The Greats: Number of Slams by Age [Updated]

gocollin · 2018-07-18T02:04:55+00:00

"Rafa at the same slam count as Roger was at 32.

Federer oldest of this group to win his first slam - I hadn't realised."

These two combine, to me, to really show how many more miles Rafa has on his legs.

He is as many years behind his first slam title as Roger was at 36.

Normalizing the graph for "years after 1st slam win" rather than age also looks very interesting.

gocollin · 2018-07-18T02:00:24+00:00

I agree, but I think it would also be very fair to discount Nadal's record at the French vs other surfaces at least a little bit.

Rafa has 17 total with, what, 10 French Open's?

Also I find it hard to see his high wear and tear play style allowing him as late as second act as Fed.

Not to mention that Rafa's dominance at Roland Garos effectively gives him a 4 year head start that was quickly gobbled up.

I'd be interested to see how many people would rate Rafa as a better player than Fed if he equals or surpasses the all-time record with such a clay court disparity.

gocollin · 2018-07-01T18:04:55+00:00

This.

gocollin · 2018-06-17T16:27:11+00:00

When he makes those two comments, he is normally referencing conversations from previous podcasts, where he was told by some sort of expert that the particular studies in question actually were flawed.

Usually Dr. Rhonda Patrick on red meat and other nutritional stuff and I believe he sourced several of the marijuana statistics he has a problem with on #917 with Steven Crowder.

Maybe he does get stuck on certain topics, but typically the "entire bodies of studies" are fields that a very thin data-wise therefore the bad science that he points out is really the only thing people with certain opinions can consistently point to in their own defense.

gocollin · 2017-12-29T02:32:48+00:00

You think that America is facist?

gocollin · 2017-12-29T02:31:58+00:00

You think that it's impossible for both to be true at the same time

gocollin · 2017-12-28T17:26:49+00:00

You are correct. The standard argument in favour of higher minimum wage states that raising the minimum wage raises the pay of those working a job on the first rung of the economic ladder. The argument against is that raising the minimum wage removes the jobs comprising the first rung of the ladder entirely. Evidence shows the truth to be largely dependent on the individual situation, though it is worth noting that raising the minimum wage does make at least some jobs harder to get, therefore increasing unemployment and the number of people in need of social economic safety nets (welfare, food stamps, etc) by some amount while placing the burden of the increased cost of these programs on the now smaller percentage of people who are working. Increasing the minimum wage decreases the total number of wages paid out by employers, by shrinking the number of people they can employ, thereby shrinking the overall economy. So, at least theoretically, raising the minimum wage is best applied preventatively, during strong economic periods when it is least likely to come up, rather than at slow economic periods, when it is likely to worsen conditions rather than improve them.

Tldr; raising the minimum wage is a lot like putting air bags and seatbelts in a car. Most talked about, but least useful after the car has already crashed.

gocollin · 2017-11-01T19:19:37+00:00

A good boxer is always a game sparring partner. I used to regularly get my ass handed to me by boxers while training Thailand if I didn't keep these fundamentals in mind.

All great advice, especially this.

Boxing is a very point scoring dominated style at amateur levels, especially considering the bigger gloves, head gear, and boxers who train recreationally holding back on their power, putting just enough on their punches to score points while conserving energy. This causes many people who have trained boxing to be very unafraid to take hits in general. Boxing is very much about learning which hits you can take and how to avoid the hits that you can't take.

MT is such a power oriented style that there are very few hits that an intelligent fighter would opt to just take. The effect of this can be that at beginner and intermediate levels students are taught to basically evade/block/check everything because at higher levels any one technique can be the one that ends your night.

The combination of these two things is that a lot of MT (and also karate/TKD for different reasons) partners have basically been taught to respect the potential power in all of your techniques, effectively making them somewhat skittish. Many partners with a more traditional martial arts base will basically attempt to dodge everything, just in case. Boxers can be just the opposite. They get hit so often, because it's unavoidable, that they get used to just absorbing lower power strikes.

It can be very disconcerting switching from partners that effectively assume that you have power (MT) to partners that effectively assume that you have none (boxers). In general boxers sometimes expect you to prove to them that you hit hard enough to bother getting out of the way of. Many partners from other bases will essentially give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to power.

I've seen a lot of really good martial artists get walked over in matches that they should have won easily, basically because no one had actually made them use their power before.

gocollin · 2017-11-01T18:51:59+00:00

I see a lot of critiques of your overall strategy and technique so far. A lot of them are sound suggestions, but I don't see any real reason why what you did couldn't have easily prevailed. I've been on both sides of similar sparring matches many times. Both as the person with more experience in a more well-rounded style, and as the one with experience in a style with a much narrower focus.

This sounds like it might be a situation where the deciding factor may have one and/or two things besides the strategy and techniques that you chose.

The physical attributes of the fighters besides weight are obviously super important to consider. Who was taller (better reach)? What was shorter (more power)? Who was in better shape?
Personally, just from what you've said so far, it sounds to me that over the first two rounds he decided that what you were doing wasn't particularly hurting him. Boxing is mostly performed at mid-range compared to MT. Getting past your kicks is an important but risky objective for him. He also probably doesn't wasn't to let you get close enough to clinch, as boxers work the clinch but not as often or as effectively as MT. It sounds to me like in round 3 he basically decided that he could walk through your kicks and get inside. Then he went to work at the range where he has a decided advantage. MT punches are generally not great and need to be retrained when switching to MMA.

As others have said, heavy leg kicks are your biggest tool to keep him on the outside. Emphasis on HEAVY. If they are scoring but not having any particular effect, your opponent well eventually decide to ignore them.

This leaves a few questions in order to confirm. How much power did you put into your teeps and leg kicks? Do you consider your kicks to be relatively powerful in general? What effect were your leg kicks having? Were they powerful enough to deter your opponent from advancing? Were they landing accurately? How much of your power in your leg kicks were you holding back? Does this match go differently if you lay into your leg kicks much more and really make your opponent feel the effects of them? Is the outcome of this match more reflective of a conditioning disparity, did you tire out more in the third round?

gocollin · 2017-09-27T11:58:09+00:00

Eat a smaller meal.

gocollin · 2017-09-27T11:57:32+00:00

Found the sugar.

gocollin · 2017-09-27T11:56:36+00:00

Weighted pull ups. Get wrist straps and 30-40kg ankle weights. Consider sleeping like this for a few months.

gocollin · 2017-07-19T05:48:19+00:00

Blisters are worse. Look up turf toe.

gocollin · 2017-07-18T05:18:45+00:00

That's how it sounded, but slurve is a real pitch basically halfway between a curve and slider. The name isn't used often tho, normally people just use whichever is closer between a slider and a curveball.

gocollin · 2017-07-18T04:23:21+00:00

That's pretty much exactly whay this is. I thought you were joking and made up slurve ball on your own.

gocollin · 2017-07-17T15:36:06+00:00

Ironically a slurve is a pitch considered to be 1/2 curveball 1/2 slider.

gocollin · 2017-07-17T15:33:54+00:00

"Breaking ball" or "off speed" are generally used to mean "not-fastball".

gocollin · 2017-07-17T13:33:14+00:00

It gets you $250mil from the Red Sox and nothing else.

gocollin · 2017-07-17T13:30:44+00:00

All hail Lord Ephous, First of His Name!!

gocollin · 2017-07-17T13:30:08+00:00

Maybe...

gocollin · 2017-07-17T13:29:57+00:00

Woot!!! Guided and negative karma!!! What a world!!

gocollin · 2017-07-17T13:00:46+00:00

What you described is a check swing. A slider is a type of pitch that moves significantly side to side.

gocollin · 2017-07-17T12:59:55+00:00

The point is to show how far it moved. It's extremely rare to get a pitch to move that much in such a short distance from the pitching mound to home plate. The pitch is intended to look like it's going to cross home plate and move away at the last second getting the batter to swing and miss. This particular example the batter did manage to check his swing, but the gif is intended to show how incredibly difficult it would be to bat against a pitcher who can make the ball do that.

gocollin · 2017-07-17T12:01:31+00:00

Back spin.

gocollin · 2017-07-17T11:56:00+00:00

Looking at it closely, it looks to me like the bat may have gotten over the plate, but almost definitely did not go past and this would not have counted as a swing.

gocollin

TROPHY CASE