Any guesses on how quickly this one ends? 10-15 seconds... She said on the radio she wanted this victory to be "thorough"... And she will dedicate this one to Rowdy Roddy Piper who sadly passed away...
Osi, there are plenty of women as big as men. I have no problem with women competing with men in their same weight classes. Mayweather fights the best people on earth of his size (including unfortunately untrained women).
But Mayweather doesn't fight the best people on Earth. He fits the best people on Earth AT HIS SIZE. That's a qualifier. Just like Rousey fighting the best people on Earth the same gender as her is.
You can't just pick and choose which qualifiers you want to take a stand on. 140lb guys don't fight 200lb guys for a reason, and guys don't fight girls for a reason.
And no shit men are better athletes than women. It's called genetics and you can thank evolution for that. You're not breaking any new ground by pointing it out.
Brutal even for radar's standards. Openly sexist, too! What a look... must get laid all the time.
Arc please demonstrate how anything I've said is sexist. Its a fact: Woman can't compete at the highest levels athletically. Otherwise they would, right?
Literally, why should you give 2 fucks what radar says?
Tonight, Rousey's per fight average time went from 3:29 to 2:08. I know they flashed a graphic that 3:29 was the 4th shortest in UFC history. Wonder where it ranks now.
Ronnie, the point is that there are all kinds of subcategories of people who are inferior athletes who don't get have the right to compete against similarly inferior athletes. Why is it just women then? Why not other groups of inferior athletes?
I don't think the handicapped comparison is valid. There are limited events for handicapped competitors and given the obstacles they have to overcome I think the opportunities are proportionate. But again comparing women to the handicapped seems a bit patronizing.
Actually, there are many subcategories of competition with differing levels of athleticism, whether they are women competitors, amateur competitors, junior competitors, senior competitors, disabled competitors, special needs competitors, and they are all athletes deserving of their own levels of competitions. And their inability to compete at the same level as their fully-abled and in-their-prime-age male counterparts doesn't make them inferior as you keep saying. Competition at an appropriate level in these subcategories is still competition.
And as far as the disabled and special needs competitors go, they compete in numerous similar events as their fully-abled counterparts. They're athletes just like their fully-abled counterparts. And like their fully-abled counterparts, they have and deserve their own level of competition.
RE: RE: Literally, why should you give 2 fucks what radar says?
the contrarian position is to be admired...but in this case you are acting like a fucking donkey.
To sum up, you believe that unless women can compete with men in sports, they shouldn't get to play?
Good grief
Right. Why should they get special leagues just because they don't have penises? Should there be an NBA league for people under 6'3" with verticals less than 32"? Do those of us born like that deserve it just like women do? What other criteria besides lacking a penis merit an opportunity to compete against similarly inferior athletes?
Addressing the complete idiocy of your point:
So then why should there be weight classes for boxing? It's not a heavyweights fault that a bantam weight is inferior in size and strength. Why should there be weight classes? Just have one champion of boxing.
the contrarian position is to be admired...but in this case you are acting like a fucking donkey.
To sum up, you believe that unless women can compete with men in sports, they shouldn't get to play?
Good grief
Right. Why should they get special leagues just because they don't have penises? Should there be an NBA league for people under 6'3" with verticals less than 32"? Do those of us born like that deserve it just like women do? What other criteria besides lacking a penis merit an opportunity to compete against similarly inferior athletes?
Addressing the complete idiocy of your point:
So then why should there be weight classes for boxing? It's not a heavyweights fault that a bantam weight is inferior in size and strength. Why should there be weight classes? Just have one champion of boxing.
Moreover, why root for any college basketball or football teams, when they'd be crushed in the pro leagues.
Brutal even for radar's standards. Openly sexist, too! What a look... must get laid all the time.
Arc please demonstrate how anything I've said is sexist. Its a fact: Woman can't compete at the highest levels athletically. Otherwise they would, right?
Apparently you've got quite a bit to learn about genetics and the reasons why they are "inferior" athletically.
Your assertion that women's sports shouldn't exist because you "don't like" them and find them inferior is yes, sexist.
for UFC as far as PPV buys? I didn't purchase the fight last night because there was nothing else of interest on the card, and as much as I wanted to see the Rousey fight, I couldn't justify forking over the money for what I figured would be less than 60 seconds of fight time.
Going forward is she going to be able to carry a PPV card on her own, or do you think if her fights continue to be this one sided are they going to have to start attaching her to more exciting cards?
RE: At what point does Rousey's domination actually start to be a negative
for UFC as far as PPV buys? I didn't purchase the fight last night because there was nothing else of interest on the card, and as much as I wanted to see the Rousey fight, I couldn't justify forking over the money for what I figured would be less than 60 seconds of fight time.
Going forward is she going to be able to carry a PPV card on her own, or do you think if her fights continue to be this one sided are they going to have to start attaching her to more exciting cards?
Reminds me of Tyson back in his prime.
RE: At what point does Rousey's domination actually start to be a negative
for UFC as far as PPV buys? I didn't purchase the fight last night because there was nothing else of interest on the card, and as much as I wanted to see the Rousey fight, I couldn't justify forking over the money for what I figured would be less than 60 seconds of fight time.
Going forward is she going to be able to carry a PPV card on her own, or do you think if her fights continue to be this one sided are they going to have to start attaching her to more exciting cards?
I don't know. I went to a sports bar last night to watch the whole card. No cover charge. I have no idea what places like these have to pay to screen PPVs. But depending on what that price is, it's possible the UFC is still cash in, and will continue to do so, even as Rousey cleans out her division with fights that end in less than a minute.
She's just so much better than her competition. Forget about her superior technique and skill, but her strength stands out so much. She's just built like a rock. I wish there was a challenger to her. The only Rousey fight I'd genuinely be interested in moving forward is the Cyborg fight. I really hope a challenger emerges in the women's division.
Thanks for the link. First time I've seen her fight.
that in all of the years of radar's off-kilter weirdness, this goes farther than any other.
OK, radar, let's think this through a little. You have a 6-year-old daughter (unlikely, but go with me here).
She decides she wants to become the best athlete she can possibly be in a given sport--let's say, basketball. She busts her ass, day after day, and by golly , she succeeds. Does the fact that genetically and physiologically she can never expect to be equal to those of the male gender--hormones, musculature, bone structure, etc.--mean that for the rest of her life she needn't bother?
--That she should never fight to become a champion competing against others with her same physical attributes?
--That if she becomes the best in the world, fans of her sport should still never admire her as much as they do the ten thousandth best male basketball player, who will still be better than her?
--That sports fans all over the world who enjoy seeing her compete successfully against other athletes with the same genetic makeup are all stupid and delusional?
--That the 99.9% of sports fans who think that there should be a split for the genders, based upon their vastly different genetic makeups, are not at your level of intellect and brilliance?
You may be right, but please explain. The logic just doesn't seem to work. The more likely answer is that on some unconscious (or conscious) level, you possess a world class degree of intellectual masochism, and a crying need to get your brain kicked in every so often.
RE: Holly Holm might be able to stand and exchange with Rousey.
The operative word being "might." But if Rousey takes her down it's all over.
Is anyone even the littlest bit psyched to see Rousey-Tate 3? I don't think even the new and improved Tate has a chance.
Wish Cyborg would just back off the Test and HGH and drop to 135. That's the only fight for her at this point that can be competitive. TSte is tough but bein tough isn't going to be enough. She's not better than Rhonda anywhere still.
Very likely. But the thing is, I don't know how they match up on paper. I think Rousey would be favored just by virtue of the fact that she's the champ in the more prestigious organization. Cyborg having to come down from 145, off drugs, could be hard on her.
Yeah. Cyborg is a brawler. She's huge for a woman. She's only my been busted once for juicing but he advantage is her aggression and her strength. She's a legit Jiu Jitsu black belt but at 135 I think her strength is a it negated. Also there isn't a better woman in MMA at taking people down if it gets tight. Cyborg is the most likely to be able to beat Rhonda bit I don't think she can. No way she's favored IMO
This thread has some of the dumbest shit I have ever seen posted
Referring to this dipshit as a "contrarian" gives him way too much credit.
Hope to see Serena finish that grand slam this year too. I'm not even a tennis fan or a UFC fan (I guess I'm the last wave of the boxing dinosaurs) but I don't know how anyone can't appreciate that level of athletic greatness on display. Gotta be someone who never competed in anything ever
In terms of who are you more impressed by? I would still lean toward Serena for 2 reasons....
1) longevity and
2) the fact that I'm certain she faces superior competition just by the shear math of it. So many more young women grow up pursuing tennis as a potential career compared to the UFC.
Either way, two great athletes who tower above their competition to a degree that you cannot help but be impressed by
when you include longevity, there's no doubt Serena is still the alpha-female in sports.
But it feels like Serena only turns on "God-mode" when she feels like it. Rousey lives in God-mode. I've never seen Rousey in anything other than God-mode.
And I have to agree with Greg. I think your second point is far more relevant and is spot on.
Maybe it has to do with MMA (UFC) still being seen as man's sport by the public. Or it may be due to women still being raised to not be aggressive and fight. Or maybe it's because UFC is still a relatively a new sporting event as compared to tennis or even other forms of combative sports. However, like boxing and martial arts competitions, I think as time goes on, UFC (and MMA in general) will become more open and enticing to female fighters.
I know very little about the sport but it seems as if Ronda is the whole package and nobody will beat her. Quick, strong, and lighting fast punches and that filthy arm bars of hers. It just seems like it's going to be a bottomless pit of next challengers (tomato cans) for her. All these strategies and psyche out tactics are pointless if your opponent is a monster.
Ronda is only going to get better. She still hasn't shown us what she
Can do when challenged and I think she's got way more in the gas tank than we can imagine. She keeps picking up new skills and excelling fast.
I guarantee you this...she is inspiring more young girls to gravitate towards mma and the sport will only grow. She's absolutely amazing and so fucking dominant. She probably won't face real competition until some young blood challenges her in five years, unless Hollywood keeps her.
Serena is dominant a majority of the time and sometimes can sleepwalk through a match. Ronda has never let her foot off the gas ever. Nobody who ever stepped into the ring could actually believe they have a chance. Bethe did not look happy at all once they were in the octagon with her phony stare down. Don't cry.
Regarding rousey having her competitive switch in permanent "on" position relative to Serena having her moments where she doesn't quite look like herself...... It's really tough to compare when Rousey literally only has to perform 2-3 times a year, with months of training culminating in that one night.
I love them both though. I have an 8 year old niece that is like a daughter to me, and she finds the whole Rousey phenomenon to be really cool. I'm sure she has a lot of company. She's not going to be inspired to become an MMA fighter or anything, but I think a lot of young girls can draw inspiration from Rousey on some level.
that in all of the years of radar's off-kilter weirdness, this goes farther than any other.
OK, radar, let's think this through a little. You have a 6-year-old daughter (unlikely, but go with me here).
She decides she wants to become the best athlete she can possibly be in a given sport--let's say, basketball. She busts her ass, day after day, and by golly , she succeeds. Does the fact that genetically and physiologically she can never expect to be equal to those of the male gender--hormones, musculature, bone structure, etc.--mean that for the rest of her life she needn't bother?
--That she should never fight to become a champion competing against others with her same physical attributes?
--That if she becomes the best in the world, fans of her sport should still never admire her as much as they do the ten thousandth best male basketball player, who will still be better than her?
--That sports fans all over the world who enjoy seeing her compete successfully against other athletes with the same genetic makeup are all stupid and delusional?
--That the 99.9% of sports fans who think that there should be a split for the genders, based upon their vastly different genetic makeups, are not at your level of intellect and brilliance?
The answer to all of that is probably yes. Furthermore, he could give birth to the next generation's Bob Dylan, and he'd disown the kid for not exhibiting the dexterity and skill of Sabicas. "Oh, you're just strumming chords and playing I-IV-V progressions? How plebian."
Quote:
Weight Classes? Mayweather? Please respond thanks.
Osi, there are plenty of women as big as men. I have no problem with women competing with men in their same weight classes. Mayweather fights the best people on earth of his size (including unfortunately untrained women).
But Mayweather doesn't fight the best people on Earth. He fits the best people on Earth AT HIS SIZE. That's a qualifier. Just like Rousey fighting the best people on Earth the same gender as her is.
You can't just pick and choose which qualifiers you want to take a stand on. 140lb guys don't fight 200lb guys for a reason, and guys don't fight girls for a reason.
And no shit men are better athletes than women. It's called genetics and you can thank evolution for that. You're not breaking any new ground by pointing it out.
Arc please demonstrate how anything I've said is sexist. Its a fact: Woman can't compete at the highest levels athletically. Otherwise they would, right?
Kicker try mounting an argument if you can.
Only annoyance was too many prelim fights.
She has got to be, pound for pound, so much better than pretty much anyone else.
I don't think the handicapped comparison is valid. There are limited events for handicapped competitors and given the obstacles they have to overcome I think the opportunities are proportionate. But again comparing women to the handicapped seems a bit patronizing.
Actually, there are many subcategories of competition with differing levels of athleticism, whether they are women competitors, amateur competitors, junior competitors, senior competitors, disabled competitors, special needs competitors, and they are all athletes deserving of their own levels of competitions. And their inability to compete at the same level as their fully-abled and in-their-prime-age male counterparts doesn't make them inferior as you keep saying. Competition at an appropriate level in these subcategories is still competition.
And as far as the disabled and special needs competitors go, they compete in numerous similar events as their fully-abled counterparts. They're athletes just like their fully-abled counterparts. And like their fully-abled counterparts, they have and deserve their own level of competition.
Quote:
Fuck him, don't read his shit, and improve your life. He will slink away to the hellhole that is his life soon enough.
Kicker try mounting an argument if you can.
Hey Pot! Do you want to meet Kettle?
And Kicker has provided more valid arguments in one discussion than you have during your entirety on BBI. By the way...why are you avoiding Bill2?
Quote:
Fuck him, don't read his shit, and improve your life. He will slink away to the hellhole that is his life soon enough.
Kicker try mounting an argument if you can.
Answer Bill2.
Fight link - ( New Window )
Seeing this makes me regret everything I posted on the other thread. You are just awful.
Quote:
the contrarian position is to be admired...but in this case you are acting like a fucking donkey.
To sum up, you believe that unless women can compete with men in sports, they shouldn't get to play?
Good grief
Right. Why should they get special leagues just because they don't have penises? Should there be an NBA league for people under 6'3" with verticals less than 32"? Do those of us born like that deserve it just like women do? What other criteria besides lacking a penis merit an opportunity to compete against similarly inferior athletes?
Addressing the complete idiocy of your point:
So then why should there be weight classes for boxing? It's not a heavyweights fault that a bantam weight is inferior in size and strength. Why should there be weight classes? Just have one champion of boxing.
Thread is below. Someone asked and I posted it there.
Quote:
In comment 12398187 mfsd said:
Quote:
the contrarian position is to be admired...but in this case you are acting like a fucking donkey.
To sum up, you believe that unless women can compete with men in sports, they shouldn't get to play?
Good grief
Right. Why should they get special leagues just because they don't have penises? Should there be an NBA league for people under 6'3" with verticals less than 32"? Do those of us born like that deserve it just like women do? What other criteria besides lacking a penis merit an opportunity to compete against similarly inferior athletes?
Addressing the complete idiocy of your point:
So then why should there be weight classes for boxing? It's not a heavyweights fault that a bantam weight is inferior in size and strength. Why should there be weight classes? Just have one champion of boxing.
Moreover, why root for any college basketball or football teams, when they'd be crushed in the pro leagues.
Quote:
Brutal even for radar's standards. Openly sexist, too! What a look... must get laid all the time.
Arc please demonstrate how anything I've said is sexist. Its a fact: Woman can't compete at the highest levels athletically. Otherwise they would, right?
Apparently you've got quite a bit to learn about genetics and the reasons why they are "inferior" athletically.
Your assertion that women's sports shouldn't exist because you "don't like" them and find them inferior is yes, sexist.
I can't believe I am even responding to this.
Going forward is she going to be able to carry a PPV card on her own, or do you think if her fights continue to be this one sided are they going to have to start attaching her to more exciting cards?
Going forward is she going to be able to carry a PPV card on her own, or do you think if her fights continue to be this one sided are they going to have to start attaching her to more exciting cards?
Reminds me of Tyson back in his prime.
Going forward is she going to be able to carry a PPV card on her own, or do you think if her fights continue to be this one sided are they going to have to start attaching her to more exciting cards?
I don't know. I went to a sports bar last night to watch the whole card. No cover charge. I have no idea what places like these have to pay to screen PPVs. But depending on what that price is, it's possible the UFC is still cash in, and will continue to do so, even as Rousey cleans out her division with fights that end in less than a minute.
She's just so much better than her competition. Forget about her superior technique and skill, but her strength stands out so much. She's just built like a rock. I wish there was a challenger to her. The only Rousey fight I'd genuinely be interested in moving forward is the Cyborg fight. I really hope a challenger emerges in the women's division.
Only started by the best
Is anyone even the littlest bit psyched to see Rousey-Tate 3? I don't think even the new and improved Tate has a chance.
Don't know much about Woman's UFC but the fight she ends up losing will be a great one
OK, radar, let's think this through a little. You have a 6-year-old daughter (unlikely, but go with me here).
She decides she wants to become the best athlete she can possibly be in a given sport--let's say, basketball. She busts her ass, day after day, and by golly , she succeeds. Does the fact that genetically and physiologically she can never expect to be equal to those of the male gender--hormones, musculature, bone structure, etc.--mean that for the rest of her life she needn't bother?
--That she should never fight to become a champion competing against others with her same physical attributes?
--That if she becomes the best in the world, fans of her sport should still never admire her as much as they do the ten thousandth best male basketball player, who will still be better than her?
--That sports fans all over the world who enjoy seeing her compete successfully against other athletes with the same genetic makeup are all stupid and delusional?
--That the 99.9% of sports fans who think that there should be a split for the genders, based upon their vastly different genetic makeups, are not at your level of intellect and brilliance?
You may be right, but please explain. The logic just doesn't seem to work. The more likely answer is that on some unconscious (or conscious) level, you possess a world class degree of intellectual masochism, and a crying need to get your brain kicked in every so often.
Is anyone even the littlest bit psyched to see Rousey-Tate 3? I don't think even the new and improved Tate has a chance.
Wish Cyborg would just back off the Test and HGH and drop to 135. That's the only fight for her at this point that can be competitive. TSte is tough but bein tough isn't going to be enough. She's not better than Rhonda anywhere still.
Very likely. But the thing is, I don't know how they match up on paper. I think Rousey would be favored just by virtue of the fact that she's the champ in the more prestigious organization. Cyborg having to come down from 145, off drugs, could be hard on her.
Yeah. Cyborg is a brawler. She's huge for a woman. She's only my been busted once for juicing but he advantage is her aggression and her strength. She's a legit Jiu Jitsu black belt but at 135 I think her strength is a it negated. Also there isn't a better woman in MMA at taking people down if it gets tight. Cyborg is the most likely to be able to beat Rhonda bit I don't think she can. No way she's favored IMO
The way Ronnie just patronized women like that...
The way Ronnie just patronized women like that...
I've been through Cam's course on women's and gender studies course.
Hope to see Serena finish that grand slam this year too. I'm not even a tennis fan or a UFC fan (I guess I'm the last wave of the boxing dinosaurs) but I don't know how anyone can't appreciate that level of athletic greatness on display. Gotta be someone who never competed in anything ever
1) longevity and
2) the fact that I'm certain she faces superior competition just by the shear math of it. So many more young women grow up pursuing tennis as a potential career compared to the UFC.
Either way, two great athletes who tower above their competition to a degree that you cannot help but be impressed by
But it feels like Serena only turns on "God-mode" when she feels like it. Rousey lives in God-mode. I've never seen Rousey in anything other than God-mode.
Maybe it has to do with MMA (UFC) still being seen as man's sport by the public. Or it may be due to women still being raised to not be aggressive and fight. Or maybe it's because UFC is still a relatively a new sporting event as compared to tennis or even other forms of combative sports. However, like boxing and martial arts competitions, I think as time goes on, UFC (and MMA in general) will become more open and enticing to female fighters.
I guarantee you this...she is inspiring more young girls to gravitate towards mma and the sport will only grow. She's absolutely amazing and so fucking dominant. She probably won't face real competition until some young blood challenges her in five years, unless Hollywood keeps her.
Serena is dominant a majority of the time and sometimes can sleepwalk through a match. Ronda has never let her foot off the gas ever. Nobody who ever stepped into the ring could actually believe they have a chance. Bethe did not look happy at all once they were in the octagon with her phony stare down. Don't cry.
I love them both though. I have an 8 year old niece that is like a daughter to me, and she finds the whole Rousey phenomenon to be really cool. I'm sure she has a lot of company. She's not going to be inspired to become an MMA fighter or anything, but I think a lot of young girls can draw inspiration from Rousey on some level.
OK, radar, let's think this through a little. You have a 6-year-old daughter (unlikely, but go with me here).
She decides she wants to become the best athlete she can possibly be in a given sport--let's say, basketball. She busts her ass, day after day, and by golly , she succeeds. Does the fact that genetically and physiologically she can never expect to be equal to those of the male gender--hormones, musculature, bone structure, etc.--mean that for the rest of her life she needn't bother?
--That she should never fight to become a champion competing against others with her same physical attributes?
--That if she becomes the best in the world, fans of her sport should still never admire her as much as they do the ten thousandth best male basketball player, who will still be better than her?
--That sports fans all over the world who enjoy seeing her compete successfully against other athletes with the same genetic makeup are all stupid and delusional?
--That the 99.9% of sports fans who think that there should be a split for the genders, based upon their vastly different genetic makeups, are not at your level of intellect and brilliance?
The answer to all of that is probably yes. Furthermore, he could give birth to the next generation's Bob Dylan, and he'd disown the kid for not exhibiting the dexterity and skill of Sabicas. "Oh, you're just strumming chords and playing I-IV-V progressions? How plebian."