I would say you didn't watch the fight. Mayweather even admitted he took the first three rounds off to guage McGreggor. And that alligns with the fight stats.
taking the rounds "off" doesn't mean he lost them.I watched the entire fight.I watched conor wing punches and mayweather either block or dodge 90% until conor eventually gassed like he did in the nate diaz loss and then get rocked all over the ring till the ref saved him from further punishment. not sure what fight you watched.
Mayweather landed 5 punches in both the 2nd and 3rd rounds, and the two judges from Nevada gave him both rounds. Yeah, I'm sure that's a coincidence, the Italian judge must have been a dumb fuck.
Once again, @Peloquin, you're completely missing the point. The topic of discussion is the judging in the early rounds, when everyone but the two judges from Nevada and die-hard Mayweather fanboys know McGregor won the first four rounds.
I can picture a scene of everybody clapping and cheering and hooting at the end of a great fight, and saying, at most, the word "Yeah!" During this time, Jack stands, raises his right hand, palm-up, and proclaims, in perfect English, the full sentence: "We would be savages if not for this!"
Good stuff, but it's much broader than just martial arts. People can take raw emotions and turn them into great musical compositions through similar means. Or look at Hamlet's acting advice: I think the ideal is not to extinguish passion--which is another problem--but not to let it rule you, to let reason guide your actions. Finding that balance between not just going through the motions but also not losing control is being a civilized person, IMO. You don't need any particular endeavor to figure that out, but a lot of them can help bring clarity on it, martial arts being one.
Convincing people in Norway that there is merit to combat sports is an arduous task. We had an anti-KO rule here until just a year ago, meaning boxing, kickboxing, MMA and such were banned. You could train them, but not host any fights. In general, there is almost no fight culture in Norway, so there is a particularly strong stigma towards combat sports (not for sport wrestling, though). "Neanderthal" is the common insult used towards practitioners and fans. While I myself take no offence I get very angry on behalf of all combat sports practitioners, as they by and large certainly do not deserve such a hideous slur. While Jack's approach of quoting Hamlet would surely impress, my approach is to address the aspect of violence which is generally the point of contention. I argue that what makes combat sports civilized, if not refined, is that it ritualizes violence through a lens of consent. History is filled with brutal conquest, which is an obvious example of non-consensual violence: it is clear that combat sports are far less immoral comparatively. We then have a number of tribal rituals that are violent or harmful, and rarely based on consent: it is again clear that combat sports are far less immoral comparatively. So with that in mind I say that combat sports are actually a shining example of morality when compared to pretty much everything else that has violence as a primary aspect. It's the respect for consent that makes it morally justifiable. So then comes the task of demonstrating that it is civilized too. This is rather simple, and there's two alternatives as far as I can see. You can call it "combat sports", and use the self-evident fact of it being a sport, connect it with the fact that all civilizations practice sports and conclude that sport is an important part of human civilization. Then combine that with the moral justification established earlier, and we have that it is a moral sport that can have a place in any civilization, at which point it has to be categorized as civilized. The second alternative is to call it a "martial art", and use the exact argument above but replace "sport" with "art". The final bridge to cross is then to demonstrate sophistication or refinement. That depends heavily on the practitioners: any sport can be made unrefined if those who participate themselves act unrefined. I challenge them to provide evidence of lacking refinement that is exclusive to MMA, which they'll always fail at because they don't know much about the subject matter. I then tell them to watch, say, a Demetrious Johnson fight and get back to me when they can point to specific things that are unrefined, endemic and unique to MMA (which they won't). With the advent of McGregor, there is the occasional article about MMA in Norwegian newspapers, and this is the approach I've arrived at after a fair few discussions in the comment section.
I don't think it's really comparable to real violence. You are doing harm to the body, but for another purpose. Similar to surgery, though obviously not with the intention of helping the body. I would say that the problem with violence isn't that it causes harm to a body as much as how it is used.
My definition of violence is that it's the intentional causing of harm. If we look at, say, Merriam-Webster they define it as 'a: the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy', which seems to agree with me on the requirement of intent with the phrasing 'so as to'. But it also contains another kind of phrasing that is really insidious. If for instance, it had said 'and destroy' rather than 'or destroy', would you have raised an eyebrow? Because the difference between 'and' and 'or' here is huge, the former requiring that every single one of the listed conditions be met, and the latter requiring only any one of them. So if I say that it is violence, then someone else says "Aha, so you admit to combat sports being abusive! What cruelty!". No, I did not. I only need, say, the 'injury' part to classify it as violence. However, the hypothetical opponent of combat sports in this instance will intentionally misread the 'or' as 'and', claiming that since I admitted to it being violent I have admitted to every single one of the conditions. They will, of course, not apply the converse, and insist that since I reject the accusation of abusiveness, then I can't say that it is violence, even though that is the implication of their interpretation. That would greatly inconvenience their argument. I very strongly believe that combat sports are not inherently abusive, due to the factor of consent. Damage and injury are obviously permitted, but only as far as the referee is willing to allow it and the participants endure it. Those are what make combat sports different from assault (which is the most common comparison I encounter in these kinds of discussions: "Well, if we allow MMA, then we might as well allow people to bludgeon each other half to death in the streets!"), and ultimately what makes them civilized. Surgery is an interesting thing to bring up. An incision with a scalpel is clearly harm, but the overall effect of a successful surgery is healing. Any landed punch is harm, but the overall goal is to win. The difference is that a surgeon will sew up the incision, reversing the injury caused, whereas the winning fighter won't do that to his opponent. Well, is not allowed to, likely can't, but probably also won't. Similarities and differences. So that brings us to the starting definition. When fighters apply their art, is the intention to cause injury or to gain victory? Both, I'd say, but on different levels.
I'll never hate you Mr Diplomat. I have witnessed the machinations of your cortex and the sharpness illustrates the floetic juices that cascade the gorged permeated essence of your creation. I can't hate what will one day become the symmetrical ingurgitation for us all...
