# Al Bundy talks MMA



## screenamesuck (Jun 29, 2006)

videos.proelite.com » Ed O'neill Interview: Academy, Ed, Gracie, O'neill, Torrance: videos video


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

Al Bundy = one bad ass motherfucker.


----------



## keno5366 (Mar 16, 2007)

4 touchdowns in 1 game. Go Polk high :thumb02:


----------



## jehu pitchfork (Feb 4, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> Al Bundy = one bad ass motherfucker.


and this cat is a theater trained actor. and i love that he is so knowledgable of the sport as well as the fighters themselves. and his breakdowns of old mma tradition & now is spot on. the way he talks about how fighters only do what got them to the big dance. 

and his breakdown of the diego/kos fight was hilariously perfect. 

he's also dead on about ufc should remove gloves, and no fighter being perfectly well rounded. plus the whole forcing fighters to stand even if things get a bit slow.

bottom line, his critique of everyone & everything, i thought, was spot on.



thanks for posting, great find.


----------



## Terry77 (Jan 5, 2007)

Al Bundy > Goldberg, Glazer, Quadros


----------



## JMONEY (Sep 19, 2006)

Al Bundy a brown belt?! Freakin' awesome!!


----------



## TerribleOne (Jul 12, 2007)

I like that interview, but I kept thinking he must not know who Fedor is  He wants people who will go to the ground when needed, strike when needed. With ANYONE thats Fedor.


----------



## screenamesuck (Jun 29, 2006)

Terry77 said:


> Al Bundy > Goldberg, Glazer, Quadros


After watching this video maybe he could actually make a good commentator. Couldn't be any worse than what we see already.


----------



## Ramp36 (Jul 14, 2006)

Phenomenal interview. I agread with him on everything! It is sweet to hear someone talk about Chuck and Hughes without the constant PC and suck up talk.

I loved how he spoke about the changes in the sport. I was already out of college when the UFC started so I am not a spring chicken myself. Those initial fights are so different from the present ones. It seems now we are trying to make the fighters into rock stars. It's exactly like he said about revolving champions. It seems the focus is on the highlight reel so we will shell out money for the next pay per view. But I get that it is business and a growing one. 

Today's fighters are able to produce a much more technical fight that is fun to watch. However, the interview does make you a little nostalgic for the old style with a little more raw fight. If they were allowed to show pit fighting like Tank Abbott used to do.....now that would be worth the monthly pay per view.


----------



## Negative1 (Feb 4, 2007)

lol Serra has the range of a T-rex.


----------



## Gluteal Cleft (May 12, 2007)

I saw an interview with him a while back on a late-night talk show, and he talked about doing BJJ. They asked him if he had ever used it, and he said he had used it twice. One was a mugging, and he choked the guy out. I don't remember about the other encounter.


----------



## dutch sauce (Sep 24, 2006)

lol al bundy is great. future ufcchamp lol


----------



## Toxie (Mar 18, 2007)

He's so cool! I wouldn't have expected him to be a fan and the interview was refreshing. However, I disagree with his idea of taking the gloves off (for obvious safety reasons and also because haters would have yet another aspect to pick on) and with letting the guys on the ground indefinitely (lay and pray is never fun to watch).


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

Toxie said:


> He's so cool! I wouldn't have expected him to be a fan and the interview was refreshing. However, I disagree with his idea of taking the gloves off (for obvious safety reasons and also because haters would have yet another aspect to pick on) and with letting the guys on the ground indefinitely (lay and pray is never fun to watch).


You don't seem to realise that No gloves = Safer

And what Bundy talked about would actually eliminate lay and pray. Get rid of the time limits, judges etc.


----------



## Toxie (Mar 18, 2007)

lol how is it safer without gloves? i have never trained or anything but it seems logical that it's safer for both fighters (no knuckle damage and frm what i think it's better to be hit by a cushion than by a bony knuckle).
Enlighten me plz


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

Toxie said:


> lol how is it safer without gloves? i have never trained or anything but it seems logical that it's safer for both fighters (no knuckle damage and frm what i think it's better to be hit by a cushion than by a bony knuckle).
> Enlighten me plz


I am sick of all you idiots not knowing what the hell is up. 

Did you watch the video?


----------



## Toxie (Mar 18, 2007)

No sh*t I did. I don't see why you're getting worked up when I just asked you for an explanation to your opinion. Since I haven't trained I might be wrong.. jeez


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

Toxie said:


> No sh*t I did. I don't see why you're getting worked up when I just asked you for an explanation to your opinion. Since I haven't trained I might be wrong.. jeez


I am sorry, but a little research would do the job.

Gloves allow you to punch harder and for longer. They protect the hand, not the head.


----------



## Toxie (Mar 18, 2007)

Thanks


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

Toxie said:


> Thanks


I am an asshole, ask half the members of this board.
Your welcome.


----------



## Toxie (Mar 18, 2007)

lol it's all good.. at least you admit it


----------



## A-5best (Dec 18, 2006)

Am I the only one who for the most part disagrees with him? He contradicts himself a lot and I dont think he understands that the reason there are few incredible fighters who never lose is because of the nature of the sport and how many ways there are to win. Not to mention he talks about some fights being boring with lay and pray and then says that they shouldnt stand them up. Some of his stuff seemed off IDK maybe its just me.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> You don't seem to realise that No gloves = Safer


 Nonsense. Having more broken hands won't make things safer. Having more orbital fractures won't make things safer. Having more frequent and more severe cuts won't make things safer. Let's not even get into who we'll watch fight while we're waiting 6 months for everyone to heal up or how many more fights will end from a well-placed laceration.

Ed O'Neill's just another opinionated fan, many of which are wrong.


----------



## M_D (Apr 8, 2007)

A-5best said:


> Am I the only one who for the most part disagrees with him? He contradicts himself a lot and I dont think he understands that the reason there are few incredible fighters who never lose is because of the nature of the sport and how many ways there are to win. Not to mention he talks about some fights being boring with lay and pray and then says that they shouldnt stand them up. Some of his stuff seemed off IDK maybe its just me.



I dont know about all that, I am not a fan of lay and pray but I dont think that they should stand up fighters


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

jasvll said:


> Nonsense. Having more broken hands won't make things safer. Having more orbital fractures won't make things safer. Having more frequent and more severe cuts won't make things safer. Let's not even get into who we'll watch fight while we're waiting 6 months for everyone to heal up or how many more fights will end from a well-placed laceration.
> 
> Ed O'Neill's just another opinionated fan, many of which are wrong.


It is not just me and ED O'Neil saying this, gloves do not make MMA any safer. They allow for more concussions.

More frequent and more severe cuts? Elbows are a hell of a lot sharper than knuckles, no gloves will be unlikely to lead to a large increase in the amount of cuts.

The point is people won't be breaking their hands because they won't be throwing those big punches that gloves allow for.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> It is not just me and ED O'Neil saying this,


 By all means, point me to their arguments, and I'll address them.



> gloves do not make MMA any safer. They allow for more concussions.


 By all means, point me to the stats that show this to be the case, then make a call to the athletic commissions.



> More frequent and more severe cuts? Elbows are a hell of a lot sharper than knuckles,
> no gloves will be unlikely to lead to a large increase in the amount of cuts.[/


 Sharper? Elbows and knuckles don't cut because they're sharp. They cut because they're as dense as the object they're striking, pinching the skin and flesh in between.

Elbows are also used very rarely relative to punches. In other words, even if elbows do cut more easily than bare knuckles, it's still likely that there will be more cuts from punches, due to sheer volume.

Let's also not forget the common sense aspect. There are a certain number of cuts with elbows and knees allowed. Adding another unpadded surface to the mix will obviously increase the total number of cuts, assuming that unprotected surfaces are a more common cause of cuts than padded ones.

Finally, if you don't think cuts will increase if gloves are removed, you probably haven't seen an IVC event.




> The point is people won't be breaking their hands because they won't be throwing those big punches that gloves allow for.


 Again, watch an IVC event and get back to me.

Besides, basing your argument on your own prediction as to how fighters will behave under a new rule set is as ridiculous as claiming no gloves are safer for the fighters. You have no idea if fighters will punch differently, and if IVC is any indication, they won't.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

jasvll said:


> By all means, point me to their arguments, and I'll address them.
> 
> By all means, point me to the stats that show this to be the case.
> 
> ...


Later, If I am not too tired I will. But I have seen it said in interviews and in documentarys by quite a few people.

I didn't literally mean sharper, like your gonna have people get their throats slit by a guys elbow, they just cause a lot of cuts.

I wouldn't say very rarely. They get used all the time on the ground.

IVC? I'm a big wand fan, of course I have seen em.

Old school Pancrase and Bas. If people keep breaking their hands, they will learn to punch differently.

I'll get back to you.


----------



## jamlena (Oct 15, 2006)

"Al Bundy" is the man...awesome interview :thumbsup:


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> Later, If I am not too tired I will. But I have seen it said in interviews and in documentarys by quite a few people.


 Hopefully, you'll get your strength up, soon.



> I didn't literally mean sharper, like your gonna have people get their throats slit by a guys elbow, *they just cause a lot of cuts*.


 No one was questioning that fact. Do you question the fact that they would cause fewer cuts if there was 6oz of padding between them and their target?



> I wouldn't say very rarely. They get used all the time on the ground.


 I didn't say they get used rarely. I said they get used rarely relative to punches. Massive difference.



> IVC? I'm a big wand fan, of course I have seen em.


 Odd, considering your stance.



> Old school Pancrase and Bas. If people keep breaking their hands, they will learn to punch differently.


 So you agree that removing the gloves alone will increase injuries? Fighters will actually have to modify their style in order to avoid these injuries?



> I'll get back to you.


 I was afraid you might say that.


----------



## wallysworld191 (Mar 28, 2007)

he's fuckin awesome


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

jasvll said:


> Hopefully, you'll get your strength up, soon.
> 
> No one was questioning that fact. Do you question the fact that they would cause fewer cuts if there was 6oz of padding between them and their target?
> 
> ...


I thought I had said I was going training but obviously I didn't looking back on the post. It is 20 to one here.

Why are you arguing the cuts point so much? My original point was that it would make the sport safer, not that it wouldn't increase cuts at all. Obviously if elbows had padding then they would cause less cuts.

If fighters try to throw the same punches the same way without gloves as they do with gloves, there will be injuries, but not severe injuries. Hand injuries.


''The thin gloves used in MMA may actually reduce the risk of injury more than boxing gloves do. When headguards are used in boxing, the extra padding does not significantly reduce the risk of head injury but simply reduces the external damage done to fighters (see Matser E. J. T et al , Acute traumatic brain injury in amateur boxing. Physician and Sportsmedicine 28:1)''
counters to criticisms of Mixed martial arts

This the sort of stuff I am getting at.

Gloves do not protect heads, they protect hands, and I don't think removing them wil increase the amount of cuts to any large degree.

This is a part of a larger picture, standing fighters up, time limits, gloves, rules and more rules.....MMA has gotten so far away from what it started as.


----------



## jehu pitchfork (Feb 4, 2007)

i absolutely agree that gloves should be removed. what is so wrong w/ having people learning to adapt to no gloves?!? certain fighters had to adapt to putting ON gloves. it works both ways. also, it would force fighters to concentrate more on body shots & submissions & not just wild haymakers like so may fighters count on. personally, i think id rather suffer a gaping cut than a concussion that rattles my brain. and w/ fighters relying less on crazy haymakers, we would see a lot less lucky punches that ko their opponents. strikes will become more strategically placed, which imo, will make for a more interesting fight. 

i love how people freak out over no gloves, but have no problem w/ rampage taking 20 knees directly to the face by silva. how does that make sense?!?

injuries happen, but the better the fighter you are, the less injury you'll sustain, forcing the fighters to step up & REALLY sink their teeth into their overall training.

it's a win/win situation as far as im concerned.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> Why are you arguing the cuts point so much? My original point was that it would make the sport safer, not that it wouldn't increase cuts at all.


 And if you hadn't gone on to say that they wouldn't increase cuts, I wouldn't be 'arguing the cuts point so much.'



> Obviously if elbows had padding then they would cause less cuts.


 Obvious, to some.



> If fighters try to throw the same punches the same way without gloves as they do with gloves, there will be injuries, but not severe injuries. Hand injuries.


 You failed to make that distinction when you claimed that gloves don't make MMA 'any safer.' In fact, some might conclude that the only reason you're making that distinction now is to try to avoid the corner you've painted yourself into. I won't conclude that, though.




> ''The thin gloves used in MMA may actually reduce the risk of injury more than boxing gloves do. When headguards are used in boxing, the extra padding does not significantly reduce the risk of head injury but simply reduces the external damage done to fighters (see Matser E. J. T et al , Acute traumatic brain injury in amateur boxing. Physician and Sportsmedicine 28:1)''
> counters to criticisms of Mixed martial arts
> 
> This the sort of stuff I am getting at.


 That 'sort of stuff' doesn't deal with MMA gloves relative to bare knuckles, not even a little bit. It only deals with professional and amateur boxing gloves and headgear relative to MMA gloves. It also only deals with brain injuries, something I've yet to mention. It's also highly speculative.



> Gloves do not protect heads, they protect hands,


 They do protect heads. Certainly more than bare knuckles would.



> and I don't think removing them wil increase the amount of cuts to any large degree.


 I know what you *believe*. You repeat it religiously. I'm still waiting on some evidence that will allow me to *think* you're position is the right one. 



> This is a part of a larger picture, standing fighters up, time limits, gloves, rules and more rules.....MMA has gotten so far away from what it started as.


 That's a purely ideological issue that is irrelevant to our current discussion. Although, your stance on gloves is clearly based on a fervent belief in that ideology, which is what makes having a rational discussion with you so difficult.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

jehu pitchfork said:


> i absolutely agree that gloves should be removed. what is so wrong w/ having people learning to adapt to no gloves?!? certain fighters had to adapt to putting ON gloves. it works both ways. also, it would force fighters to concentrate more on body shots & submissions & not just wild haymakers like so may fighters count on. personally, i think id rather suffer a gaping cut than a concussion that rattles my brain. and w/ fighters relying less on crazy haymakers, we would see a lot less lucky punches that ko their opponents. strikes will become more strategically placed, which imo, will make for a more interesting fight.


 That's all well and good. All I ask is that you don't claim removing the gloves will make the fights safer. I lied. I also have to ask for some evidence that 6oz gloves cause more concussions than bareknuckles.


i love how people freak out over no gloves, but have no problem w/ rampage taking 20 knees directly to the face by silva. how does that make sense?!?[/quote] I've yet to argue that gloves should/shouldn't be removed, and no one on this thread has freaked out (at least those on the pro-glove side). I have to ask, who exactly are these 'people?'



> injuries happen, but the better the fighter you are, the less injury you'll sustain, forcing the fighters to step up & REALLY sink their teeth into their overall training.


 They should let them fight with 9mms.



> it's a win/win situation as far as im concerned.


 I'm concerned that your concern is focused almost exclusively on the spectator's win.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

jasvll said:


> And if you hadn't gone on to say that they wouldn't increase cuts, I wouldn't be 'arguing the cuts point so much.'
> 
> Obvious, to some.
> 
> ...


Please quote where I said that they wouldn't increase cuts.

I do not believe that hand injuries are as dangerous as head trauma. I stand by what I said about no gloves making MMA less dangerous.

That 'sort of stuff' has everything to do with MMA gloves relative to bare knuckles.
''the extra padding does not significantly reduce the risk of head injury but simply reduces the external damage done to fighters'' - does this suddenly become untrue based on the amount of padding present, if you believe, as I do, that it is?

Rational discussion? Please don't start posting pictures of stoves now.

Gloves are used to peoples hands from injury, allowing them to throw punches with more force than if they did not use them.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> Please quote where I said that they wouldn't increase cuts.


 Sure:


You said:


> More frequent and more severe cuts? Elbows are a hell of a lot sharper than knuckles, no gloves will be unlikely to lead to a large increase in the amount of cuts.


http://www.mmaforum.com/298805-post25.html



> I do not believe that hand injuries are as dangerous as head trauma.


 Are you planning on providing any evidence that MMA gloves increase head trauma or is this another article of faith?



> I stand by what I said about no gloves making MMA less dangerous.


 You never claimed that. You said that gloves don't make MMA safer. Now you're claiming that they actually make MMA less safe? Wow.





> That 'sort of stuff' has everything to do with MMA gloves relative to bare knuckles.
> ''the extra padding does not significantly reduce the risk of head injury but simply reduces the external damage done to fighters'' - does this suddenly become untrue based on the amount of padding present, if you believe, as I do, that it is?


 Neither the authors of the article nor the source they cite claim that bare knuckles are safer than MMA gloved knuckles, which puts us right back where we started: Your beliefs.



> /Rational discussion? Please don't start posting pictures of stoves now.


 Nice attempt at misdirection. Wait, no it wasn't.



> Gloves are used to peoples hands from injury, allowing them to throw punches with more force than if they did not use them.


 Let's play a little game called plausible scenarios. What follows are plausible claims based on the assumption that what you just said is accurate:

1. The increased punching power afforded by MMA gloves reduces the risk of head injury because the fighter receiving the punch is more likely to be KOd by fewer harder punches, rather than surviving proportionately more weaker punches. Therefore, MMA gloves make fights safer than bare knuckles.

2. The increased punching power afforded by MMA gloves is offset by the padding, making a gloved punch the equivalent of a bareknuckle punch, with a reduced risk of hand injury and cuts. Therefore, MMA gloves make fights safer than bare knuckles.

Is either scenario true? Who knows? The fact is, though, your conclusion is not the only one available based on the 'evidence' you've used to justify your beliefs.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

jasvll said:


> Sure:
> 
> http://www.mmaforum.com/298805-post25.html
> 
> ...


I didn't say they don't increase cuts. I said that no gloves will be unlikely to lead to a large increase in the amount of cuts. Massive difference.




No I am not, what do you want me to do? Get all the stats of injuries and concussions from IVC and UFC(after gloves were introduced) and compare the too? Make you a pie chart?

I am claiming that more protection does not eqaul greater safety, so is that source.

That wasn't misdirection, just me reminding you of your finest hour on this board.

Plausible scenarios? Just look at the second one you posted. Do you know how head trauma injuries occur? Go educate yourself.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> I didn't say they don't increase cuts. I said that no gloves will be unlikely to lead to a large increase in the amount of cuts. Massive difference.


 I was afraid you'd try that. Look, what I said about elbows and punches and what you claimed I said were distinctly different. I claimed that elbows were less common than punches; you said I claimed that elbows were rarely used. See the difference? Also, what I claimed was easily observable by watching any MMA fight, making it useful.

There is no distinction between what I said you claimed and what you claimed, unless you'd like to quantify 'large' and 'unlikely.' Also, your claim has yet to be backed by observable evidence, making it useless beyond its worth as an opinion.




> No I am not,


 Yes, you did:


> I stand by what I said about no gloves making MMA less dangerous.


 You're clearly claiming that gloves on is more dangerous than gloves off. How else could gloves off be less dangerous than gloves on?



> what do you want me to do? Get all the stats of injuries and concussions from IVC and UFC(after gloves were introduced) and compare the too? Make you a pie chart?


 Actually, I didn't think that would be necessary. I just thought you'd point me to the evidence you used to draw your conclusions. I never considered that you drew your conclusions before you gathered the evidence (I'm being facetious, of course. It's been clear from the beginning that your claims are a matter of faith.)



> I am claiming that more protection does not eqaul greater safety, so is that source.


 If they were claiming that, they'd be stupid. Look up the word 'protection' to find out why. Perhaps you meant to say, 'More padding does not equal greater safety?" Even then, you're making a very broad generalization from a source that was very specific. You could make an argument about how airbags don't increase driver safety based on that source. It would be as meaningful as the one you've presented, but hey, it hasn't stopped you, yet.



> That wasn't misdirection, just me reminding you of your finest hour on this board.


 I don't need to be reminded of the last time I had to fire the flare of reason to guide you back to reality.



> Plausible scenarios? Just look at the second one you posted. Do you know how head trauma injuries occur?


 Yes, I do. The brain bounces against the skull, causing swelling. That doesn't disprove number 2, and you've ignored number 1.



> Go educate yourself.


 If there was any reason to think that that was the problem, you can rest assured, I would.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

jasvll said:


> I was afraid you'd try that. Look, what I said about elbows and punches and what you claimed I said were distinctly different. I claimed that elbows were less common than punches; you said I claimed that elbows were rarely used. See the difference? Also, what I claimed was easily observable by watching any MMA fight, making it useful.
> 
> There is no distinction between what I said you claimed and what you claimed, unless you'd like to quantify 'large' and 'unlikely.' Also, your claim has yet to be backed by observable evidence, making it useless beyond its worth as an opinion.
> 
> ...


No.
You said I said that no gloves wouldn't increase cuts. That is not something I ever said.

You are confused as to what the 'No I am not' is reffering to.

My claims are based on reasoning and different sources I have seen ove years, I can't go hunt on youtube for a video I saw a year ago that probably isn't there due to copyright infringement anymore, or search for one piece on in some Bas interview located on the internet.

Yeah, cos airbags have as much relevance to the different sizes of gloves used and how dangerous they are as not wearing gloves does.......

Come on dude, that last time was brilliant. It is right up there with Franklin20 trying to give diet advice and Pt447 in the entirety of the abortion debate as my favourite moments of people acting stupid on this forum.

''The increased punching power afforde by MMA gloves is offset by the padding, making a gloved punch the equivalent of a bareknuckle punch''
And you actually do know what causes head trauma injuries......can you not see how this might show the difference in damage a lighter bareknuckle punch and a heavier 'padded' punch can cause? Can you not see how it does not make them equivalent?


----------



## jehu pitchfork (Feb 4, 2007)

jasvll said:


> That's all well and good. All I ask is that you don't claim removing the gloves will make the fights safer. I lied. I also have to ask for some evidence that 6oz gloves cause more concussions than bareknuckles.


I NEVER CLAIMED IT TO BE SAFER. I WAS IMPLYING THAT I'D RATHER RECEIVE A DEEP CUT VS A CONCUSSION OR WORSE DUE TO THE FACT THAT GLOVELESS FIGHTERS ARE LESS LIKELY TO GO ALL OUT W/ SHOTS TO THE DOME. 


jasvll said:


> I've yet to argue that gloves should/shouldn't be removed, and no one on this thread has freaked out (at least those on the pro-glove side). I have to ask, who exactly are these 'people?'


MY BAD, FREAK OUT IS EXAGERRATION, BUT YOUR ARGUMENT SEEMS TO BE PRO KEEPING GLOVES. MY BAD IF IM MISREADING THAT.


jasvll said:


> They should let them fight with 9mms.


THIS STATEMENT IS RIDICULOUS. I HAVE NO IDEA WHY YOU EVEN STATED THIS. THIS PARTICULAR STATEMENT SEEMS TO HAVE COME FROM LEFT FIELD. 


jasvll said:


> I'm concerned that your concern is focused almost exclusively on the spectator's win.


WIN/WIN FOR THE WINNER AND THE LOSER IN MY OPINION IS WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO,IN THAT BOTH OPPONENTS INJURIES WILL LIKELY BE LESS SEVERE DUE TO THROWING SMARTER PUNCHES. I RECOGNIZE THAT I FAILED TO CLARIFY THAT, THANKS FOR POINTING THAT OUT.

SINCE YOU'RE SO INTO ASKING FOR STATS, YOU YOURSELF ALSO STATED EARLIER THAT YOU "ASSUMED" THAT UNPADDED SURFACES WILL CAUSE MORE CUTS, SHOW US STATS PROVING THAT "ASSUMPTION". I THINK IT IS VERY REASONABLE TO STATE THAT IF YOU FIGHT W/OUT GLOVES, YOU ARE GOING TO THROW LESS STRIKES, THEREFORE LESS CUTS FROM UNPADDED FISTS WILL BE THE RESULT. ALSO, LESS HAND FRACTURES, CAUSE FIGHTERS ARE GOING TO BE MUCH MORE SELECTIVE ABOUT WHERE TO THROW THEIR PUNCHES SO THERE WILL BE LESS "RANDOM" HAYMAKERS BEING THROWN, WHICH ARE A LOT OF THE TIMES ARE TECHNICALLY POORLY THROWN PUNCHES. PERSONALLY, OUT OF THE HUNDREDS OF STREET FIGHTS IVE SEEN, BETWEEN MOSTLY ONLINE VIDEOS & A FEW REAL LIFE FIGHTS, BRUISING IS DEFINITELY THE MORE TYPICAL OUTCOME FOR PUNCHES TO THE FACE & HEAD, NOT ORBITAL FRACTURES. HAND FRACTURES DEFINITELY HAPPEN, BUT IT IS USUALLY DUE TO POORLY THROWN AMATEUR PUNCHES, WHICH WOULDN'T BE AS MUCH OF A CONCERN SINCE WERE DEALING W/ PROFESSIONAL FIGHTERS WHO ARE TRAINED TO KNOW BETTER.

GOOD TOPIC.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> No.
> You said I said that no gloves wouldn't increase cuts. That is not something I ever said.


 Fine, let's modify my previous claim:


Me said:


> And if you hadn't gone on to say that 'no gloves will be unlikely to lead to a large increase in the amount of cuts,' I wouldn't be 'arguing the cuts point so much.'


The semantics have been adjusted. Now what? The point under contention hasn't changed.



> You are confused as to what the 'No I am not' is reffering to.


 I had nothing to indicate what 'I am not' was referring to, since your post was just a series of responses with no connection to what they were responding to. By all means, relieve me of my confusion.



> My claims are based on reasoning and different sources I have seen ove years, I can't go hunt on youtube for a video I saw a year ago that probably isn't there due to copyright infringement anymore, or search for one piece on in some Bas interview located on the internet.


 So, the evidence your claim is based may or may not be valid and may or may not still exist? Wow, I'm convinced.



> Yeah, cos airbags have as much relevance to the different sizes of gloves used and how dangerous they are as not wearing gloves does.......


 You've figured out half of it. They are both irrelevant, because your source provides no evidence to support your claim, nor did it intend to. You're drawing a conclusion that isn't supported by the evidence it cites, period.



> Come on dude, that last time was brilliant. It is right up there with Franklin20 trying to give diet advice and Pt447 in the entirety of the abortion debate as my favourite moments of people acting stupid on this forum.


 I must be really stupid, since I can't see the relevance to this discussion. I do, however, see the parallel between your irrational behavior then and now.



> And you actually do know what causes head trauma injuries......can you not see how this might show the difference in damage a lighter bareknuckle punch and a heavier 'padded' punch can cause? Can you not see how it does not make them equivalent?


 You're choosing to ignore the fact that the extra weight is also extra padding.

You're also still choosing to ignore #1.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

jasvll said:


> Fine, let's modify my previous claim:
> 
> The semantics have been adjusted. Now what? The point under contention hasn't changed.


Now it is correct.



jasvll said:


> I had nothing to indicate what 'I am not' was referring to, since your post was just a series of responses with no connection to what they were responding to. By all means, relieve me of my confusion.


 It shouldn't have been that difficult to figure out, it was part of one point, in a paragraph.



jasvll said:


> So, the evidence your claim is based may or may not be valid and may or may not still exist? Wow, I'm convinced.


No, they are still valid, and still exist, they are just difficult to locate, especially considering the fact that I am not trying. You are not backing up what you say either.



jasvll said:


> You've figured out half of it. They are both irrelevant.


No, they are not. One deals with the amount of padding on a fighters hands as he lands blows, obviously that is relevant to the source.



jasvll said:


> I must be really stupid, since I can't see the relevance to this discussion. I do, however, see the parallel between your irrational behavior then and now.


Yes, I was being irrational by trying to find out what the hell you were talking about, you were very rational by quoting something I said that had nothing to do with the point you didn't make, the one I had great difficulty getting out of you which was basedon something I never argued in the first place, and then posting pictures of a bunch of cookers. The height of rationality.



jasvll said:


> You're choosing to ignore the fact that the extra weight is also extra padding.


WTF?



jasvll said:


> You're also still choosing to ignore #1.


Why would I bother when your second point blatantly doesn't make sense? You are choosing not to answer my questions on point no. 2


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> Now it is correct.


 Now deal with the point it addresses.




> It shouldn't have been that difficult to figure out, it was part of one point, in a paragraph.


 Still waiting for you to clarify.




> No, they are still valid, and still exist, they are just difficult to locate, especially considering the fact that I am not trying.


 How do you know they still exist? You yourself say you don't know where they are.

As for being valid, you'll forgive me if I question your judgment.



> You are not backing up what you say either.


 By all means, point out an example.




> No, they are not. One deals with the amount of padding on a fighters hands as he lands blows, obviously that is relevant to the source.


 But not relevant to your claim. It's quite a leap from less padding to no padding, one that isn't at all addressed by your source. 




> Yes, I was being irrational by trying to find out what the hell you were talking about, you were very rational by quoting something I said that had nothing to do with the point you didn't make, the one I had great difficulty getting out of you which was basedon something I never argued in the first place, and then posting pictures of a bunch of cookers. The height of rationality.


 Still irrelevant.





> WTF?


 The 6oz of weight is not lead.




> Why would I bother when your second point blatantly doesn't make sense? You are choosing not to answer my questions on point no. 2


 I never said either of those were accurate. I said their plausibility proves that your claim isn't necessarily true.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

jasvll said:


> Now deal with the point it addresses.
> 
> 
> Still waiting for you to clarify.
> ...


It was an answer to a question. Thank you for answering my question???????

You can read.

I do not know, I only presume that every single copy of the DVDs that they were ripped from haven't been destroyed and that the interviews are still floating around.

An example? You haven't backed up what you say with a single source or link.

Little more relevant than airbags in cars though, eh?

Did I say it wasn't?

Point being about the weight?

Too bad your second point wasn't plausible then eh?


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

YouTube - MMA Vs Boxing safety

Heres a video that backs up what I say.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> It was an answer to a question. Thank you for answering my question???????


 I'd love to know why you won't simply explain what it is I'm confused about.



> You can read.


 Yes, I can, but that doesn't necessarily mean I can make sense of what you're saying.



> I do not know, I only presume that every single copy of the DVDs that they were ripped from haven't been destroyed and that the interviews are still floating around.


 Let's recap. The evidence may or may not still exist, but either way, you're too 'tired' to seek it out. Hopefully, once you're fully rested, you'll put forth the effort to support what appears to be opinion, but you claim to be fact.



> An example? You haven't backed up what you say with a single source or link.


 I know, but I don't generally make factual claims without providing or pointing to the evidence necessary to prove them. That's why I asked for an example. You have yet to provide one.



> Little more relevant than airbags in cars though, eh?


 Not really, no.
Let me put it to you this way. If they released a study saying 2 inches of Kevlar wasn't significanly more protective than 1 inch, would you let someone shoot you in the chest with no Kevlar at all?



> Did I say it wasn't?


 Did I say you did?



> Point being about the weight?


 Would you rather someone throw one pound of lead at you or one pound of feathers?



> Too bad your second point wasn't plausible then eh?


 Actually, it doesn't matter, as I've gone to extended lengths to explain to you. I find it interesting that it's not sinking in. There's a clear pattern emerging with your ability to take in facts that discomfit you. You seem to lack it.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

jasvll said:


> I'd love to know why you won't simply explain what it is I'm confused about.


I don't know why you put this after that quote.



jasvll said:


> Yes, I can, but that doesn't necessarily mean I can make sense of what you're saying.


Then you are a retard.




jasvll said:


> Let's recap. The evidence may or may not still exist, but either way, you're too 'tired' to seek it out. Hopefully, once you're fully rested, you'll put forth the effort to support what appears to be opinion, but you claim to be fact


I have posted two things to back up my points, you have posted none.



jasvll said:


> I know, but I don't generally make factual claims without providing or pointing to the evidence necessary to prove them. That's why I asked for an example. You have yet to provide one.


''Having more broken hands won't make things safer. Having more orbital fractures won't make things safer. Having more frequent and more severe cuts won't make things safer. Let's not even get into who we'll watch fight while we're waiting 6 months for everyone to heal up or how many more fights will end from a well-placed laceration.''
Your first post. Did you back up any of this? Show me some proof that there are more broken hands, orbital fractures etc. when gloves are removed.




jasvll said:


> Not really, no.
> Let me put it to you this way. If they released a study saying 2 inches of Kevlar wasn't significanly more protective than 1 inch, would you let someone shoot you in the chest with no Kevlar at all?.


Completely Irrelevant and stupid analogy.



jasvll said:


> Did I say you did?


No, but you kept stating that it wasn't, I was just reminding you I never claimed it was.



jasvll said:


> Would you rather someone throw one pound of lead at you or one pound of feathers?


 Again Irrelevant.




jasvll said:


> Actually, it doesn't matter, as I've gone to extended lengths to explain to you. I find it interesting that it's not sinking in. There's a clear pattern emerging with your ability to take in facts that discomfit you. You seem to lack it.


It is hard to explain things that don't make sense isn't it? You know...how that point was relevant, why you would insult me without an explanation while quoting something that had nothing to do with the reason you insulted me and expecting me to figure out what you are on about, that sort of thing.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> No I am not, what do you want me to do? Get all the stats of injuries and concussions from IVC and UFC(after gloves were introduced) and compare the too? Make you a pie chart?


I do not understand how this can be hard to understand if you read the post it was answering.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> YouTube - MMA Vs Boxing safety
> 
> Heres a video that backs up what I say.


 I appreciate you taking time to find a source that at least says what you're saying.

That being said, if I had seen that documentary on TV, I would have had at a few questions. It's been said by many supporters of MMA that it's not the knockout that does the damage to the boxer, but the sustained punishment. The documentary cites increased KOs alone as evidence that MMA is more dangerous now that the gloves are on. How do we explain this inconsistency?

Secondly, it claims that politicians alone are the reason the gloves were added, when in reality, the gloves were added by appointed officials working directly with the UFC, not elected ones. There's nothing to suggest McCain or any other politician had any direct influence over the changes to MMA. US MMA is governed by regulation, not legislation.

It also claims that gloved fighters can punch harder with 'no hand damage,' but I can think of at least one example (Rich Franklin) of gloved fighters breaking their hands during a fight.

I'm afraid the video is not much different than you. It simply says something is the case, without properly supporting the claim with evidence.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

jasvll said:


> I appreciate you taking time to find a source that at least says what you're saying.
> 
> That being said, if I had seen that documentary on TV, I would have had at a few questions. It's been said by many supporters of MMA that it's not the knockout that does the damage to the boxer, but the sustained punishment. The documentary cites increased KOs alone as evidence that MMA is more dangerous now that the gloves are on. How do we explain this inconsistency?
> 
> ...


Gloves were not made mandatory for safety. I believe it was for the audience.
Of course wearing gloves you can still hurt your hand.

Do you train? Do you fight? Have you worn boxing gloves and MMA gloves and hit people with bare knuckles? Hit people with them? Have been hit with all three?

You know the science of a KO, gloves do not prevent the damage done to the brain if you get hit. You will not be anymore damaged from a punch from a knuckle that KOS you or a punch from a glove that KOS you except cosmetically.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> I don't know why you put this after that quote.


 To inform you that I still don't know what you're talking about.





> Then you are a retard.


 Is it common for you to argue with retarded people?



> I have posted two things to back up my points, you have posted none.


 What points?



''Having more broken hands won't make things safer. Having more orbital fractures won't make things safer. Having more frequent and more severe cuts won't make things safer. Let's not even get into who we'll watch fight while we're waiting 6 months for everyone to heal up or how many more fights will end from a well-placed laceration.''


> Your first post. Did you back up any of this? Show me some proof that there are more broken hands, orbital fractures etc. when gloves are removed.


 You already agreed that MMA gloves protect hands long before you requested evidence.
As for the orbital bone, let's use your link that stated that boxing gloves and headgear are designed to protect from external damage, not internal trauma.






> Completely Irrelevant and stupid analogy.


 Except that it's neither. In both cases, stating that there's no significant difference between less of something is not the same as saying there's no significant when there's none of something.




> No, but you kept stating that it wasn't, I was just reminding you I never claimed it was.


 Had you dropped it after the first time I pointed out its irrelvance, I wouldn't have pointed it out again.




> Again Irrelevant.


 Except that it's not. The extra weight afforded by the gloves is derived from a substance designed to absorb a portion of the force of the blow. In other words, they can punch harder because now a portion of the impact is being absorbed by a third party. Before, there was just knuckle and face. Now, there's knuckle, padding, then face. It's similar to the concept of the airbag. Hey, I made it relevant. 






> It is hard to explain things that don't make sense isn't it?


 Yes. What does that have to do with something as simple as 'if either B or C is true, A isn't necessarily true?'



> You know...how that point was relevant, why you would insult me without an explanation while quoting something that had nothing to do with the reason you insulted me and expecting me to figure out what you are on about, that sort of thing.


 I didn't insult you. I simply said that you tend to filter out information that goes against your beliefs. If I had wanted to insult you, I would have simply called you something meaningless, like retarded.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

jasvll said:


> I didn't insult you. I simply said that you tend to filter out information that goes against your beliefs. If I had wanted to insult you, I would have simply called you something meaningless, like retarded.



I was bringing up the irrelevant old thread again.
We had already moved on from these points and I already made another reply. 

However, me agreeing that gloves protect hands has nothing to do with you making a claim and not backing it up, then saying you didn't.

I aint dodging your points, but most of it has become senseless bickering at this stage.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> Gloves were not made mandatory for safety. I believe it was for the audience.


 So, you agree the documentary was wrong when it claimed i was the politicians behind the gloves?


> Of course wearing gloves you can still hurt your hand.


 So, you agree the documentary was wrong when it claimed that the risk of hand injury was eliminated by the gloves?



> Do you train? Do you fight? Have you worn boxing gloves and MMA gloves and hit people with bare knuckles? Hit people with them? Have been hit with all three?


 I'm a 3rd degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do, with almost a decade and a half of training, and I spent a full decade instructing. I've been knocked silly by kicks in the ring and bare knuckle punches outside the ring. I've punched and been punched many times by a boxing glove, but not by a MMA glove. None of that puts me in a better position to judge the empirical difference between the damage done by any of them and whether or not my individual experience would be statistically normal in a large population. All I know is that the kick to the head hurt the most.



> You know the science of a KO, gloves do not prevent the damage done to the brain if you get hit. You will not be anymore damaged from a punch from a knuckle that KOS you or a punch from a glove that KOS you except cosmetically.


 So, you agree that the documentary made another mistake?


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

jasvll said:


> So, you agree the documentary was wrong when it claimed i was the politicians behind the gloves??


No, I do not. I said that the glove changes were probably done for the audience. That doesn't change the fact that politicains hounded the sport and tried to force it to change it's rules. We do not know exactly what the people who changed the rules were thinking, and we never will. It is just my opinion. I didn't say ''I believe every piece of information put forward by this documentary'', I just said it said the same thing I did in relation to the gloves.



jasvll said:


> So, you agree the documentary was wrong when it claimed that the risk of hand injury was eliminated by the gloves?


The documentary claimed no such thing. It said fighters were able to punch harder with no hand damage.




jasvll said:


> I'm a 3rd degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do, with almost a decade and a half of training, and I spent a full decade instructing. I've been knocked silly by kicks in the ring and bare knuckle punches outside the ring. I've punched and been punched many times by a boxing glove, but not by a MMA glove. None of that puts me in a better position to judge the empirical difference between the damage done by any of them and whether or not my individual experience would be statistically normal in a large population. All I know is that the kick to the head hurt the most.


Yes, it does put you in a better position. I ask solely because you refuse to back what you say up with links or statistics.



jasvll said:


> So, you agree that the documentary made another mistake?


No, I do not.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> No, I do not. I said that the glove changes were probably done for the audience. That doesn't change the fact that politicains hounded the sport and tried to force it to change it's rules. We do not know exactly what the people who changed the rules were thinking, and we never will. It is just my opinion. I didn't say ''I believe every piece of information put forward by this documentary'', I just said it said the same thing I did in relation to the gloves.


 Interesting.




> The documentary claimed no such thing. It said fighters were able to punch harder with no hand damage.


 Hmm, I'm trying to see how their statement or yours can be interpreted to allow for hand damage. Maybe when they punch softer, they damage their hands?



> Yes, it does put you in a better position. I ask solely because you refuse to back what you say up with links or statistics.


 Nonsense. I already cited your source regarding padding reducing external damage to the face. As for gloves protecting the hands, here you go:
http://www.mmaforum.com/298013-post18.html




> No, I do not.


 Interesting.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

If someone sells you some gloves and says 'this new padding allows you to punch harder with no hand damage.' those that have to mean you cannot damage your hand when punching with those gloves? No it does not.

You are simply trying to use the wording of the documentary to discredit it.

You are using me as your source regarding gloves protecting hands? Hah.........

You have no evidence to support your claims. At all. Show me something, anything that shows the amount of injuries, conscussions rtc. goes up if you take gloves out of the eqaution. If you cannot, your points are just as based on 'faith' as you seem to think mine are.


----------



## mwillis13 (Jun 15, 2007)

Al "Tapout" Bundy


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

jehu pitchfork said:


> I NEVER CLAIMED IT TO BE SAFER. I WAS IMPLYING THAT I'D RATHER RECEIVE A DEEP CUT VS A CONCUSSION OR WORSE DUE TO THE FACT THAT GLOVELESS FIGHTERS ARE LESS LIKELY TO GO ALL OUT W/ SHOTS TO THE DOME.


 I know. I was just pointing out that some people were to explain why I had been posting in this thread.



> MY BAD, FREAK OUT IS EXAGERRATION, BUT YOUR ARGUMENT SEEMS TO BE PRO KEEPING GLOVES. MY BAD IF IM MISREADING THAT.


 No, my argument is simply that the gloves add a margin of safety to MMA, nothing more. For example, I'm not arguing that that margin of safety is necessary for MMA to be considered safe.




> THIS STATEMENT IS RIDICULOUS. I HAVE NO IDEA WHY YOU EVEN STATED THIS. THIS PARTICULAR STATEMENT SEEMS TO HAVE COME FROM LEFT FIELD.


 It's satire. You're saying that if we put the fighters at greater risk of injury, it's their job to adapt in order to avoid that injury. If we gave them 9mms, for example, it would be their responsibility to get a bullet proof vest.



> WIN/WIN FOR THE WINNER AND THE LOSER IN MY OPINION IS WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO,IN THAT BOTH OPPONENTS INJURIES WILL LIKELY BE LESS SEVERE DUE TO THROWING SMARTER PUNCHES. I RECOGNIZE THAT I FAILED TO CLARIFY THAT, THANKS FOR POINTING THAT OUT.


 It would be interesting to see if fighters would actually fight smarter.



> SINCE YOU'RE SO INTO ASKING FOR STATS, YOU YOURSELF ALSO STATED EARLIER THAT YOU "ASSUMED" THAT UNPADDED SURFACES WILL CAUSE MORE CUTS, SHOW US STATS PROVING THAT "ASSUMPTION".


 If it's an assumption, then there obviously isn't enough direct evidence to draw a conclusion. Otherwise, a person wouldn't call it an assumption. However, since I don't recall calling it an assumption...



> The introduction of Gloves to the free fight of Mixed Martial Arts also helped to reduce the occurrence of cuts (and stoppages due to cuts) and encourage fighters to use their hands for striking, both of which enable more captivating matches.


 MMA Gloves - World Of Combat



> Mixed martial arts gloves were introduced to the sport for fighter safety because fighters were breaking their hands from throwing punches. Also, the ringside doctors were stopping many fights because of cuts that were caused by bare knuckle punches.


 Mixed Martial Arts Gloves & Supplies




> MMA Gloves will be necessary if you want to train in our MMA classes.
> These are designed to protect your hands as well as help reduce cuts.


http://centexbjj.com/supplies.htm




> I THINK IT IS VERY REASONABLE TO STATE THAT IF YOU FIGHT W/OUT GLOVES, YOU ARE GOING TO THROW LESS STRIKES, THEREFORE LESS CUTS FROM UNPADDED FISTS WILL BE THE RESULT.


 Assuming your premise is true, it's still not enough to suggest your conclusion is true. The only way your conclusion could be true is if the number of cuts caused by padded gloves was near equal with the number of cuts caused by bare knuckle strikes.



> ALSO, LESS HAND FRACTURES, CAUSE FIGHTERS ARE GOING TO BE MUCH MORE SELECTIVE ABOUT WHERE TO THROW THEIR PUNCHES SO THERE WILL BE LESS "RANDOM" HAYMAKERS BEING THROWN, WHICH ARE A LOT OF THE TIMES ARE TECHNICALLY POORLY THROWN PUNCHES.


 You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but using your own prediction about how fighter behavior will change under the new rules doesn't do anything to prove that MMA will be safer under the new rules. 


> PERSONALLY, OUT OF THE HUNDREDS OF STREET FIGHTS IVE SEEN, BETWEEN MOSTLY ONLINE VIDEOS & A FEW REAL LIFE FIGHTS, BRUISING IS DEFINITELY THE MORE TYPICAL OUTCOME FOR PUNCHES TO THE FACE & HEAD, NOT ORBITAL FRACTURES. HAND FRACTURES DEFINITELY HAPPEN, BUT IT IS USUALLY DUE TO POORLY THROWN AMATEUR PUNCHES, WHICH WOULDN'T BE AS MUCH OF A CONCERN SINCE WERE DEALING W/ PROFESSIONAL FIGHTERS WHO ARE TRAINED TO KNOW BETTER.


 When I said orbital fractures in my first post, I didn't mean to exclude any other facial injury, like broken noses, jaws, or cheekbones.

You seem to recognize the difference between a street fighter's punch and a pro's, yet you don't seem to realize that using a relatively unskilled fighter's punch not breaking an orbital bone doesn't say much when compared to what will happen when a pro hits you. 

One shot, broken jaw:
YouTube - 23.11.2001 James Butler sucker-punches Richard Grant
Granted, boxers hit harder than most MMA strikers, but they both hit very hard. 

Oh, and why are you shouting?


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> If someone sells you some gloves and says 'this new padding allows you to punch harder with no hand damage.' those that have to mean you cannot damage your hand when punching with those gloves? No it does not.


 Yes, it does. Now, if they had said this glove allows you to punch harder while reducing hand damage, then they wouldn't be wrong.



> You are simply trying to use the wording of the documentary to discredit it.


 Whose words should I use? 



> You are using me as your source regarding gloves protecting hands? Hah.........


 Are you saying you're wrong?



> You have no evidence to support your claims. At all. Show me something, anything that shows the amount of injuries, conscussions rtc. goes up if you take gloves out of the eqaution. If you cannot, your points are just as based on 'faith' as you seem to think mine are.


 I never said concussions would go up.

Check my last post for some links.

We can also point to your claim that fighters will have to modify their punching technique in order to avoid doing damage to their hands, unless, of course, you were wrong again.

There's also the general principle of padding, which can be observed in everything from MMA and baseball to shipping. A catcher's mitt reduces the impact of the ball against the catcher's hand, greatly reducing the risk of injury. Packing materials in shipping reduce the impact of the environment on items being transported, greatly reducing the risk of breakage. 
I mean, do you think they put eggs in styrofoam cartons for the fun of it?

Also, there's the fact that gloves were added to boxing and later MMA because those in charge of protecting the fighters determined that adding gloves would do just that.


----------



## KnockinUout (Jun 21, 2007)

I wanna fight ed o'neil....And I say UFC takes off the gloves


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

jasvll said:


> Yes, it does. Now, if they had said this glove allows you to punch harder while reducing hand damage, then they wouldn't be wrong.


 Whose words should I use? .[/QUOTE]

It is the fact that you are using an interpretation of one sentence in order to discredit something. Gloves allow you to punch harder than you could without gloves without doing damage to your hand, there is nothing wrong with the statement. They do allow you to punch harder without any hand damage than you could without them.



jasvll said:


> Are you saying you're wrong?


]
I said that? 
You should be backing up what you say with links and facts, that is what you are asking me to do isn't it?



jasvll said:


> I never said concussions would go up.


You said gloves do not allow for more concussions. Doesn't change the fact you haven't proven anything with any credible links.



jasvll said:


> Check my last post for some links.


Awesome. One link that doesn't disprove anything I siad, and actually backs up what I said about gloves being brought in for the spectators more than the fighters safety, one taken from a site selling gloves, making it biased and wirthless, and another that doesn't disprove anything I said. Great job. Want to throw a description of some MMA gloves from a seller on ebay at me?



jasvll said:


> We can also point to your claim that fighters will have to modify their punching technique in order to avoid doing damage to their hands, unless, of course, you were wrong again.
> 
> There's also the general principle of padding, which can be observed in everything from MMA and baseball to shipping. A catcher's mitt reduces the impact of the ball against the catcher's hand, greatly reducing the risk of injury. Packing materials in shipping reduce the impact of the environment on items being transported, greatly reducing the risk of breakage.
> I mean, do you think they put eggs in styrofoam cartons for the fun of it?
> ...


Can we? I have been claiming fromthe beggining that gloves are there to protect hand and not peoples heads, thats why they do not make the sport safer.

General principle of padding? Yet again.....you know how head trauma occurs, therefore you know that padding does not prevent it.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> It is the fact that you are using an interpretation of one sentence in order to discredit something. Gloves allow you to punch harder than you could without gloves without doing damage to your hand, there is nothing wrong with the statement. They do allow you to punch harder without any hand damage than you could without them.


 Repeating yourself won't change the language.


> I said that?
> You should be backing up what you say with links and facts, that is what you are asking me to do isn't it?


 You made that claim before I made my first post. Either you're a valid source, or you're not. Which is it?




> You said gloves do not allow for more concussions. Doesn't change the fact you haven't proven anything with any credible links.


 I was responding to your claim that MMA gloves allowed for more concussions relative to bare knuckles. You're contradicting accepted science and the athletic commissions without any direct evidence, not me.




> Awesome. One link that doesn't disprove anything I siad,


 None of them were intended to disprove anything you said.


> and actually backs up what I said about gloves being brought in for the spectators more than the fighters safety,


 Are you joking? It said it allowed for more 'captivating' fights. Nowhere did it suggest that that was the reason they were added. It simply noted the side effect, and it's pure opinion.



> one taken from a site selling gloves, making it biased and wirthless,


 Selling a product doesn't prove you're lying about it. Is GM biased and worthless when they claim that their airbag system is designed to reduce serious injury in traffic accidents?



> and another that doesn't disprove anything I said.


 Again, none of them were intended to disprove anything you said. 



> Great job. Want to throw a description of some MMA gloves from a seller on ebay at me?


 Depends on how well they describe the purpose of their product.




> Can we? I have been claiming fromthe beggining that gloves are there to protect hand and not peoples heads, thats why they do not make the sport safer.


 How is protecting a fighter's hand not making the sport safer? 



> General principle of padding? Yet again.....you know how head trauma occurs, therefore you know that padding does not prevent it.


Nothing indicates that head trauma would go down if gloves were removed. Yes, you can punch harder, but that's only because the force now has a third place to be absorbed. Before, all the force of the punch was absorbed by the hand/arm and the skull. Now, it's being absorbed by the hand/arm, padding, and the skull. See how it works? You consistently ignore the new factor, except in places where it benefits your beliefs.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

I started writing a reply, but seriously, what a pedantic pile of shit.
http://sulcus.berkeley.edu/mcb/165_001/papers/manuscripts/_164.html
And I know this talks about boxing gloves. Gloves protect hands, not heads.


Protecting a fighters hands does not make the sport safer if it allows injuries to the head to become more severe(i.e. allowing people to punch a lot harder without risk of hand injury).
Obviously head injuries are in a different leaugue to cuts and broken wrists.

And gloves can not make up for the amount of extra force you can exert while throwing punches with the tiny amount of padding they contain. Because they protect hands.


----------



## screenamesuck (Jun 29, 2006)

WOW, are you guys still going at it. Can't you take this to PM since it's gone on for so long. I know your talking about somthing that was said in the video, but since you two will NEVER agree on anything why not take it to PM so this thread isn't clogged up with your argument


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

screenamesuck said:


> WOW, are you guys still going at it. Can't you take this to PM since it's gone on for so long. I know your talking about somthing that was said in the video, but since you two will NEVER agree on anything why not take it to PM so this thread isn't clogged up with your argument




I agree with Jasvll on a lot of things actually, nobody notices cos when I do I am not calling him a retard.

This thread is the place for this arguement.


----------

