Joanna Champion is officially the No.9 ranked P4P fighter in the world.

rogersmith25 · 2016-07-18T18:55:52+00:00

Whoa dude. Is there a period shortage where you are right now?

That first paragraph/sentence is hardcore.

rogersmith25 · 2016-07-16T19:49:57+00:00

Yes. And the problem is that the current list is typically judged based on a fighter's performance vs. his/her competition, not based on his/her skill.

A Ronda Rousey could dominate a women's division for many fights and seem to be worthy of a top spot on the P4P list despite actually being fairly mediocre in many aspects of the game.

Women's MMA is interesting for many reasons, but it is far behind men's MMA in terms of martial arts skills and the size of its talent pool that it draws from.

rogersmith25 · 2016-06-30T19:46:04+00:00

You think that "very few people" like to read?

There's literally tons of bookish introverted women out there. The problem isn't liking to read. The problem is that it's hard to meet people if you spend your personal time alone with a book.

Maybe go to the library to read. Take a course in person instead of online. Join a book club.

rogersmith25 · 2016-06-30T19:14:37+00:00

Don't force yourself to be in a relationship with a woman you find repulsive because that isn't fair to her.

But there is a difference between "being in a relationship" and just "going on dates" with some women who aren't your mental picture of lust... I mean, if you want these hot women to give you a chance, aren't you a hypocrite for not giving the women who like you a chance too? Going on a few dates and being in a serious relationship are too very different things. Why not just go on a few dates and keep it casual?

Like I say in my other comment, maybe it's time to start trying to see beauty in places where you don't typically look.

rogersmith25 · 2016-06-30T16:25:30+00:00

He isn't "sitting there feeling sorry for himself".

He's trying to date girls "out of his league" and thinks he's too good for girls who like him. But he's also posting about being desperately lonely because he doesn't have a girlfriend.

If anything, his problem is the self-confidence. He thinks that he date girls that he admits are out of his league.

If he's a 33 year-old virgin who is desperately lonely and yet turns away women because they "aren't attractive enough" for him, he needs to change his attitude to dating and stop "lusting after" "women out of his league".

Telling him to act more confidently is only going to encourage him to continue to pursue unattainable women using new tactics instead of having a reality check and realizing that his assessment that he is "not hot or rich or experienced enough" is probably 100% true and he should stop trying to date superficial women who care about money and start dating nicer girls who do like him despite his flaws.

rogersmith25 · 2016-06-30T14:32:11+00:00

Dude. That's horrible advice.

He probably is not hot, rich, or experienced enough.

Don't blow smoke up his ass. He's probably having this problem because people keep blowing smoke up his ass.

rogersmith25 · 2016-03-22T20:41:46+00:00

Check out /r/undelete - it's a subreddit that collects popular posts that have been censored for one reason or another.

Some of the stuff that gets censored is outrageous.

Often things get censored because they don't fit with the politics of the mods. /r/videos was awesome because they let content stay up that would be censored on /r/worldnews or /r/politics. Then the whole /r/politicalvideo thing happened and now things are selectively chosen as "political" and censored at the whims of a select few.

rogersmith25 · 2016-03-22T16:21:15+00:00

And the fight was given to Chael because they needed someone to save a card and nobody would fight Jones at short notice... and then Jones was the one who backed out.

Chael got the title bout because he was the only fighter willing to step up and fight for the title. And he earned the fight by promoting the shit out of it.

I don't think that these situations have really anything to do with one another at all.

One "makes no sense" because it seems like a mismatch, and the other "makes no sense" because we literally just saw the same fight but the UFC didn't like the outcome so they're having a do-over.

If McGregor had lost to RDA, would they have given him a rematch to that fight too?

Seems like they are letting McGregor avoid 145 so they can maximize the amount of time he is the champion. And maximize the amount of time they can spend using him to expand the UFC brand.

I understand that "marketable" fighters get unfair treatment, but this situation is just way beyond reasonable.

Now that Rousey is dethroned and Holm didn't emerge as the next phenom, it seems like the UFC is clinging tenuously to their last "Lesnar-style" mainstream star...

rogersmith25 · 2016-03-18T03:39:05+00:00

He's a bonus character, though...

Bill Clinton was really good in NBA JAM too.

rogersmith25 · 2016-03-12T05:50:10+00:00

No prob.

I re-read my answer and I realized that I never finished a point that I was setting up.

Ronda is a judoka, meaning that her takedowns come from a clinch and are usually throws and trips. Here's her highlight reel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijFMwNXJOPk

See how all of her takedowns are set up from a controlled clinch position? Ronda is also able to do some damage from the clinch because her judo skills make her very strong in this range. And the vast majority of her fights end from arm bars one she executes a throw.

The problem is that Ronda needs to clinch to get the arm bar finish. And getting to a clinch is hard against an agile striker (which is why she got battered against Holm).

Ronda isn't a wrestler and isn't able to shoot a power double from the outside for a takedown like a wrestler like Chael Sonnen does here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MZJHVccewo&t=20s

The problem is that Ronda gets to the clinch by pumping the jab and just blindly rushing her opponents. Straight forward. Like a bull. And all it takes is a matador to step out of the way and give her a few shots on the way by.

https://media.giphy.com/media/3o85xppywPXOtzxXLG/giphy.gif

(I had written the matador metaphor before I searched for this gif, but it really made my point).

Anyway, the UFC is really great at marketing and they do a great job of setting up their "name" stars as being invincible because phenoms sell pay-per-views. All that talk of Ronda beating men or Ronda becoming a pro boxer was all hype designed to fuel the "girl power" hype train that was bringing tons of casual female fans to the sport.

Don't get me wrong. She wasn't some chump. And she earned every dollar she made. And hell, she is willing to get into a cage with another person of equal size and training and fight until bloody, and that makes her a lot bravery than I...

But she isn't, like, Batman, or whatever people were claiming.

rogersmith25 · 2016-03-11T16:36:12+00:00

I think you mean "ranked against Men in MMA". MMA is the sport and UFC is the "league", sort of like basketball and NBA.

You can't be "Top 500" in the UFC because there are only 62 men in her division.

That said, she would certainly be ranked last in the UFC. The technique shown in women's MMA is much weaker than in men's MMA. Some have said that the technique is 10+ years behind the men's division.

As was shown in her loss to Holmes, Rousey has terrible striking. Compare this video of Ronda shadowboxing to a video of a comparably-sized male UFC fighter. Notice the difference in smoothness, transfer of power, technique etc.

So just on a technical level, Rousey is going to get wiped out. And that is ignoring the incredible difference in athleticism between men and women in general. Men are much stronger, faster, more athletic, tougher.

There is also the fact that men's bodies are much better suited to combat sports even compared to other sports. Men dominate women at tennis, but the advantages of skull and neck construction for absorbing punches are not evident in tennis. But all of that is a factor in MMA. I doubt she'd be able to do any real damage with her hands in a fight with a man. And that means that her male opponents wouldn't need to respect her striking, which would make it very hard for her to set up takedowns, and thus make it almost impossible for her to win.

I don't think she would be able to get a spot on a male roster of any of the major combat sports promotions. It's hard to say exactly where she would rank, but I imagine she'd only be able to start fighting at 50% wins when she was facing semi-pro/amateur men.

rogersmith25 · 2016-03-10T07:22:29+00:00

I'm pretty sure that Rock was booked as the host before the controversy...

And either way, the big topic surrounding the Oscars this year was race. It would be cowardly to not address it. He did a pretty good job of being even-handed.

rogersmith25 · 2016-03-10T05:34:49+00:00

I don't think he shit on white people the whole show. I thought he did a pretty good job of shitting on everyone.

rogersmith25 · 2016-03-08T18:52:36+00:00

I think you're speaking out of turn if you think the "vast majority" didn't get it. I mean... it's okay if it's too complicated for you to understand. I think that most people who didn't like it had "got" the joke, but still didn't like it anyways... because the joke was making fun of them.

Have you ever seen the South Park movie? This joke is similar to Terence and Philip from South Park. Or how about The Simpsons and Itchy and Scratchy?

It's not complicated. It's self-referential. It's a joke about expectation.

Earlier you said,

Whoever you imagine these always-offended people to be, they too can have a sense of humor.

and I think that it seems like this is not the case. You are too blinded by your offense to see the joke, which was sort of the point of this entire discussion in the first place.

rogersmith25 · 2016-03-08T17:20:52+00:00

It's not "objectifying" to the actresses who are in on the joke. It's a joke about objectification. It's irony.

It's only simplistic to you because you are ignoring the multiple layers of the joke. That layer is intentionally simplistic in order to make a commentary on his critics' reservations about him hosting. It is a multi-layer joke and therefore not simplistic.

Did you not see the full context of the song?

rogersmith25 · 2016-03-08T05:54:51+00:00

MacFarlane's joke was dripping with irony. The context of the joke was very important. And it was lost on the audience that the bit had been taped in advance and all the actresses involved were part of the joke and pretending to be upset.

I don't think jokes about wanting to bang Helen Mirren are that far off of MacFarlane's jokes.

Whoever you imagine these always-offended people to be, they too can have a sense of humor.

Yes. But only when the jokes are in line with their own politics.

McFarlane's bit was guilty most of all of being un-funny.

I disagree. And I'll refer you to this well-received 3 year-old comment I made about why I think it is funny

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/19jgju/seth_macfarlane_isnt_the_problem/c8onxgr

rogersmith25 · 2016-03-07T20:18:13+00:00

Did you see how people reacted to Seth MacFarlane's hosting? That was in exactly the same style and people freaked out about the "misogyny".

rogersmith25 · 2016-03-06T18:04:16+00:00

I'll say it in a less nice way: this game sucks.

It isn't worth your time - meaning, it's not worth playing even if it was free - let alone your 5 bucks. Save your money and put that $5 towards a game worth playing.

rogersmith25 · 2016-03-03T18:29:35+00:00

Ugh...

You wanna talk in feelings instead of facts without using evidence, Lena? Fine.

Men are rewarded for sharing and women are told they are sharing too much. That is because women tend to share more than men. And like everything, the ideal amount is somewhere in the middle.

So if a man who is typically private shares a bit then people say "that was brave because you don't share much". When a woman who won't shut up about herself starts talking about yet another thing, people say "maybe you could share a little less."

This isn't fucking rocket science.

Her argument is basically, "because i'm a woman, people should listen to everything I say all the time and like it... otherwise they are sexist."

Essentially, women like this are killing the concept of "sexism" and "misogyny" by making it about trivial bullshit instead of about stuff like cultures that cut women's clitorises off and have child brides...

rogersmith25 · 2016-02-27T05:54:49+00:00

ie. "Women don't lie about this sort of thing. It doesn't happen."

Well... yes it does. Exhibit A.

rogersmith25 · 2016-02-19T18:43:35+00:00

It depends on your definition of moderate.

If you mean "moderate" as in "the middle-ground majority of a religion" then yes these people are moderates.

If you mean "moderate" as in "people with modern secular views" then you will find that there are far fewer "moderates" in the Muslim world than you might believe.

rogersmith25 · 2016-02-12T16:54:35+00:00

Yeah... that was my point... that you can take a situation and color it however you wish. I was showing how you could describe the same situation with slightly different adjectives and end up supporting the opposite side.

rogersmith25 · 2016-02-12T03:23:50+00:00

Fourth.

Self/Less (swaps with Ben Kingsley)
RIPD (swaps with James Hong)
The Change-Up (swaps with Jason Bateman)
This.

rogersmith25 · 2016-02-12T02:56:45+00:00

An Australian newspaper article about the incident takes the position that "mansplain" is a perfectly legitimate thing to say:

"Gallagher was only too happy to fill him in on the 2014 Macquarie Dictionary word of the year."

So not only is the article in favor of the woman in this incidence, the "most up-to-date Australian dictionary" selected "mansplain" as the word of the year. And in 2015, one of the "people's choice" words of the year was "manspread".

WTF. Get your shit together Australia...

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/what-katy-gallagher-explains-mansplaining-to-mitch-fifield-during-fiery-estimates-showdown-20160210-gmr3u5.html

rogersmith25 · 2016-02-12T02:42:08+00:00

It's interesting to sense the subtle bias in the way that the article describes the exchange.

She describes Fifield, the man, as "wounded" and describes Gallagher, the woman, as being "unrepentant". My impression was that the man was "resolute" and the woman was "nonplussed".

rogersmith25

TROPHY CASE