Not a fan of BJJ, Judo or wrestling then, huh? Besides, you could easily turn that around: Everything wrong with a combat sport right there. Both young, healthy adults not scared to risk brain damage for the entertainment of others.
In wrestling, if you haven't made contact or try something the Ref gives you a warning, if still no contact theres a 2nd warning. On that second warning you have 10 seconds to score a point or be scored on. Otherwise your Opp gets 1 point. This vid I would say is probably the equivalent of 2 BJJ guys butt scootching around each other and awarding one the match because 1 butt scootched out of the ring a couple of times.
Well it's the same here, right? Both were being passive and were being penalised for it, but one also picked up a separate penalty. The problem seemed to be that red didn't realise she was on her last penalty. There was a BJJ match involving Keenan Cornelius a couple years ago where both fighters got DQd for refusing to fight in a competition in...Dubai maybe? So it happens. From that one fight you'd think BJJ was pathetic.
Yup was just clarifying in a previous post. Yup and Brendan Scaub v Roberto Cyborg (Metamoris) where, Schaub didn't commit to anything. A lot of butt scootching and half guard lay n prays. Metamoris in the end changed their rules to prevent that kind of match happening again.
Both, they literally did nothing, other then hop around like methed out rabbits... I had heard it was TKD, but it is apparently Karate. Was going to mention that if it was TKD, that this is a big improvement in the art, as at least they are maintaining some form of a guard now. Instead of leading with their chins..
Funny this method of winning by trying to cause an error by the opponent. This was the sort of thing that happened when Karelin lost (only the 2nd time in his career) because a new rule penalised a wrestler if he broke the clinch early. According to the new Greco-Roman rules, the two had to remain locked for one minute or until one executed a scoring move. Karelin's hands slipped so a penalty was given. The American wrestler basically ran or stalled for the whole match. Silly way for someone to beat a man that was 12 times European Champ, 9 times World Champ and 3 times Olympic Gold medalist before this match. There should always have to be something positive done to win. IMHO rule sets should not reward people for not trying. In the case like this karate match I would award a no contest or a draw. No gold deserved, they can share a silver if something has to be awarded. LFD
Should have tied their belts together so they were 2 foot apart and then let them have at it. Last one standing wins. That'd be a real test of their karate.
Basically, they both got repeated penalties for passivity and one also got a penalty for stepping out of the area. Red accumulated enough penalties that blue won by default without having even thrown an attack. A terrible match indeed, but sadly not too atypical for many matches. It's another unintended consequence of the ruleset. Basically, if points are equal (or zero) when the clock runs out, the match goes to sudden-death (not literally...). So some competitors bounce on the spot and try to make enough fake-outs to avoid penalties for passive conduct in order to deliberately drag the match into extra time, knowing that they can potentially win with a low-scoring technique in the sudden-death phase.
One of my most frustrating matches was when me and my opponent stayed in clinch. We were pretty much equal with the hand fighting and countering. In the end, he pretty much just pushed me out the ring because he was stronger and whenever I would spin him he would just keep within boundaries. We both got an earful from the Ref now and again for inactivity, but we were basically just locked horns. Longest fee minutes ever.
I just wanna' know the person who came up with that phrase. Like, did they think it was going to be some awesome, reality checking zinger rather than the most asinine line ever?
It's a lot snappier than 'please consider how structural inequality in society has potentially given you an unfair advantage over those who do not share your background'.
Works as well as "stop being an idiot" for getting your point across, rather than saying "stop trying to condense the complex idea of structural inequality into a one liner, often ambiguously applied and misused in a way to gain moral superiority in an argument the way 'you're an idiot' tries to establish intellectual superiority."
I do love how it was applied in this case, to counter a statement that had nothing to do with social justice whatsoever. Still, and I am making some assumptions here, I'm thinking that someone called Charles, who abbreviates Buckinghamshire to "Bucks", probably knows a thing or two about privilege Though the username "chucksmanhood" is ambiguous. Are they named after the manhood of a Charles other than themselves? Or maybe they no longer identify as male, so they have "chucked" their manhood? All it takes is an apostrophe to clear this conundrum up.
Yeah I pretty much saw the username and the comment and LoLed and didn't take it seriously at all. My comment was a bit of an aside, but I thought your reaction post was hilarious too
