Post: #26

There's a few women out there who could probably hold their own in a brawl with the average guy, a lot of them played softball from what I remember.

Post: #27

Female fighters are disgusting and a joke.

As a newbie I had a MMA session one saturday and my sparring partner that day happened to be a female brown belt Jiu-Jiutsu and brown belt kickboxer. She looked quite mean and she had trained for years.

I thought that well, I'm going to get my ass kicked today but what a joke.
At that point it really hit me how weak women are even after a few years of training. Like someone else said here, a light jab and she were already sitting on her ass and she went furious, a few seconds of a wrestling attempt and the same thing happened.

It sucks to sparr with women, you always have to take it so light and they are unpredctable. I don't like the feeling of that I need to beat the shit out of a girl.

Post: #28

(07-18-2014 06:07 PM)Teedub Wrote:  Some people are saying it's just because men are bigger. It's more than that. Bone & muscle density etc are also huge factors. As are the way men have better spacial awareness etc.

Yup, it's not just size.

I'm in the strength sports (lifter) as a lightweight. I'm ok but not even in the top 10 of my small country in my weight class. There's an equivalent (as in, same bodyweight) female weight class (female middle-heavy weight) to mine, and my total is way beyond the world record set by a genetic freak of a female lifter. The top 3-5 females in my country would be like 12 y.o coming up against me, let alone the top guys in my weight class (and they in turn are like kids against the top male lifters in the worlds championship).

That is how far apart men and women are when it comes to raw strength.

Post: #29

Once again, physical differences will out-weigh feel-good bullshit in any setting. This is precisely why I will NEVER support females in the infantry for the military or even female Marines. I don't give a shit that you can hang on a bar for who-gives-a-shit how long; if any of your male comrades need rescuing, you won't be up to the task plain and simple. Clerical Marines were invented for women as far as I'm concerned.

Post: #30

More SJW bullshit. Note how the only women who say this kind of shit are those who wouldn't dream of actually going toe to toe with a man.

A professional female fighter like Ronda Rousey should really do a PSA for this

Post: #31

(07-18-2014 11:32 AM)Trim Wrote:  



Guy looks just about ready to have a heart attack, and he destroys Chyna in her prime.

That video aptly displays the physical power-differences between men and women.

I can't find the study, but they found that on average a 55 year old man is able to reach the same combat level (running, strength, speed etc.) than a woman in her prime. I am certain that it would be even worse, when it came to a fight with bare hands or in the ring. Then in likelihood the 60+ year old man would be the equivalent of a woman in her prime.

Let them join MMA.

A man has higher bone density, higher muscle density, more muscles responsible for speed, is way more resistant to pain and has 12x the testosterone and has x-times the adrenaline level which increases his battle prowess.

A very rare roided woman can of course beat a man who is out of shape, but any professional MMA fighter is an unsurmountable obstacle to any woman.

Post: #32

(07-19-2014 10:43 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 11:32 AM)Trim Wrote:  



Guy looks just about ready to have a heart attack, and he destroys Chyna in her prime.

That video aptly displays the physical power-differences between men and women.

I can't find the study, but they found that on average a 55 year old man is able to reach the same combat level (running, strength, speed etc.) than a woman in her prime. I am certain that it would be even worse, when it came to a fight with bare hands or in the ring. Then in likelihood the 60+ year old man would be the equivalent of a woman in her prime.

Let them join MMA.

A man has higher bone density, higher muscle density, more muscles responsible for speed, is way more resistant to pain and has 12x the testosterone and has x-times the adrenaline level which increases his battle prowess.

A very rare roided woman can of course beat a man who is out of shape, but any professional MMA fighter is an unsurmountable obstacle to any woman.

Here's the stats on that and other things -> http://www.heretical.com/miscella/frcombat.html

Another amusing fact is how a no name rank 200+ male tennis player who never won a singles championship handed both the williams sisters their asses to them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karsten_Braasch

Post: #33

(07-18-2014 10:32 PM)Chaos Wrote:  It sucks to sparr with women, you always have to take it so light and they are unpredctable.

Nail on the head there, give them a bit of resistance in training and they fly off the handle.

Saw it repeatedly, men kept going trying to find out how to win, women would sulk and storm off.

I would be OK with the top level women I trained with watching my back, but only if the middle of the pack guys were busy.

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #34

(07-18-2014 11:17 AM)Ingocnito Wrote:  Last night I was doing a leg workout pretty much side-by-side with this girl. I'm 6'4" 237, she's 5'2" 120 I'd guess, short stocky frame for a girl, thick legs ass and shoulders, and she regularly lifts.

Squat, leg press, dead lift, abs.. everything I was exceeding her rep count and lifting apx 3-5x the amount of weight. Plus she tired quicker than me. The whole man vs. women debate in fighting is just plain dumb.

Ah mate, I think you might be exaggerating here to make a point no? I actually lifted with a oly lifting youth team in Thailand for a while, probably some sort of national team feeder and there were both guys and girls.

One girl was probably 160 and 60kg (not an ounce of fat) and I saw her one rep 100kg atg squat with a bit of help and could definitely do 3x80kg squat. Most adult men don't squat more than 120-150kg as one rep without juicing. Of course the girl could be juicing who knows.

Squat is the one exercise where women can have some decent strength and a trained female can outsquat a weakling male who doesn't train. Compared to their size women seem to be born with strong thighs.

Deadlift for sure not, but the biggest difference is upper body strength. This is where women are much weaker. Most girls can't even do a pushup and you probably won't find a single one, outside the roid freaks, who can bench 100kg, probably won't find more than a couple who can do 90kg either. Pullups the same, which is why women can't do the wall in the military.

Post: #35

(07-19-2014 01:35 PM)Seboist Wrote:  Here's the stats on that and other things -> http://www.heretical.com/miscella/frcombat.html

Another amusing fact is how a no name rank 200+ male tennis player who never won a singles championship handed both the williams sisters their asses to them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karsten_Braasch

Nice find. I think they estimate that most professional tennis players who are ranked 500-1000 can defeat the woman's no. 1.

Even many commentators on yahoo said so: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...803AA5XFwc

Probably woman's nr. 1 in tennis would be ranked beyond 1000-2000 in men's ranking.

Post: #36

Woman actually can handle more pain. That's the only thing they have on men. How else do you explain the overwhelming majority of women whom get beaten raw and bruised from BDSM?

Their pain tolerance is only for the reasons of childbirth though, it serves them no purpose in any other practical setting as they don't have the parts to maintain frame from any physical stress from a fight.

Post: #37

(07-19-2014 03:09 PM)kosko Wrote:  Woman actually can handle more pain. That's the only thing they have on men. How else do you explain the overwhelming majority of women whom get beaten raw and bruised from BDSM?

Their pain tolerance is only for the reasons of childbirth though, it serves them no purpose in any other practical setting as they don't have the parts to maintain frame from any physical stress from a fight.

Saw once a science report on it on TV.

Child-birth is actually quite specific for women and they are designed to withstand the pain in consciousness.

They did tests on men and women independently doing various reversible pain tests - acidic burns etc. Both men and women were surrounded by their own gender around the time of the test.

Men could tolerate x-times the amount that women could. In some instances the women would be in tears on the floor while the guys barely flinched.

The funny thing is that they did those tests on men when their wife, girlfriend or even some other woman was around. Then suddenly men displayed a lot more pain and showed it clearly.

Scientists concluded that this is the reason for the main perception that men are such pussies when being sick and their girlfriends/wives have to tend to them instantly or they will die. There is some merit in that.

Psychologists assumed that the reason for men's over-acting of their pains and illnesses around women was based on the fact that men needed to get healthy quick. A primitive tribe absolutely needed the men for survival, hunting and defense. A tribe where all the men are struck down with the flu is as good as dead when the enemy strikes. So men in a way are more prone to overstress their boo-boos, but only when women are around. Around guys the very same men are trying to walk on stumps without wincing. I think many soldiers with combat experience can vouch for that.

Post: #38

(07-19-2014 03:09 PM)kosko Wrote:  Woman actually can handle more pain. That's the only thing they have on men. How else do you explain the overwhelming majority of women whom get beaten raw and bruised from BDSM?

Their pain tolerance is only for the reasons of childbirth though, it serves them no purpose in any other practical setting as they don't have the parts to maintain frame from any physical stress from a fight.

Think the pain threshold thing has been debunked:

HuffPo (yep, even them)

Daily Mail

Post: #39

(07-18-2014 09:49 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 08:00 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  Girls play hockey? I didn't know that!

Here in the UK it's only girls and guys who can't hack it at rugby that play hockey.
Jolly Hockey Sticks!

Or the smart ones who realise that the ratios are very much in their favour...

I did cross country (hated it), rugby (liked it) and hockey (loved it, did that for three years). The year below me got a weight lifting class. Lucky fuckers.

Post: #40

(07-19-2014 01:35 PM)Seboist Wrote:  Here's the stats on that and other things -> http://www.heretical.com/miscella/frcombat.html

Another amusing fact is how a no name rank 200+ male tennis player who never won a singles championship handed both the williams sisters their asses to them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karsten_Braasch

Braasch competed in a "Battle of the Sexes" contest against Venus Williams and Serena Williams at the 1998 Australian Open when he was ranked 203. A decade and a half older than the sisters, Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centred around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice cold lager."[2] He nonetheless defeated both sisters, playing a single set against each, beating Serena 6–1 and Venus 6–2.

Post: #41

(07-19-2014 01:35 PM)Seboist Wrote:  Here's the stats on that and other things -> http://www.heretical.com/miscella/frcombat.html

Good read. Given all the rancor one finds on the internet over (usually fictional) women in combat, I've always found this sort of analysis interesting.

Here's a little more food for thought, from a female veteran:

Quote:Without pharmaceutical help, women just do not carry the muscle mass men do. That muscle mass is also a shock absorber. Whether it’s the concussion of a grenade going off, an IED, or just a punch in the face, a woman is more likely to go down because she can’t absorb the concussion as well as a man can. And I don’t care how the PC forces try to slice it, in hand-to-hand combat the average man is going to destroy the average woman because the average woman is smaller, period. Muscle equals force in any kind of strike you care to perform. That’s why we don’t let female boxers face male boxers.

Post: #42

The only athletic sport I can think of where male advantages are nullified enough to matter in the results is ultra-marathon running. Mostly because running downhill puts a lot of stress on your legs and the heavier you are the more stress you have to cope with. Over a hundred miles the damage adds up and women, with lighter bodies (and lighter upper-bodies in particular) have a notable advantage.

Quote:more muscles responsible for speed

This is the one thing that always hit me in any athletic sport where men and women competed with each other, was just how much quicker the males were. Explosiveness, reaction time, reflexes, whatever you want to call it. The cumulative advantage of being quicker at every little step along the way adds up to far more than you might expect simply by measuring raw speed or even strength.

Post: #43

(07-18-2014 09:06 AM)DavidMI Wrote:  So! The big MMA SJW site (I know it sounds like a contradiction, but it's true) is BloodyElbow.com. Being diligent SJW activists, they are always on the prowl for things to be "offended" by. And they found ol' Mark Bocek committing a grave sin as his spirit has a moment of weakness. He was upset that many retards were saying that women MMA fighters would compete with men. So....

I'm glad I'm not the only that's noticed the HUGE tendency of Bloody Elbow towards SJWism. I've noticed a lot of their writers tend to lean towards such behavior but Brent Brookhouse who wrote the article you linked to above is blatantly open with it. If you look up his name you'll see he's also big into activist atheism, white knighting for females and the such in his non-MMA writing. Oh and he's also a stay at home dad, big surprise. A lot of the exposes he writes for Bloody Elbow also tend to touch upon SJW peeves.

Post: #44

Also I have a bit of personal experience with this.

Background, I'm an average purple belt that fluctuates between 150 and 160 lbs.

Story one: One time rolled with a female black belt that was bigger then me - taller and also thicker. A couple of times she would get the triangle choke set up on me (one arm in, one arm out) but she was unable to finish. All I basically did was squeeze my body to resist her attempts to lock the choke tighter (ie. by trying to drive my arm across my body, clamping down further on my upper body with her elgs) and none of her sweep attempts worked either. We went to a stalemate.

Story two: Went with a brown belt girl (who just got her black recently and has her own school). She kept diving quickly for leg locks as fast as she could while I was working as slow and methodical as possible. Eventually after one of her leg lock attempts I simply got top position, mounted her, and held her down with minimal effort on my part. I didn't make any attempt to submit her or embarrass her but afterwards when she was talking to me I could tell she was super frustrated and pissed that she couldn't do anything to me. She said at one point "Oh are you all right? I hope I didn't hurt your leg" and I just said "Don't worry you didn't do anything to me". Oh, and I also have this blue belt friend that told me about how the moment he would grab her gi pants in order to start passing her guard she would start whining about how he was using too much strength even though he was going like 40%. Unrelated: tons of rumors about how she got her brown and black belt quickly (she was a brown belt for about a year) was due to her banging her instructor who btw is living with her and her family in their house.

Post: #45

Obligatory Patrice O'Neal:





The best man is the best. An average MMA girl might be able to beat an average Joe walking down the street with no training, but a guy with even an average amount of training will destroy her. It's just nature, and I don't even understand why they get so upset about it. If you are mad about biology, take that up with God or whatever you believe in. Don't take it out on men.

Post: #46

I think there are a few sports where women do outcompete men. Maybe something like rhythmic gymnastics or other sports that evaluate on maximum flexibility.

But yeah everyone knows that in 95% of sports you have to gender segregate, otherwise women wouldn't be able to even qualify.

There was that whole debate at the Sochi Olympics about all the women getting injured because of the high/fast ski jumps. The feminist types insisted that women absolutely can compete on the same courses as men. The injury statistics didn't agree. But the easiest counterargument to bullshit like that is if they want to compete on the same course, then make them compete with the men. Of course, none of them would even qualify in that case.

I was curious what other sports might exist that women generally outcompete men in. There's got to be a few, but not ones I know anything about (synchronized swimming, figure skating?). I found this list online, which is so self-defeating it's comical. It's just a list of sports that a woman at some point beat men in. The fact that it's so rare just defeats the entire purpose of the article.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/annanorth/7-spor...beaten-men

EDIT: I take it back, I just did some reading and it turns out ski jump is one sport in which women can (almost) compete equally with men. Apparently a less dense body can generate more lift and hence go further after the jump.

Post: #47

Here's a great comment on a website:

Quote:Sports have been created to suit men. Unfortunately we used to live in a society where men were the dominant gender, now that is steadily changing; however sports were created a in the period where men were clearly dominant, this means that men will have created sports that suit them.

Oh yeah, the ancient Greeks really thought hard about how to come up with complex scenarios that leverage men's strengths. You know, complex gender-biased tasks like "who can get to that tree over there the fastest" and "who can pick up the biggest rock."

Link: http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-men-b...than-women

Post: #48

(07-20-2014 04:06 PM)ryanf Wrote:  Obligatory Patrice O'Neal:





The best man is the best. An average MMA girl might be able to beat an average Joe walking down the street with no training, but a guy with even an average amount of training will destroy her. It's just nature, and I don't even understand why they get so upset about it. If you are mad about biology, take that up with God or whatever you believe in. Don't take it out on men.

Holy shit I was litterally on my way to Youtube to post the same clip! Big up to you and R.I.P to Uncle Patrice!!

Post: #49

(07-20-2014 04:48 PM)BigDave Wrote:  http://www.buzzfeed.com/annanorth/7-spor...beaten-men

EDIT: I take it back, I just did some reading and it turns out ski jump is one sport in which women can (almost) compete equally with men. Apparently a less dense body can generate more lift and hence go further after the jump.

I disagree - women cannot compete in any sport. Even dancing, ballet or synchronized swimming - we can do better. The thing is that no one wants to see a bunch of dudes with hairy legs doing gymnastics in the water. Men can do it faster, longer and with more coordination. Ask some ballet dancers. It is just a sport where beauty is of concern, so of course we cannot compete on the same level simply because a blonde ballerina will be more interesting.

As far as the sports you mentioned and the article are concerned:

0: ski jump? My friend once witnessed a world-class team at ski-jumping in his fitness studio. They were travelling and they used the run-of-the-mill bodybuilding equipment. Those guys are super-slim - like almost anorexic. But when it came to the legs they used the maximum weights and the trainers who weighed 200 pounds put in their weights as well. My friend told me that it still was not enough, but it was a passable workout for them. So no - men use enormous jumping power and also can absorb way harder impact on landing which matters as they jump long distances. No way in hell can women compete in that. You cannot simply lift them into the air and forget the lift-off with massive leg-strength and the landing which requires massive endurance and strength especially as they land sometimes on the wrong leg or get moved by the wind. So what if they fly better?

For the list:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/annanorth/7-spor...beaten-men

1. Equestrian - it would seem to be similar, but it is not. Jockeys are almost all men and men take greater chances during riding. So no - just as the best cooks in the world are men - this discipline goes to men as well despite little physical reason for men surpassing women.
2. Tennis? Really? Nr. 500 of men would be Nr. 1 in women's tennis. Likely the number 2000 would be Nr. 1.
3. Wrestling. I will not comment that. They mentioned school-wrestling! Girls have an advantage at age 11 or 12, but that is completely neutralized later on. Pros can probably rip apart female wrestlers if they are not careful.
4. Bowling. right. No way. There was one woman who once won a national tournament. While women certainly have better chances there in effect men will surpass them again.
5. Racecar driving. Ah - men are greater risk takers and will always win on that point on average.
6. Rock-climbing. Right. Almost twice the upper-body strength has no effect?
7. Ultramarathon - maybe only in the beginning with few contenders that woman could win. Nowadays they do men's and women's results and men always way outperform women, which is no surprise.

So either way - even if body plays no role our individual gender roles and characteristics will manifest the unwanted reality of the best men always surpassing the best women in all sports. Even at "sports" like chess you will find way more hyper-intelligent men dominating the field. Nevermind anything which actually requires the use of the body.

Post: #50

(07-20-2014 06:09 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(07-20-2014 04:48 PM)BigDave Wrote:  http://www.buzzfeed.com/annanorth/7-spor...beaten-men

EDIT: I take it back, I just did some reading and it turns out ski jump is one sport in which women can (almost) compete equally with men. Apparently a less dense body can generate more lift and hence go further after the jump.

I disagree - women cannot compete in any sport. Even dancing, ballet or synchronized swimming - we can do better. The thing is that no one wants to see a bunch of dudes with hairy legs doing gymnastics in the water. Men can do it faster, longer and with more coordination. Ask some ballet dancers. It is just a sport where beauty is of concern, so of course we cannot compete on the same level simply because a blonde ballerina will be more interesting.

As far as the sports you mentioned and the article are concerned:

0: ski jump? My friend once witnessed a world-class team at ski-jumping in his fitness studio. They were travelling and they used the run-of-the-mill bodybuilding equipment. Those guys are super-slim - like almost anorexic. But when it came to the legs they used the maximum weights and the trainers who weighed 200 pounds put in their weights as well. My friend told me that it still was not enough, but it was a passable workout for them. So no - men use enormous jumping power and also can absorb way harder impact on landing which matters as they jump long distances. No way in hell can women compete in that. You cannot simply lift them into the air and forget the lift-off with massive leg-strength and the landing which requires massive endurance and strength especially as they land sometimes on the wrong leg or get moved by the wind. So what if they fly better?

For the list:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/annanorth/7-spor...beaten-men

1. Equestrian - it would seem to be similar, but it is not. Jockeys are almost all men and men take greater chances during riding. So no - just as the best cooks in the world are men - this discipline goes to men as well despite little physical reason for men surpassing women.
2. Tennis? Really? Nr. 500 of men would be Nr. 1 in women's tennis. Likely the number 2000 would be Nr. 1.
3. Wrestling. I will not comment that. They mentioned school-wrestling! Girls have an advantage at age 11 or 12, but that is completely neutralized later on. Pros can probably rip apart female wrestlers if they are not careful.
4. Bowling. right. No way. There was one woman who once won a national tournament. While women certainly have better chances there in effect men will surpass them again.
5. Racecar driving. Ah - men are greater risk takers and will always win on that point on average.
6. Rock-climbing. Right. Almost twice the upper-body strength has no effect?
7. Ultramarathon - maybe only in the beginning with few contenders that woman could win. Nowadays they do men's and women's results and men always way outperform women, which is no surprise.

So either way - even if body plays no role our individual gender roles and characteristics will manifest the unwanted reality of the best men always surpassing the best women in all sports. Even at "sports" like chess you will find way more hyper-intelligent men dominating the field. Nevermind anything which actually requires the use of the body.

The only thing they are better at is making babies. And they are even failing at that.