Jump to content
MSU158

Askren.......OUCH!

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, MadMardigain said:

Pretty standard procedure to take them to get evaluated when you knocked out like that.  But yes hopefully he as good as can be expected. 

I think hes ok right now hes active on twitter and i believe he will be on ariel halwanis show tomorrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, TheWrestlingGonad said:

Masvidal was practicing the flying knee exclusively the day before the match.  I watched a video of him hitting it continuously with his coach holding a pad on the UFC Twitter page.    He executed it perfectly.   

yeah its to bad askren didnt keep his head up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the previous time record?  Obviously 5 seconds is really short, but I feel like almost every time I watch one of the high profile UFC matches (admittedly not too often), it’s over in like less than a minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Six seconds by Duane Ludwig...

I like Askren and all but he was talking allllll sorts of junk to Masvidal... About everything under the sun... For the newer fans of the sport Masvidal is an OG ... Like fighting bare knuckled in backyards on Kimbo Slice's youtube videos OG... He is legit no b.s. kind of cat... I get smack talk can help sell the fight but there are ppl in the fight game and in life that are cut from a different cloth... The type of ppl that dont just have things roll off their back when ppl disrespect them... Its an OG from the hardened street mindset... I get it ... I understand it... Also... ppl talkimg how mma is gonna get ppl killed etc... Is it possible... Sure... Anything is possible... However, boxing has had ppl legit die in the ring and after the fight... And the NFL is 1000000 times worse... when u factor in CTE - mental illness - injuries after the fact and life altering injuries... but ppl line up to watch it every weekend...

 

The fighters know the consequences of the fight game... The chose to do it...

Im a wrestler and a veteran... I knew what "could" happen when I got involved with both... 

As Max Halloway says... "It is what it is"

#PatMilkovichYoungestNCAAChampEver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, LowSingleOTW said:

And the NFL is 1000000 times worse... when u factor in CTE - mental illness - injuries after the fact and life altering injuries... but ppl line up to watch it every weekend...

I guarantee you that CTE will be worse in the UFC than it is in the NFL long term. These guys literally get punched in the face, so of course that's going to cause more brain damage than hits in football rattling the brain from loss of momentum.  UFC fighters just haven't aged enough and there are way fewer of them out there than NFL athletes.  Once you give it time and normalize for the respective size of the leagues, it won't be a discussion.  You can already see the effects in guys like Liddell, Diaz, Diego Sanchez, etc.  The only question is whether MMA is more dangerous than Boxing....It's tough to say since the KOs are more brutal in MMA, but there are fewer repeated shots to the head than boxing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Billyhoyle said:

I guarantee you that CTE will be worse in the UFC than it is in the NFL long term. These guys literally get punched in the face, so of course that's going to cause more brain damage than hits in football rattling the brain from loss of momentum.  UFC fighters just haven't aged enough and there are way fewer of them out there than NFL athletes.  Once you give it time and normalize for the respective size of the leagues, it won't be a discussion.  You can already see the effects in guys like Liddell, Diaz, Diego Sanchez, etc.  The only question is whether MMA is more dangerous than Boxing....It's tough to say since the KOs are more brutal in MMA, but there are fewer repeated shots to the head than boxing.  

Not really true.  Yes, these guys get hit in the face, but how often does that occur at full speed without headgear?  The top guys fight maybe 2x's a year and aren't taking full punches in practice.  Meanwhile, NFL lineman, on average, sustain 60 car crashes, PER GAME(not even accounting for practices), with the equivalency of hitting a wall at 30 mph.  The very large amount of repeated blunt force trauma to the head dwarfs the exposure to an average MMA competitor.  It just comes down to physics.  NFL athletes are just so big, strong and fast that nearly EVERY collision is going to rattle the brain.  Take 1000's of those collisions over a career and it WILL create irreversible brain damage.

The above isn't to say that MMA isn't brutal and won't cause significant damage as well.  I am just pointing out that a career in football from peewee through the NFL is going to dwarf anything else other than being a volunteer crash dumby for a car company!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, MSU158 said:

Not really true.  Yes, these guys get hit in the face, but how often does that occur at full speed without headgear?  The top guys fight maybe 2x's a year and aren't taking full punches in practice.  Meanwhile, NFL lineman, on average, sustain 60 car crashes, PER GAME(not even accounting for practices), with the equivalency of hitting a wall at 30 mph.  The very large amount of repeated blunt force trauma to the head dwarfs the exposure to an average MMA competitor.  It just comes down to physics.  NFL athletes are just so big, strong and fast that nearly EVERY collision is going to rattle the brain.  Take 1000's of those collisions over a career and it WILL create irreversible brain damage.

The above isn't to say that MMA isn't brutal and won't cause significant damage as well.  I am just pointing out that a career in football from peewee through the NFL is going to dwarf anything else other than being a volunteer crash dumby for a car company!

Isn't this belief mostly only supported by the fact that there is a giant pool of data supporting CTE for football players for many years, while we have yet to get the same kind of data for UFC fighters because the sport is still relatively young?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Billyhoyle said:

I guarantee you that CTE will be worse in the UFC than it is in the NFL long term. These guys literally get punched in the face, so of course that's going to cause more brain damage than hits in football rattling the brain from loss of momentum.  UFC fighters just haven't aged enough and there are way fewer of them out there than NFL athletes.  Once you give it time and normalize for the respective size of the leagues, it won't be a discussion.  You can already see the effects in guys like Liddell, Diaz, Diego Sanchez, etc.  The only question is whether MMA is more dangerous than Boxing....It's tough to say since the KOs are more brutal in MMA, but there are fewer repeated shots to the head than boxing.  

No sport will ever be worse than boxing for CTE. Definitely not MMA. The majority of the time spent in MMA is on the ground or defending TDs, i.e. grappling. Boxing is 100% standup. Even in MMA standup wars, a lot of time is chewed up on the clinch or against the fence that is not allowed in boxing. And then you have the simple fact that championship boxing is a 12-round sport (36 total minutes of fighting) and MMA is a 5-round sport (25 total minutes of fighting).

Edited by wrestlingnerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, russelscout said:

Isn't this belief mostly only supported by the fact that there is a giant pool of data supporting CTE for football players for many years, while we have yet to get the same kind of data for UFC fighters because the sport is still relatively young?

Again, I am not saying that MMA fighters are not highly susceptible to CTE.  I just pointed out STRONG numbers that show the amount of collisions creating brain trauma that NFL linemen take dwarfs what an MMA fighter would see in the same time span.

Now, boxing, I admit could challenge this, but even boxers only fight 1-2 times per year and usually spar with heavy gloves and headgear.  While in a fight, the odds are better they take more powerful shots, more often, but that amount over the course of a year most likely falls WAY short of the average NFL player.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people who have an emotional reaction against MMA often cite CTE. 

But when it comes to football, CTE somehow becomes much less of a concern to them — even though children play it. Why? Because we’re accustomed to football.

Similarly, many people who have an emotional reaction against MMA also tend to want to ban it.

However, they would never dream of banning other dangerous activities they are accustomed to, like football, boxing, motorcycle riding, smoking, etc.

So, IMO, this is all just an emotional debate. Which is perfectly fine, but let’s just see it for what it is. 

Edited by Katie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Katie said:

Many people who have an emotional reaction against MMA often cite CTE. 

But when it comes to football, CTE somehow becomes much less of a concern to them — even though children play it. Why? Because we’re accustomed to football.

Similarly, many people who have an emotional reaction against MMA also tend to want to ban it.

However, they would never dream of banning other dangerous activities they are accustomed to, like football, boxing, motorcycle riding, smoking, etc.

So, IMO, this is all just an emotional debate. Which is perfectly fine, but let’s just see it for what it is. 

I am not against MMA at all, but I DO get many of the points made by its detractors.  Let's be real.  The objective of MMA is to either beat your opponent unconscious or into submission.  As such, it is hard for the "enlightened" ones to wrap their head around such a "barbaric" activity.

The others you list are very dangerous and 1 is EXCEPTIONALLY stupid(smoking), but the INTENT isn't to decisively hurt your opponent or even yourself.  As a result, banning anything other than smoking, just doesn't make sense.  However, continuing to try to improve safety should and will continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Askren's wrestling IQ I was surprised that he didn't pick up Masvidal's charge, and either pivot to a throw by, or throw a lateral drop, but instead lowered and advance face forward into a leg attack that quickly became a flying knee. Head against knee, the knee wins every time. I would have like to have seen how that fight would have played out. As much as I hated the outcome, I have to give Masvidal credit for coming prepared with a strategy that worked. In the wake of two back to back embarrassing defeats, first losing in silly fashion to JB at BTS, and then against Masvidal in the quickest knockout defeat in UFC history, it's time for Ben to dedicate 100% to his Askren Wrestling Club (AWC) before he tarnishes that brand further than he already has.

Edited by skikayaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, MSU158 said:

I am not against MMA at all, but I DO get many of the points made by its detractors.  Let's be real.  The objective of MMA is to either beat your opponent unconscious or into submission.  As such, it is hard for the "enlightened" ones to wrap their head around such a "barbaric" activity.

The others you list are very dangerous and 1 is EXCEPTIONALLY stupid(smoking), but the INTENT isn't to decisively hurt your opponent or even yourself.  As a result, banning anything other than smoking, just doesn't make sense.  However, continuing to try to improve safety should and will continue.

Two things:

1) Why do you think there is no intent to hurt your opponent in boxing? A knockout is caused by an injury to the brain. You don’t think that injury is intended?

2) More importantly, your argument is another example of emotions first, reasons second. 

The emotion is MMA is bad, and football is acceptable. So you separate them on the basis of what you believe the intent is in each sport.

But, as a policy matter, why does the intent matter? If we know football causes brain damage, why does that make it less problematic? 

People who drink and drive don’t intend to kill other people. But we outlaw it anyway because it’s guaranteed to happen. 

(I’m not saying MMA or football should outlawed. I’m just saying that the conversation about MMA is often emotionally based.)

Edited by Katie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MSU158 said:

Again, I am not saying that MMA fighters are not highly susceptible to CTE.  I just pointed out STRONG numbers that show the amount of collisions creating brain trauma that NFL linemen take dwarfs what an MMA fighter would see in the same time span.

 Now, boxing, I admit could challenge this, but even boxers only fight 1-2 times per year and usually spar with heavy gloves and headgear.  While in a fight, the odds are better they take more powerful shots, more often, but that amount over the course of a year most likely falls WAY short of the average NFL player.........

WWE might be a fitting comparison also. Yes, it's super fake and the performers know how to take hits and falls but look at the rate of CTE and early deaths in pro wrestling. At least NFL players receive top medical support. Don't UFC fighters get roughly the same crappy healthcare as WWE wrestlers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Katie said:

Two things:

1) Why do you think there is no intent to hurt your opponent in boxing? A knockout is caused by an injury to the brain. You don’t think that injury is intended?

2) More importantly, your argument is another example of emotions first, reasons second. 

The emotion is MMA is bad, and football is acceptable. So you separate them on the basis of what you believe the intent is in each sport.

But, as a policy matter, why does the intent matter? If we know football causes brain damage, why does that make it less problematic? 

People who drink and drive don’t intend to kill other people. But we outlaw it anyway because it’s guaranteed to happen. 

(I’m not saying MMA or football should outlawed. I’m just saying that the conversation about MMA is often emotionally based.)

1.)  Boxing is close, but the use of gloves and keeping it to SOLELY punching makes a big difference to me and I assume, most others.  That isn't to say the intent is not to hurt, but not close to the degree that MMA usually involves.  These things make boxing more of a "sport" than a straight up fight.  MMA basically IS straight up fighting and that makes it hard for most to accept, emotions or not.

2.)  I don't think emotions really have anything to do with it.  MMA is as close to a legal, organized street fight as you can get.  Of course many are going to rail against it.

Intent should ALWAYS matter.  If the INTENT is to truly hurt EVERY opponent as much as possible as quickly as possible, there absolutely is a strong argument for banning it.  If the intent is a sport that shows athletic greatness without truly trying to hurt your opponent, why wouldn't you try to continue it while making it safer?

There are aspects to DUI's BECAUSE of the lack of intent.  Intent is one of, if not the most important aspects of law.  That is why there are so many degrees of murder.  Still, comparing drunk driving to football is ludicrous.  It is illegal because of the inherent danger it causes EVERYONE on the road.  In sports like Football these guys know the risks and the organizations are truly working hard to minimize them.  Simply not a comparison at ANY level.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, MSU158 said:

1.)  Boxing is close, but the use of gloves and keeping it to SOLELY punching makes a big difference to me and I assume, most others.  That isn't to say the intent is not to hurt, but not close to the degree that MMA usually involves.  These things make boxing more of a "sport" than a straight up fight.  MMA basically IS straight up fighting and that makes it hard for most to accept, emotions or not.

2.)  I don't think emotions really have anything to do with it.  MMA is as close to a legal, organized street fight as you can get.  Of course many are going to rail against it.

Intent should ALWAYS matter.  If the INTENT is to truly hurt EVERY opponent as much as possible as quickly as possible, there absolutely is a strong argument for banning it.  If the intent is a sport that shows athletic greatness without truly trying to hurt your opponent, why wouldn't you try to continue it while making it safer?

There are aspects to DUI's BECAUSE of the lack of intent.  Intent is one of, if not the most important aspects of law.  That is why there are so many degrees of murder.  Still, comparing drunk driving to football is ludicrous.  It is illegal because of the inherent danger it causes EVERYONE on the road.  In sports like Football these guys know the risks and the organizations are truly working hard to minimize them.  Simply not a comparison at ANY level.........

I suppose we’ll just have to disagree on the basics of the argument. (Intent, by the way, is not a requirement for every crime. Take involuntary manslaughter, for instance.)

Edited by Katie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Katie said:

I suppose we’ll just have to disagree on the basics of the argument. (Intent, by the way, is not a requirement for a crime. Take involuntary manslaughter, for instance.)

I said degrees did I not?  I never said lack of intent frees you from negligence or responsibility. But, it sure changes/decides the degree of punishment.

Also, when deciding on banning something that is not inherently bad, intent should absolutely be considered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, MSU158 said:

I said degrees did I not?  I never said lack of intent frees you from negligence or responsibility. But, it sure changes/decides the degree of punishment.

Also, when deciding on banning something that is not inherently bad, intent should absolutely be considered. 

You are not distinguishing between law, policy, and (possibly) morality. Doing so will help you think more clearly.

Also your discussion of the law is both muddled and inaccurate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wrestlingnerd said:

No sport will ever be worse than boxing for CTE. Definitely not MMA. The majority of the time spent in MMA is on the ground or defending TDs, i.e. grappling. Boxing is 100% standup. Even in MMA standup wars, a lot of time is chewed up on the clinch or against the fence that is not allowed in boxing. And then you have the simple fact that championship boxing is a 12-round sport (36 total minutes of fighting) and MMA is a 5-round sport (25 total minutes of fighting).

I agree, but the only reason that I think mma may possibly be worse is because of kicks/flying knees. There is significantly more brain damage done from one of those knockouts than punches. Repeated blows like in boxing cause CTE, but a single huge impact like a car crash/explosion can cause it too. So because MMA is so young, we can’t yet say if it is more/less safe than boxing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, skikayaker said:

With Askren's wrestling IQ I was surprised that he didn't pick up Masvidal's charge, and either pivot to a throw by, or throw a lateral drop, but instead lowered and advance face forward into a leg attack that quickly became a flying knee. Head against knee, the knee wins every time. I would have like to have seen how that fight would have played out. As much as I hated the outcome, I have to give Masvidal credit for coming prepared with a strategy that worked. In the wake of two back to back embarrassing defeats, first losing in silly fashion to JB at BTS, and then against Masvidal in the quickest knockout defeat in UFC history, it's time for Ben to dedicate 100% to his Askren Wrestling Club (AWC) before he tarnishes that brand further than he already has.

So you would like him to resign from the Badger RTC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Katie said:

You are not distinguishing between law, policy, and (possibly) morality. Doing so will help you think more clearly.

Also your discussion of the law is both muddled and inaccurate. 

Why do I have to distinguish and who says I am not, anyway?  If the design and intent of a thing is to hurt someone, all 3 are in play and effect people's opinions across that same board.

Muddled and inaccurate?  There are accidental death and self defense.  Both of which you have NO criminal responsibility.  INTENT has EVERYTHING to do with those outcomes.

How about this:

1st Degree:  Premeditation and then carrying it out makes the intent 100% clear.  Hell, the word "intentional" is even used in the definition.

2nd Degree:  2nd degree is also "intentional" but the lack of planning and forethought implies a lesser "intent" as the planning of the act infers a deeper "intent" to KILL.

3rd Degree:  This is when the "intent" is to hurt but NOT kill.  Negligence and recklessness can come into play here.

Felony Murder:  This can range extensively as it is usally a by-product of another crime such as arson, armed robbery, rape and even some DUI's.

Voluntary Manslaughter/Murder:  Heat of passion type where "intent" cannot be rationalized due to a emotionally or mentally disturbed state so that they cannot reasonably control their emotions.

Involuntary Manslaughter/Murder:  "unintentional" killing resulting from "criminal" negligence/recklessness.  The KEY here for culpability is the act of crime that CAUSED the death.  Still the death being "unintended" decides this charge.

Accidental death/self defense/justifiable homicide: This is 100% defined by I N T E N T-

1.)lawful acts of violence were excusable as homicide by misadventure. 2.)Accidental killings that do not result from the defendant's criminal NEGLIGENCE and do not occur during the commission of crime are not criminal offenses.  3.)"homicide is excusable  [w]hen committed by accident and misfortune, or in doing any other lawful act by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent." CA PENAL § 195. Other states simply omit this class of homicide from their statutes defining prosecutable offenses.

 

Edited by MSU158

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, MSU158 said:

Why do I have to distinguish and who says I am not, anyway?  If the design and intent of a thing is to hurt someone, all 3 are in play and effect people's opinions across that same board.

Muddled and inaccurate?  There are accidental death and self defense.  Both of which you have NO criminal responsibility.  INTENT has EVERYTHING to do with those outcomes.

How about this:

1st Degree:  Premeditation and then carrying it out makes the intent 100% clear.  Hell, the word "intentional" is even used in the definition.

2nd Degree:  2nd degree is also "intentional" but the lack of planning and forethought implies a lesser "intent" as the planning of the act infers a deeper "intent" to KILL.

3rd Degree:  This is when the "intent" is to hurt but NOT kill.  Negligence and recklessness can come into play here.

Felony Murder:  This can range extensively as it is usally a by-product of another crime such as arson, armed robbery, rape and even some DUI's.

Voluntary Manslaughter/Murder:  Heat of passion type where "intent" cannot be rationalized due to a emotionally or mentally disturbed state so that they cannot reasonably control their emotions.

Involuntary Manslaughter/Murder:  "unintentional" killing resulting from "criminal" negligence/recklessness.  The KEY here for culpability is the act of crime that CAUSED the death.  Still the death being "unintended" decides this charge.

Accidental death/self defense/justifiable homicide: This is 100% defined by I N T E N T-

1.)lawful acts of violence were excusable as homicide by misadventure. 2.)Accidental killings that do not result from the defendant's criminal NEGLIGENCE and do not occur during the commission of crime are not criminal offenses.  3.)"homicide is excusable  [w]hen committed by accident and misfortune, or in doing any other lawful act by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent." CA PENAL § 195. Other states simply omit this class of homicide from their statutes defining prosecutable offenses.

 

If the different categories of homicide were all that existed in the entirety of the law (criminal law, contracts, torts, property, etc.) your statements about intent would make some sense. But that is not the case. 

Edited by Katie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...