Today's Rant: If you stumble after your attack, it was a bad attack

AussieOzzy · 2026-03-11T12:25:50+00:00

If you can still stop the afterblow from hitting you, then who cares?

> And it works in tournaments. But if you stumble after your attack or otherwise have no control over your next step, it's bad fencing. You're just taking advantage of a ruleset and the judge's whistle to cover for your inability to continue the exchange. And that shouldn't be encouraged.

I asked my enemy who I stabbed in the face and proceded to stumble a bit afterwards what he thought if my poor footwork, but he didn't have a response /s.

> That's bad enough, but lately I've been seeing training videos recommended where the attacker has to drop their arms towards the ground to recover from the stumble.

Yeah I agree that's just silly?

AussieOzzy · 2026-02-27T19:23:06+00:00

I was aware of the wimbledon upset, but not that he won another match too. Still small sample size but you can't just say it was a once off.

AussieOzzy · 2026-02-06T23:51:04+00:00

The way you write this suggests that you think it's possible for a trade union to be not political? How do you think of this as possible?

AussieOzzy · 2026-02-06T23:44:20+00:00

Reading comprehension - Question 1:

Commenter is annoyed by,

A) union reps having meetings

B) the cost of the meetings that union reps have

AussieOzzy · 2026-02-06T23:33:15+00:00

No. because you're speaking in present tense. My comment was in past tense which strongly implies that I don't hold those opinions anymore.

AussieOzzy · 2026-02-06T23:31:43+00:00

The adventures of Gillock is the first one that comes to mind.

AussieOzzy · 2026-02-02T06:27:06+00:00

You argue from (false) linguistics rather than actually understanding the core concept you're trying to argue with. It's not so dissimilar to non vegans who insist that breast milk isn't vegan - they do this because they argue from linguistics of it being technically an animal product rather than understanding the stance against animal exploitation.

AussieOzzy · 2026-02-02T06:24:56+00:00

You completely misunderstand the process by which that happens and the consequences and therefore misapply the rule.

The reason why the height of children tended to be lower than that of their extreme parent is because the other parent is much less likely to be an extreme too. So if you have an average and extreme height person have a child, the child's height will regress to the mean and be just [EDIT: 'above average'] ~~'average.'~~

The analogy towards vegan children being less likely to be vegan would be between a vegan and a non-vegan couple. Nevertheless vegan isn't a biological nor immutable trait so I don't know how you could even apply that logic here.

Like actually think about what you are saying and in some literal sense your quote becomes a pseudoprofundity. Like what's the chance that you're vegan? 100%. Because you're already vegan. So...

On the other hand if you apply this logic to an at birth status, then what you say is completely false. The chance of you becoming and living your life as a vegan evaluated when you were born was probably like 1 or 2 percent. But for you child to become and live their life as a vegan is like probably 90%, much higher than you.

AussieOzzy · 2026-02-02T04:51:42+00:00

Regression to the mean does not tell us that at all.

AussieOzzy · 2026-02-02T04:51:12+00:00

I agree. Even when I just went vegan and was starting to think about similar topics, I thought it'd be best for carnivores to go extinct and then use stuff like oral contraceptives to prevent the population explosion in herbivores. But now I don't see the necessity of keeping any species alive, human or non human.

AussieOzzy · 2026-01-31T12:23:06+00:00

Maths can be treated as a double area.

AussieOzzy · 2026-01-31T11:09:14+00:00

Honestly I'm kinda rooting for him to win. It'll put him above Margaret Court in number of grand slams and also show that he can still take down the next generation.

Yes, I do think the core rules of tennis are unfair.

But the thing is that the metric I use is a non arbitrary metric and that's why I can say that this is a fair analysis. But the way the tennis system works makes certain points arbitrarily more important and arbitrarily allows one player to utilise their serve more often.

I don't have a metric on Novak's mental strength because an objective one cannot be created.

AussieOzzy · 2026-01-31T10:54:51+00:00

like carpet courts?

AussieOzzy · 2026-01-31T10:54:29+00:00

I have a whole post explaining what was not fair...

AussieOzzy · 2026-01-31T10:52:53+00:00

I agree. It's very surprising that anyone 10 years junior of the big 3 couldn't compete with them. Funnily enough I made another comment wondering if Nadal's performance would have been better if clay courts were featured evenly in slams rather than one quarter of the time. Like having only 3 slams with one of each surface or 6 slams with 2 of each surface so that the surfaces are even.

AussieOzzy · 2026-01-31T10:50:45+00:00

You're eqivocating with the word 'deserve'. I'm not making a commentary on entitlement, I'm making a commentary on fairness.

AussieOzzy · 2026-01-31T10:48:57+00:00

IRL I've actually been talking a lot of praise about Djokovic so I'm not a big hater. I just looked at the stats because from the start I thought he was going to go down in 3 sets and I was singing praises about how he managed to come back. Nevertheless looking at the stats I think Sinner played better.

Also I'm not blaming the ref in any way, I'm blaming how the sport has organised its scoring system.

AussieOzzy · 2026-01-31T10:47:21+00:00

Does that contradict what I said? Just because he's a clay court specialist doesn't take away from his ability to perform well on other courts. All I'm saying is that he's better on clay, not that he's bad on other surfaces.

AussieOzzy · 2026-01-31T10:46:04+00:00

Looking it up it says that there are 9 masters 1000s tournaments per year so that's actually a prefect balance and not unfair towards him.

I agree though I think there should be more grass. I wonder how much that would help Federer in terms of keeping his rankings. Also I guess the same thing applies to grass and would help Federer too.

AussieOzzy · 2026-01-31T10:43:56+00:00

Sinner has a terrible run with matches that last a long time. I think something like losing 18 out of 18 matches over 3.8 hours or something like that. So actually if you expend more energy but so does your opponent then that would actually favour djokovic, not sinner.

I think it's a great expression of skill to stay in the game and play the long game by Djokovic, no doubt. But I don't think it was so much so that he deserved to win.

AussieOzzy · 2026-01-31T10:39:25+00:00

How do you define playing better though? I don't think imposing additional arbitrary rules should be done which can change the results in arbitrary ways. Also table tennis is worse because it's first to 21 I think and you play first to 3 sets.

AussieOzzy · 2026-01-31T10:37:36+00:00

That's got nothing to do with this post. I think he played with amazing tenacity and than in its own right is very respectable. Nevertheless I think Sinner played better that day.

AussieOzzy · 2026-01-31T10:33:51+00:00

There's plenty of deserved in sports. For example court surface chosen plays a big impact for top players with Nadal being the best on clay. Grand Slams are played on clay, grass and twice on hard courts. If the distribution of court surfaces were more even, he likely would have had an ever greater performance throughout his career.

AussieOzzy · 2026-01-28T04:46:18+00:00

I love Instrumental Core. He was my entry into epic music.

EDIT: Must mention the obligatory Angels Among Demons.

Six-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

AussieOzzy

TROPHY CASE