David

Strickland has certainly become something of a "star" in the UFC world of late, and as much as he annoys the fuck out of me as a person, the guy has been fighting for over 15 years and has seen some real ups and downs in the cage. I'm glad he's seeing a bit of hype and interest, for however long it lasts. 

It just goes to show you though, when Dana and UFC management tell fighters that they need to do or say something to make the fans care, they're not lying. 

How much does anyone remember of Strickland from before his motorcycle accident and two-year layoff? I certainly don't really remember much about him from then. It's only when he came back and started to incorporate the "psychopath" character as Michael Bisping loved to call him, that people started to give a shit one way or the other.

Strip all that away and you have what I've described in previous posts. A handy, borderline top-five fighter who is really good at most aspects of the game but stands out in none. 

He's gone from someone who's won more fights via decision than knockout, and who can put together a nice little boxing clinic and outpoint his opponents to someone that some fans consider to be a blood & guts warrior who's down for throwing hands to the death.

Just like with McGregor for the most part, and Covington, perception is king.  

On 1/18/2024 at 10:39 PM, Cousin Jim Bob said:

I'm close to just giving up watching MMA. It's just so depressing listening to some of these dickheads.

The answer is simple. Stop listening to what they have to say. Strickland is a fucking goon. Why anyone would care what he has to say about anything other than trading leather in a cage is beyond me. 

Watch the official countdown show, which tends to be more fight-focused, then watch the event itself. I've started doing that and it's vastly more enjoyable. Let's be honest, the press conferences are the drizzling shits anyway. They basically consist of fighters trying to shock everyone with shit bantz, non-English speakers looking confused while no one talks to them, and the blander fighters just mumbling about how they're coming to fight and had a great camp.

They became "a thing" because of Conor, but honestly, they're mostly forgettable. 

Divisional Round

QB: Josh Allen (Buffalo Bills)

RB: Christian McCaffrey (49ers)

WR: Amon-Ra St. Brown (Detroit Lions)

TE: George Kittle (49ers)

K: Jake Moody (49ers)

DST: Baltimore Ravens

MOST YARDS: San Francisco 49ers

MOST POINTS: San Francisco 49ers

TOTAL NET YARDS: 2833 Yards

AFC1: Houston Texans @ Baltimore Ravens:

AFC2: Kansas City Chiefs @ Buffalo Bills:

NFC1: Green Bay Packers @ San Francisco 49ers:

NFC2: Tampa Bay Buccaneers @ Detroit Lions:

12 minutes ago, wandshogun09 said:

This comes up every time and, while you’re not wrong, I feel like that kind of talk is a bit of a cop-out. Nobody’s saying they’re watching MMA specifically looking for intelligent, PC personalities. But when someone’s saying rancid shit like we’re seeing more and more of lately, it should be met with backlash and negativity. It shouldn’t just be waved off as ‘what do you expect, he/she is a MMA fighter’. What’s the alternative? Twats like Strickland can just keep talking shit about wives and dead people and spewing hateful crap and nobody even says anything?

The funny thing is, and going against my own argument, if everyone did do that, Strickland would probably eventually pipe down a bit because he’s not getting the reaction he wants. My main point was to highlight what an absolute pathetic manchild Strickland has came off as for throwing a tantrum because DDP was mean and nasty to him. After all the vile shit he’s dished out.

Yeah, no one is saying it shouldn't be met with backlash and negativity, but it isn't. It never has been. For any kind of backlash to have an effect it either has to come from the people who run the company or a very sizeable chunk of the fanbase. That simply hasn't happened.

Part of the reason for that is because the company is run by, and the fanbase, for the most part, consists of absolute reprobates. But...it's grown men (and women) punching each other in the face inside a cage for public pleasure and betting enjoyment. This kind of thing will attract those types of people. 

17 minutes ago, wandshogun09 said:

Nah fuck him. If anyone clouds that it’s Strickland himself. If there’s a reason why, on the fight week of his first title defence, no-one’s really talking about his fighting skills it’s because all the other bullshit that surrounds him overshadows it. And that’s his own doing. Nobody on here says he’s a bad fighter. I dislike him as much, if not more than anyone on here and, even as much as I loathe him, I’ve praised his performance against Izzy way more than I wanted to in the opening post. Credit where it’s due. But if he’s gonna spew horrible shit like he does, it’s gonna get talked about. It’s almost sad really that here’s a guy coming off an amazing underdog win where he became champion against the odds, and he’s such a desperate edgelord loser that the focus is on his silly bollocks rants. 

Your free to think that way, of course, but none of that changes what I said about what he can do when the cage door closes and it's time for business. 

Personally, I've tried to avoid all the build-up for this event. And most events of late, actually. And I'll sure as hell be avoiding the build if and when we see Adesanya face DDP. That shit will be ugly. I don't need to be sold on an event. I'm going to watch most title fights and main event segments of most cards if I have time. 

I've reached the point where I couldn't give two shits what Strickland says in interviews or at press conferences. I can't change what he says, and my being upset by it won't change anything. So I don't let it register. I'll watch the event tomorrow night, and enjoy two very good MMA fighters duke it out.

13 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

I'm fairly sure that, in any other sport, a competitor would be released for some of the stuff he's said, on the basis of bringing the sport into disrepute. I don't mean the political stuff - much as I think that makes them horrendous cunts, they should still be free to voice their opinions, much as I'm free to dismiss them as drivel - but the stuff about Lipp and Colares was bang out of order, and he should've been made to apologise for that. I'm not surprised that execrable turd White didn't do anything though - as long as it doesn't cost him money, he doesn't really care.

Would an apology from Strickland really make any difference? We all know it wouldn't be sincere. He believes what he believes, and he's not afraid to voice it. 

Strickland is what he is. I've said it before, anyone who's looking for intelligent, politically correct personalities in cage fighting is going to have to look long and hard. Those types are few and far between. 

I get the feeling that Strickland is only saying what a fair amount of MMA fighters probably believe, but are smart enough not to say in public. I doubt the square-headed Dagestani beards that we see clogging up the sport are all signed-up allies to the gay and trans communities either, they're just smart enough to not say it. Or don't have a good enough grasp of English to do so. The deafening silence when Strickland says this shit speaks volumes in itself.

As a person, Strickland is a knob. No shock there. But what we shouldn't do is allow his reprehensible personality to cloud the fact that he's far from being a bad fighter. 

He's one of those fighters who's very good at a number of aspects, but a standout at none. Which, funnily enough, is a great recipe for success. It's the guys like him who see success, while the flashy-looking fighters who are great at standup or on the ground tend to fade quickly and get figured out.

He's got brilliant cardio, which on its own is enough to make a decent fighter very good. I've said before that his footwork is terrific. His defensive standup is top-notch, with a 65% defence rate, which is ranked top of his division, and his use of the fabled Philly shell guard is notable. His volume pressure boxing is probably right up there with the Diaz brothers, while his power isn't devasting, but is still going to cause problems. 

Throw in a takedown defence rate of 84%, and he's not an easy fight for anyone. He doesn't really have a glaring weakness that his opponent can take advantage of. 

DDP could very well beat him, but I don't really see anywhere he has a real advantage. This should be a close fight unless one of them manages to catch the other early with a good shot.

It happens every time. They go all-out with the bullshit to sell the fight to the peons, then give it the "much respect, bro" stuff behind closed doors and after the fight.

I hope Strickland wins again, just to fuck with the UFC and Adesanya. 

17 hours ago, NeverYield said:

I'd like to see Strickland win cos he's entertained the fuck out of me lately with his antics🤣

You come around here, posting shit like this in the wrong thread? That's not the way things are done here, chief. 

Another win for yet another square-headed Russian with dodgy facial hair. This has been the story of the UFC for quite some time now, but I have to admit, Mose Schrute looked pretty good in that second round.

QB: Josh Allen (Bills)

RB: De'Von Achane (Dolphins)

WR: Tyreek Hill (Dolphins)

TE: David Njoku (Browns)

K: Jake Elliott (Eagles)

DST: Buffalo Bills

MOST YARDS: Buffalo Bills

MOST POINTS: Buffalo Bills

TOTAL NET YARDS: 4327

AFC1: Cleveland Browns @ Houston Texans

AFC2: Miami Dolphins @ Kansas City Chiefs

AFC3: Pittsburgh Steelers @ Buffalo Bills

NFC1: Green Bay Packers @ Dallas Cowboys

NFC2: Los Angeles Rams @ Detroit Lions

NFC3: Philadelphia Eagles @ Tampa Bay Buccaneers

All In? That's ancient history. Back when Punk was dishing out Starbucks cards, threatening spoiled rich kids and generally being a moaning-faced prick.

We've all moved on since then, accepting that he's actually one of the biggest stars in the game and is a perfect fit for modern-day WWE. 

I remember thinking that Arlovski was finished and washed up when he went on a four-fight skid in Affliction MMA (remember those guys?!?)

That was 15 fucking years ago!

Week 18 Fixtures

Saturday January 6th

Pittsburgh Steelers @ Baltimore Ravens

Houston Texans @ Indianapolis Colts

Sunday January 7th

Tampa Bay Buccaneers @ Carolina Panthers

Cleveland Browns @ Cincinnati Bengals

Minnesota Vikings @ Detroit Lions

New York Jets @ New England Patriots

Atlanta Falcons @ New Orleans Saints

Jacksonville Jaguars @ Tennessee Titans

Seattle Seahawks @ Arizona Cardinals 

Chicago Bears @ Green Bay Packers

Kansas City Chiefs @ Los Angeles Chargers

Denver Broncos @ Las Vegas Raiders

Philadelphia Eagles @ New York Giants

Los Angeles Rams @ San Francisco 49ers

Washington Commanders @ Dallas Cowboys

Buffalo Bills @ Miami Dolphins

Even forgetting that he's an MMA fighter who needs to drop weight, can you imagine what he must put his body through to get to that size in such a short period of time? How much absolute shite he must eat and drink? That's not healthy.

4 hours ago, Dai said:

Wonder what the logic is of 185 though?

McGregor is naturally the bigger man, especially now. He'll want to come in at 185lbs, jacked up to the gills, and he'll look to goad Chandler into a slugfest early, and when Chandler starts swinging with abandon as he usually does the bigger and longer McGregor will pick him apart and stop him.

I see it being similar to the Eddie Alvarez fight if McGregor wins. If he doesn't put Chandler away in the first round or two then it gets interesting.

2 minutes ago, Loki said:

The non-answer only serves to feed more speculation, but we can take from this that Jericho is going to remain front and centre of AEW programming, so as far as his company is concerned there's no issue.

That's the main point for someone like Khan. While wrestling fans in general all love to talk about how awkward he is on camera, and how he's like an extra from The Big Bang Theory, it's often forgotten that he's nothing more than an egotistical, spoiled brat from a billionaire family. 

Sure, he's maybe not as smart as he likes to think he is, but his family fortune ensures he's surrounded by top-level lawyers and advisors who will keep him right. And by right, I mean out of legal trouble.

He doesn't give a flying fuck what Kylie Rae experienced or thinks. He likes having Jericho around, and I'm sure Jericho does a fair bit behind the scenes for AEW, so from a business standpoint he's not going to want to bin him.

Like most people in his position, he'll only make that move if the situation becomes untenable. And by untenable I mean a direct threat to himself like Punk seemingly was, or affecting the bottom line at the company. I doubt that this situation will cause that, so Jericho will remain. 

So, basically whoever faces McGregor will be facing a McGregor who is likely still on the gas? Interesting. 

I actually think O'Malley could be right on what he said, which is that McGregor basically makes that much money per fight that the UFC are super-cagey about when they schedule him:

Quote

 

“You know what’s crazy is Conor is supposedly just begging for a fight,” O’Malley said on his “TimboSugarShow” podcast.

“Conor says his patience is wearing thin over UFC inactivity.

“I wonder if he’s making so much money per fight that it’s really just not that beneficial to the UFC, like they’re losing money when he fights.

“I wonder if his deal is structured in a way where it’s like, ‘F***!'”

 

2 hours ago, Devon Malcolm said:

The job Moyes has done this season after they didn't directly replace Rice is remarkable. But the stink of his United run (a lot of which is no fault of his own) means that he's always going to be one of those managers that fanbases will always be looking for excuses to fuck off.

Yeah, there's a lot of West Ham fans who are almost pissed off when he gets a result or two, because they know it'll keep him around longer.

Keep the Corbyn chat to other less important threads, please. I click this thread to see what's happening with Punk.

9 hours ago, Kfogg1991 said:

I'm calling it now if we don't see the announcement he's fighting at UFC 300 then it's not happening and we won't be seeing him in the octagon again. If the huge deal of headlining UFC 300 isn't enough to get his shit together nothing will be close and shut the door and get chandler a fight he has been ready and waiting for that fight and not fought the entire year because of that 

Not to defend the fella, but it seems it's actually the other way around. He wants to fight, and can't get the company to agree to a date and opponent for him.

There's a lot of accusations we can throw at McG, but he doesn't shirk a fight, and he never sits out when he doesn't need to really.

6 hours ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

It's politics, its supposed to inspire debate but here we are, back at 'fuck off'.

Oh, come on. I didn't mean for you to literally fuck off. It's a turn of phrase, you surely know that? As in "Oh, fuck off mate. I'm not having that."

And you've been here long enough to know that I'm all about that sweet, sweet debate. But degree or not, I'm not having you throw Yang and Corbyn in there with the company that you did. that's the line in the sand for me.

On 12/23/2023 at 10:32 AM, d-d-d-dAz said:

Rogan has had Sanders on, and Yang, and Robert Kennedy.

Rogan has said numerous times that he's happy to have any high-profile name on his show who is willing to come on and answer some questions that their team hasn't pre-approved or vetted. His whole concept, like him or not, is based on his show being something of a conversation.

The names you mention have been on his show because they're happy to come on without the questions being pre-approved or the final product being vetted or edited.

I'm sure if a "serious" politician was happy to come on the show and answer questions without having them vetted by their team Rogan would happily have them on. Most of them aren't really willing to do that though.

On 12/23/2023 at 10:32 AM, d-d-d-dAz said:

Rogan types aren't republican or democrat particularly, but they're broadly apolitical, lack any real interest in how politics actually works and just want a charismatic saviour with all the answers to make life better.

According to who though? you? You've just made a sweeping statement there with no real facts to back it up. Most research into the demographics of Rogan's show highlights that his audience is primarily Republican and Conservative politically. 

I provided a link (and there are others I can provide if you want them, all of which say the same thing) that shows exactly what demographics his listeners fall into. 

What you've done is bend the truth and the actual facts to suit your argument. You need to believe that Rogan's listeners lack any interest in how politics works and are just simpletons who need a "charismatic saviour" with all the answers, otherwise, your argument falters.

The truth is, most of Rogan's listeners disagree with the politics of Sanders and Yang, but they listen in to hear Rogan throw the tough questions at them. 

On 12/23/2023 at 10:32 AM, d-d-d-dAz said:

Andrew Yang believed mentally ill people were ruining New York, and was going to increase psych ward capacity to get them off the streets. He meant homeless people. That's insane.

What Andrew Yang actually said was - 

"We need to get them the care that they need, but that will also supercharge our economic recovery because we all see these mentally ill people on our streets and subways, and you know who else sees them? Tourists. And then they don't come back, and they tell their friends, 'Don't go to New York City.' We're never going to get our jobs back and our economy back if we don't get the mentally ill people who are on our streets in a better environment."

Is he wrong? He said that having mentally ill people roaming the streets untreated was a risk to public safety and was affecting tourism, and he also made the more important point that the city itself was failing those individuals who needed help.

You talk about wanting "serious politics" yet you become all hysterical when Andrew Yang brings up a serious topic that the so-called serious politicians are all afraid to touch. What they do is choose to focus on the fact that he mentioned tourism, while conveniently avoiding the actual treatment that the people of the city deserve and simply aren't receiving.

Check out this article in the New York Times for some background on what he was addressing. Again, a fairly well-balanced piece.

Your "serious" politicians are happy to pretend the issue doesn't exist and just hope that it goes away. Yang isn't.

On 12/23/2023 at 10:32 AM, d-d-d-dAz said:

His campaigns (both, he tried to save America and then New York as Mayor) have both had lawsuits filed against them for bullying and sexual harassment and a 'bro' culture.

Show me a politician who has run any campaign with a team of complete angels and I'll tell you you're lying. Virtually every campaign run by any serious politician has its issues, this isn't exclusive to Yang.

Yes, a campaigner for Yang did sue for discrimination and retaliation, alleging that after she spoke up about misogyny in campaign Facebook groups and was denied advancement because of it. 

A former congressional aide says then-Vice President Joe Biden touched her inappropriately at a 2009 fundraiser. As for Trump, there's tons of shit he's done as well.

But those two, especially Biden, are "serious politicians," right? 

On 12/23/2023 at 10:32 AM, d-d-d-dAz said:

But, equally, whatever. He's a fringe candidate. As are the others. The danger is when they are platformed by people like Rogan, without the counter truth which is all their candidacy might do is pervert the actual outcome which might ruin peoples lives. Will Robert Kennedy win the election? Zero chance. Will Robert Kennedy running leech enough votes off Biden to win Trump the election and possibly kick-start a chain of events that fucks everybody? Quite possibly.

Without the counter-truth? Like the absolute nonsense you've spouted in this thread and that I've addressed above? You're just as bad at bending the truth as any of these fringe politicians you claim to fear. 

What you're saying, when it comes right down to it, is that you don't want people afforded the freedom of choice and alternative candidates because it might fuck with the status quo that you wish to see upheld? And that's fair enough, but at least be honest enough to say that. Don't try to paint it as you being worried that poor, uneducated morons who aren't as smart as you might be fooled by Yang or Kennedy appearing on The Joe Rogan Podcast. 

On 12/23/2023 at 10:32 AM, d-d-d-dAz said:

Andrew Yang. Vivek Ramaswamy. Robert Kennedy. Marianne Williamson. Boris Johnson. Jeremy Corbyn. Marine Le Pen. 

It's just the death of serious grown up politics on both sides of the Atlantic, and its heartbreaking.

Oh, fuck off. Seriously. Are you really going to post a group of names and include Andrew Yang and Jeremy Corbyn alongside Marine Le Pen, Boris Johnson and Vivek Ramaswamy?

I've read some real nonsense on this forum in my time, but that right there is some of the most reactionary, uninformed drivel I've seen. 

Week 17 Fixtures

Thursday December 28th

New York Jets @ Cleveland Browns

Saturday December 30th

Detroit Lions @ Dallas Cowboys

Sunday December 31st

Miami Dolphins @ Baltimore Ravens

New England Patriots @ Buffalo Bills

Atlanta Falcons @ Chicago Bears

Tennessee Titans @ Houston Texans

Las Vegas Raiders @ Indianapolis Colts

Carolina Panthers @ Jacksonville Jaguars

Los Angeles Rams @ New York Giants

Arizona Cardinals @ Philadelphia Eagles

New Orleans Saints @ Tampa Bay Buccaneers

San Francisco 49ers @ Washington Commanders

Pittsburgh Steelers @ Seattle Seahawks

Los Angeles Chargers @ Denver Broncos

Cincinnati Bengals @ Kansas City Chiefs

Green Bay Packers @ Minnesota Vikings

5 hours ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

Andrew Yang was a fucking idiot. A lunatic fringe candidate for bored men that listen to the Joe Rogan podcast and need everything in life to be interesting or exciting.

Well, that's an interesting take.

According to Unherd.com, and other demographic websites, Rogan's "avid" audience skews primarily Republican Conservative. While those who describe themselves as "non-fans" skew on the side of democratic and liberal.

So, going by your line of thinking, supporters of Andrew Yang should be similar.

But they're not. According to fivethirtyeight.com Yang's supporter base is primarily under 45 years old with a real slant towards the 18-29 age group. Granted, his support does tend to come from young men, but I wouldn't say they're the type who support the crossbow-carrying hunter, BJJ practitioner and all-round juicehead that Rogan is.

Yang's supporters are more likely to be young, tech-savvy, intellectually inclined, liberal males who often vote Democrat. A substantial portion of his support also comes from the Asian-American demographic.

It appears that labelling them as "a fringe group of bored men seeking excitement from the Joe Rogan podcast" might not be the most accurate portrayal of Andrew Yang's diverse and overwhelmingly geeky supporter base.

6 hours ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

He had a million thoughts but zero ideas of substance of his own, had zero experience of the US Government and would have had zero ideas of how to manoeuvre around the Capital or get things done.

It might just be me, but part of the problem the US faces is that it's a closed-door club for predominantly white old dudes who've been around forever. So yeah, I guess you're right that Yang wouldn't have much experience in how to manoeuvre around the Capital and "get things done." 

He doesn't have the old boys' club relationships that the suits who have been around forever all have. 

As for him not having any ideas of substance of his own, what exactly do you want from him? Virtually every President in modern times has had similar policies to those before them from a similar political leaning. Yang is a young Democrat. He's going to skew that way politically.

6 hours ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

It's the same with Vivek Ramaswamy and Robert Kennedy, and plenty more cases before them. Politics as normal is boring, combined with peoples general feeling that they're worst off than they could be, and suddenly they project onto these left field, cult of personality candidates who promise them things can be perfect or exciting. Or both. 

At no point has he ever promised anyone that things can be "perfect" or "exciting." In fact, most of his policies, much like the rest of his persona, are downright boring. 

I'll discount the laughable choice of Vice as a reputable source of what Yang wanted to see implemented and instead point to Politico's simple list of positions and policies. granted, there are no sweary words or cool bantz, but it's a bit more direct and to the point.

And less biased.

6 hours ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

This article doesn't hate this shit as much as I do, but it's a pretty accurate recounting of the various nothingness he had to say on big issues and the other opinions he had on anything that the Internet cared about.

Yeah, "shit" like...

• Abolishing the death penalty
• Abolishing private prisons
• Pay Americans a universal basic income
• At least nine months of paid parental leave per couple and at least six months for a single parent
• Cancel some student debt
• Unlimited spending should not be allowed in politics
• End new oil and gas leases on federal land and end offshore drilling
• Few limits, if any on abortion
• Create public manufacturing facilities to produce generic drugs to drive costs down
• Wipe Section 1325 out of federal law

When you make the comment that his opinions are based around things "the internet" cares about, what does that mean? Isn't "the internet" the majority of the electorate? You're sounding a bit like Clifford Stoll back in '95. 

Now, I will admit that some of his views are what could be termed "optimistic" and I know his voting via the blockchain chit-chat will always scare the old folks who only know blockchain as "that thing those bitcoin scams run on!!" but in all honesty, we're seeing the technology being utilised more and more by countries like Estonia. 

But hey, I know that modern technology is nowhere near as reliable or incorruptible as writing an "X" on a slip of paper with a pencil and posting it into a big metal box, but technology may eventually have a part to play!

So yeah, feel free to say you're not keen on his policies, don't think he's being realistic, isn't old and infirm enough, doesn't know enough old white guys in Washington or whatever, but please, don't make shit up. It just makes you look silly.

He's not a Rogan guy. And he doesn't appeal to, or have a fanbase within the Rogan bro-types. 

I'm hoping to be at 300. I'm hearing that McG is pushing to be on that card. I hope not. I don't leave Glasgow for Vegas to then spend my time with a bunch of pissed up morons in Ireland shirts.