on)


obviously i get you cant kill people or overly seek to maim them, but then there is at this point in time full body armour you can wear. Helmets exist, gorgets exist, cups exist, shin pads, thigh pads, elbow pads etc. If it really is realstic etc, why dont they stick suits of padded armour on and do just about everything short of crippling each other. you could do fights based on simulated damage done to each other.


Damn that was a rant/tangent and a half.

 

[drop bear]

Dont you have to actually face claw people to be good at face clawing people? the bio mechanics might be similar to a certain degree , but you need to actually use the striking area actively to be good at using it.

No you really don't.

 

[Tez3]

Its a pretty good media to look at how effective groin shots are, a good one usually results in the receiver getting the fight taken out of them. should make them pursue a guard more fit for stopping them in the future i imagine. (and thats with cups on)

No, not really, I have watched ( through reffing, cornering and judging as well as working on shows, sometimes even sitting watching them) thousands of MMA fights, most live and I can honestly say that groin shots aren't a game changer. The ref can give them time to recover if they wish but as with other injuries picked up during a fight, adrenaline carries fighters through. I've never seen a goin shot change a fight.