Author: SethF

‘UFC 163: Aldo vs. Korean Zombie’ Aftermath: The Wrong Hands


(Photo courtesy of Josh Hedges/Getty Images.)

By George Shunick

If you dropped upwards of $50 on UFC 163 last night, you’re probably pretty frustrated right about now. This isn’t to say that UFC 163 was the worst pay-per-view in recent memory – although it certainly wasn’t the best – but that it failed to meet expectations across the board. The main event saw a fairly solid fight end early after the challenger, Chang Sung Jung, dislocated his shoulder and the champion, Jose Aldo, took advantage of that fact in brutal fashion. Meanwhile, in the co-main event, Lyoto Machida somehow managed to lose to Phil Davis despite landing harder, cleaner strikes, more strikes overall, dictating the exchanges, taking virtually no damage, stuffing 80% of Davis’ takedowns, and being better by virtually any acceptable metric. And while there were some bright spots from the other fights, it just wasn’t enough to overshadow that feeling that what should have been simply wasn’t in the fights we really cared about.

The main event itself, in a way, was hampered from the get-go. In the first round the Korean Zombie checked an Aldo leg kick, possibly breaking Aldo’s right foot. As a result, the champion was forced to call upon his other weapons. In particular, he favored the jab he developed prior to his last fight against Frankie Edgar. Because he’s an exceptional fighter, Aldo was able to still take the fight to Jung without his primary weapon, but began to slow in the third. Whether that’s because Aldo is getting too large for the division and was fatigued from cutting weight or because fighting on a broken foot kind of sucks, I don’t know. But Jung began to gain some momentum heading into the fourth round. There, as he threw a right cross, Aldo countered with a left hook over Jung’s outstretched arm. As Jung’s arm was exposed to the awkward momentum generated from colliding with Aldo’s hook, his shoulder dislocated. The Korean Zombie gritted his teeth and tried to pop the arm back in, but Aldo smelled blood, took him down, and unloaded with ground and pound. While it may not have been enough to stop a fight against a healthy Jung, Herb Dean noticed Jung was unable to defend himself and stopped it.


(Photo courtesy of Josh Hedges/Getty Images.)

By George Shunick

If you dropped upwards of $50 on UFC 163 last night, you’re probably pretty frustrated right about now. This isn’t to say that UFC 163 was the worst pay-per-view in recent memory – although it certainly wasn’t the best – but that it failed to meet expectations across the board. The main event saw a fairly solid fight end early after the challenger, Chang Sung Jung, dislocated his shoulder and the champion, Jose Aldo, took advantage of that fact in brutal fashion. Meanwhile, in the co-main event, Lyoto Machida somehow managed to lose to Phil Davis despite landing harder, cleaner strikes, more strikes overall, dictating the exchanges, taking virtually no damage, stuffing 80% of Davis’ takedowns, and being better by virtually any acceptable metric. And while there were some bright spots from the other fights, it just wasn’t enough to overshadow that feeling that what should have been simply wasn’t in the fights we really cared about.

The main event itself, in a way, was hampered from the get-go. In the first round the Korean Zombie checked an Aldo leg kick, possibly breaking Aldo’s right foot. As a result, the champion was forced to call upon his other weapons. In particular, he favored the jab he developed prior to his last fight against Frankie Edgar. Because he’s an exceptional fighter, Aldo was able to still take the fight to Jung without his primary weapon, but began to slow in the third. Whether that’s because Aldo is getting too large for the division and was fatigued from cutting weight or because fighting on a broken foot kind of sucks, I don’t know. But Jung began to gain some momentum heading into the fourth round. There, as he threw a right cross, Aldo countered with a left hook over Jung’s outstretched arm. As Jung’s arm was exposed to the awkward momentum generated from colliding with Aldo’s hook, his shoulder dislocated. The Korean Zombie gritted his teeth and tried to pop the arm back in, but Aldo smelled blood, took him down, and unloaded with ground and pound. While it may not have been enough to stop a fight against a healthy Jung, Herb Dean noticed Jung was unable to defend himself and stopped it.

Messy as it was, at least the main event had a definitive finish. I’m not sure what more can be said about Phil Davis’ “win” over Lyoto Machida that hasn’t already be said. Virtually every media observer scored the fight 30-27 for Machida. Some will argue that Machida “didn’t do enough,” which is ridiculous. By any standard – if you argue Davis landed more takedowns, it could be argued stuffing eight as opposed to allowing two inconsequential ones is more significant – he did more than Phil Davis. There really isn’t any room for debate here. People will toss around the phrase “don’t leave it up to the judges,” or some variation thereof, which is an exceptionally stupid reaction to have. Fights go to the judges. When they do, the judges ought to be able to score them competently. If they can’t, they shouldn’t judge fights. Simple as that. Machida isn’t under obligation to change his style; whether or not it requires patience to appreciate, it’s undeniably effective. Unfortunately, in MMA, effectiveness doesn’t always beat incompetence.

With all that said, there were some legitimate bright spots on the rest of the card. Anthony Perosh had a stunning 14-second knockout of Vinny Magalhaes. I’m not really sure if this is a bright spot considering Magalhaes is a much more interesting fighter than the 40 year-old Perosh, and he’ll probably end up cut because of this, but it was a shocking, exciting finish nonetheless. Ian McCall got back on the winning track with a Fight of The Night performance against Iliarde Santos. And John Lineker made a big entrance into the UFC flyweight division (OK, catchweight division) with a vicious TKO of Jose Maria Tome. Don’t be surprised to see Lineker get fast tracked to a title shot against Mighty Mouse with another win or two, assuming he can make the weight; the man has legitimately earned his nickname “Hands of Stone.” (Sorry Sam Stout. “Hands of Polyester” is still available, though!)

Still, it wasn’t enough to make up for what could have – or what should have – been. Aldo will hopefully move up in weight after this and, as much as I feel bad for poor T.J. Grant, get an immediate title shot. Hopefully against Anthony Pettis. For Jung, he’ll have to work his way back into contention. Assuming he recovers well, that shouldn’t be too hard, although I can’t say I’d favor him against Frankie Edgar. As for Phil Davis, I doubt this performance will land him a title shot, especially as Daniel Cormier looks to drop down to 205 after his fight with Roy Nelson. Machida deserves a rematch, but he won’t get one. Regardless of how effective, intelligent and even artful his style is, most fans just don’t have the patience for it. And unfortunately, it appears some judges don’t as well.

Full Results:

Main Card
Jose Aldo def. Chan Sung Jung via TKO (punches), 2:00 of Round Four
Phil Davis def. Lyoto Machida via Unanimous Decision
Cezar Ferreira def. Thiago Santos via Submission (guillotine choke), 0:47 of Round One
Thales Leites def. Tom Watson Unanimous Decision
John Lineker def. José Maria via TKO (punches), 1:03 of Round Two

Preliminary Card
Anthony Perosh def. Vinny Magalhães via KO (punches), 0:14 of Round One
Amanda Nunes def. Sheila Gaff via TKO (elbows), 2:08 of Round One
Sergio Moraes def. Neil Magny via Submission (triangle choke), 3:13 of Round One
Ian McCall def. Iliarde Santos via Unanimous Decision
Rani Yahya def. Josh Clopton via Unanimous Decision
Francimar Barroso def. Ednaldo Oliveira Unanimous Decision
Viscardi Andrade def. Bristol Marunde via TKO (punches), 1:36 of Round One

Oh Great, Boston City Councilor Stephen Murphy Wants to Ban Minors from Attending MMA Fights


(At first, I chose this image because I couldn’t think of anything appropriate to use for this piece. Now, I’m not sure there’s anything more appropriate. Via The Boston Jam.)

From visa issues to Chael Sonnen’s struggles to obtain a therapeutic use exemption for TRT, it feels like almost anything that could inconvenience the UFC’s return to Boston for UFC on Fox Sports 1:1 has. So I guess it shouldn’t be too surprising to see that just weeks before the event, an anti-MMA activist is doing his part to bring as much negative publicity to the sport as possible. What is surprising, though, is that this isn’t necessarily just another instance of “crazy person says something stupid about MMA.”

Boston City Councilor Stephen Murphy – backed by “Parents Say No to UFC” – has filed a resolution that aims to ban minors from attending MMA fights. Before we go any further, two things are important to point out. Number one, obviously Parents Say No to UFC is run by the Culinary Union. Number two, this bill has no chance of becoming a law before the August 17th fight card, so don’t sell that ticket you bought for your son (or daughter!) yet.

So why is Murphy so opposed to allowing minors to watch MMA? His reasoning is pretty much the same mixture of cognitive dissonance and “Think of the goddamn children!” that you’d expect from a person who is likely being paid to be offended by a combat sport. Via BostonMagazine.com:

According to Murphy, fighters from the UFC, which is the professional level of the mixed-martial arts sport, have joked about rape, used foul and abusive language that’s demeaning to women, and used homophobic slurs, all of which, he said, set a bad example for Boston’s youth. He said the sport uses alcohol sponsors to fund the fights, which adds to the negative image that can be imposed on children.


(At first, I chose this image because I couldn’t think of anything appropriate to use for this piece. Now, I’m not sure there’s anything more appropriate. Via The Boston Jam.)

From visa issues to Chael Sonnen’s struggles to obtain a therapeutic use exemption for TRT, it feels like almost anything that could inconvenience the UFC’s return to Boston for UFC on Fox Sports 1:1 has. So I guess it shouldn’t be too surprising to see that just weeks before the event, an anti-MMA activist is doing his part to bring as much negative publicity to the sport as possible. What is surprising, though, is that this isn’t necessarily just another instance of “crazy person says something stupid about MMA.”

Boston City Councilor Stephen Murphy – backed by “Parents Say No to UFC” – has filed a resolution that aims to ban minors from attending MMA fights. Before we go any further, two things are important to point out. Number one, obviously Parents Say No to UFC is run by the Culinary Union. Number two, this bill has no chance of becoming a law before the August 17th fight card, so don’t sell that ticket you bought for your son (or daughter!) yet.

So why is Murphy so opposed to allowing minors to watch MMA? His reasoning is pretty much the same mixture of cognitive dissonance and “Think of the goddamn children!” that you’d expect from a person who is likely being paid to be offended by a combat sport. Via BostonMagazine.com:

According to Murphy, fighters from the UFC, which is the professional level of the mixed-martial arts sport, have joked about rape, used foul and abusive language that’s demeaning to women, and used homophobic slurs, all of which, he said, set a bad example for Boston’s youth. He said the sport uses alcohol sponsors to fund the fights, which adds to the negative image that can be imposed on children.

Do I use this space to make a “I guess Boston’s athletic scene has enough real rapists and murderers” comment, point out the fact that all four of the city’s major professional sports teams are sponsored by Anheuser-Busch, or do I just point out how ridiculous the concept of expecting a person to automatically be a great children’s role model because he/she is good at a sport is? I’ll pick the second option, because arguing that a professional sports league being sponsored by an alcoholic beverage company corrupts our children in ways that other professional sports leagues sponsored by alcoholic beverage companies aren’t requires such an advanced level of bullshitting that I admire anyone sleazy enough to do it with a straight face.

But Murphy isn’t alone in making generic arguments against letting the children of Boston watch MMA. We also have a plain old vanilla “violent entertainment ruins children’s minds” argument:

Diane Levin, a professor of early childhood education at Wheelock College, backed Murphy’s resolution, and “strongly urged” that the City Council pass it.

“Because of how children think, they are especially vulnerable to learning the harmful lessons that directly witnessing entertainment violence can teach—about how people treat each other, about the role of violence in society, that violence is fun and exciting with few consequences, and that grownups glorify and value it,” Levin said. “Everyone who cares about the wellbeing of children and the wider society should call for a ban on children attending Live Cage Fighting events.”

And an appearance from the Culinary Union themselves:

An advocacy group comprised of parents, doctors, and professors are also supporting Murphy’s efforts, and have started a petition and website sponsored by national movements like the National Organization for Women, the Boston Women’s Fund, the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, and Teachers Resisting Unhealthy Children’s Entertainment.

The group, known as “Parents Say No to UFC,” supplemented their campaign message and petition page with a video that shows gruesome shots from various professional fights, including bloody contenders punching each other in the head repeatedly.

How wonderful.

Based on all of these super logical, totally original arguments against MMA, do you think that the sport is in any kind of real danger in Boston? Or is this just another minor inconvenience surrounding a card that has been full of them?

@SethFalvo

I Can’t Tell if This Ronda Rousey Tattoo Is Brilliant or Terrible


(“Close enough, let’s do some blow.” – Artist *and* client, simultaneously, I imagine.)

We here at CagePotato.com are a cynical bunch, so naturally, our first instincts upon seeing this Ronda Rousey tattoo were to mock it relentlessly. But upon further review, perhaps this isn’t the single worst fan tattoo since some jaggoff got a tattoo of Arianny the Big-headed T-Rex. Hell, it may be subtle enough to be the single greatest fan tattoo of all time. For example:

– That whole face thing the tattoo has going on? Clearly a tribute to Rousey vs. Tate II, which, judging by the nasty hematoma under Rousey’s eye, this guy believes will end via knockout.

– See how the body of Rousey the woman creature in this tattoo is fat, lacks anything resembling muscles, and has a boob job that was probably done at Wal K-Mart? That’s because only men have big, ugly muscles, so if you’re enjoying a hand bra from a creature with muscles, then you’re fantasizing about a dude.


(“Close enough, let’s do some blow.” – Artist *and* client, simultaneously, I imagine.)

We here at CagePotato.com are a cynical bunch, so naturally, our first instincts upon seeing this Ronda Rousey tattoo were to mock it relentlessly. But upon further review, perhaps this isn’t the single worst fan tattoo since some jaggoff got a tattoo of Arianny the Big-headed T-Rex. Hell, it may be subtle enough to be the single greatest fan tattoo of all time. For example:

– That whole face thing the tattoo has going on? Clearly a tribute to Rousey vs. Tate II, which, judging by the nasty hematoma under Rousey’s eye, this guy believes will end via knockout.

– See how the body of Rousey the woman creature in this tattoo is fat, lacks anything resembling muscles, and has a boob job that was probably done at Wal K-Mart? That’s because only men have big, ugly muscles, so if you’re enjoying a hand bra from a creature with muscles, then you’re fantasizing about a dude.

– Those laughably scrawny arms aren’t a product of a terrible “artist,” but rather, a clever tribute to Ronda’s signature armbar.

– You know why the tattoo replaced the pink handwraps with UFC gloves? Because Strikeforce isn’t even a real thing anymore, bro. Ronda is in the UFC now, and damn it, her hands need to reflect this.

– The inner thigh placement of this tattoo (we think?)? It’s IRONY, YOU MORONS! It’s his way of acknowledging that only a total jackass who will never know the touch of a beautiful woman would get a chick’s face tattooed on his inner thigh. But this guy is probably banging three different chicks as I type this, so irony, you guys.

Either all that stuff, or it’s a shitty tattoo. You tell me.

@SethFalvo

 

‘WTF?!’ of the Day: Anthony Pettis Has an Evil Twin, Y’all

(Props to fox6now.com for the story, and props to CagePotato reader Jason Seward for the tip.)

On Wednesday, Milwaukee news stations were reporting that Anthony Pettis had been apprehended by police after he was seen at a press conference on television. Pettis had been wanted for several pending charges, ranging from carrying a concealed weapon to getting involved in a high-speed chase with a police officer.

So why weren’t MMA sites all over the news? Because it wasn’t Anthony Pettis, lightweight title contender, but rather, Anthony Pettis, a younger, fatter nobody who also resides in Milwaukee. Yeah, turns out that guy was on tv to talk about, well, you’ll see.

It’s a damn slow news day, and the story itself is worth a quick read, so check it out after the jump, courtesy of FOX6 Now:


(Props to fox6now.com for the story, and props to CagePotato reader Jason Seward for the tip.)

On Wednesday, Milwaukee news stations were reporting that Anthony Pettis had been apprehended by police after he was seen at a press conference on television. Pettis had been wanted for several pending charges, ranging from carrying a concealed weapon to getting involved in a high-speed chase with a police officer.

So why weren’t MMA sites all over the news? Because it wasn’t Anthony Pettis, lightweight title contender, but rather, Anthony Pettis, a younger, fatter nobody who also resides in Milwaukee. Yeah, turns out that guy was on tv to talk about, well, you’ll see.

It’s a damn slow news day, and the story itself is worth a quick read, so check it out after the jump, courtesy of FOX6 Now:

MILWAUKEE (WITI) — Anthony Pettis had been wanted by police for almost three months before they finally spotted him during a press conference on television.

Pettis made a public appearance in front of FOX6 cameras to discuss why he is suing the City of Milwaukee and Milwaukee police officers, claiming he was a victim of illegal cavity searches. One officer is already serving more than two years in prison for the illegal searches. Another has plead guilty and two more officers are awaiting trial.

Court records show Pettis has several pending charges including a high speed chase with a police officer, resisting an officer, carrying a concealed weapon, and bail jumping. Another man claims Pettis robbed him at gunpoint.

Just a week after FOX6 News highlighted Pettis’ civil suit, Milwaukee Police say they spotted the suspect at the Economy Inn on Appleton Ave. Pettis was apprehended along with a gun that was found hidden in a toilet and drugs stashed in a car.

Authorities say more charges could be on the way for Pettis, however the charges will not affect the civil suit against the City. Pettis is scheduled to appear in court next week.

Not sure I’d hold a press conference to share the gruesome details of an illegal cavity search – especially if I was wanted by police in the first place – but to each his own, I guess.

I wonder if Sergio Pettis has an evil twin, too.

@SethFalvo

Sports Illustrated Attempts to Defend the Roundtable that Asked if UFC 162 Was Fixed, Fails Miserably


(SPOILER: No apology is made at any point in the video, which is actually worse than you’re assuming it is.)

In yesterday’s link dump, we shared a video of Dana White’s appearance on ESPN2’s “Highly Questionable” on Wednesday, where he had some harsh things to say about Sports Illustrated. To refresh your memory: Following UFC 162, SI.com published a roundtable discussion that implied that the main event may have been fixed. Watching legitimate, informed journalists debate whether or not a fight was fixed simply because the underdog won would have been cringe-worthy enough, but they took things to a whole new extreme by making it painfully obvious that two out of the three participants in the discussion didn’t even watch the fight. Needless to say, Dana White was not amused, and it showed during his segment on “Highly Questionable.”

There was absolutely no way that Sports Illustrated was going to let one of their biggest rivals trash them like that, so they immediately set out to create the perfect rebuttal. What they came up with was a phone conversation between Maggie Gray and Dana White, and words cannot describe how awkward it was to listen to.

You really have to feel bad for Maggie here. She was asked to defend what was arguably the worst piece of mainstream sports journalism this side of “The Patriots should have known Aaron Hernandez would turn out to be a murderer,” despite the fact that she wasn’t even involved in the discussion. It’s not exactly an enviable position to be in, especially when you’re against one of the most outspoken men in sports.

A quick apology and follow-up interview about the rematch between Weidman and Silva would have been a safe play, but don’t worry, that doesn’t even come close to happening. Instead, Maggie uses the most condescending tone possible while discussing the roundtable that was totally just about combat sports in general (it wasn’t), yet somehow managed to offend Dana White (maybe all that fight fixing stuff). Any remaining doubts that the upcoming interview would be a total clusterfuck are erased when Maggie concludes her opening statement with the MMA-ish non-sequitur “After sparring a few rounds – no one tapped out! -we moved on discussing the rematch between Weidman and Silva.”

Yeah, we’ll be offering play-by play for this one after the jump…


(SPOILER: No apology is made at any point in the video, which is actually worse than you’re assuming it is.)

In yesterday’s link dump, we shared a video of Dana White’s appearance on ESPN2′s “Highly Questionable” on Wednesday, where he had some harsh things to say about Sports Illustrated. To refresh your memory: Following UFC 162, SI.com published a roundtable discussion that implied that the main event may have been fixed. Watching legitimate, informed journalists debate whether or not a fight was fixed simply because the underdog won would have been cringe-worthy enough, but they took things to a whole new extreme by making it painfully obvious that two out of the three participants in the discussion didn’t even watch the fight. Needless to say, Dana White was not amused, and it showed during his segment on “Highly Questionable.”

There was absolutely no way that Sports Illustrated was going to let one of their biggest rivals trash them like that, so they immediately set out to create the perfect rebuttal. What they came up with was a phone conversation between Maggie Gray and Dana White, and words cannot describe how awkward it was to listen to.

You really have to feel bad for Maggie here. She was asked to defend what was arguably the worst piece of mainstream sports journalism this side of “The Patriots should have known Aaron Hernandez would turn out to be a murderer,” despite the fact that she wasn’t even involved in the discussion. It’s not exactly an enviable position to be in, especially when you’re against one of the most outspoken men in sports.

A quick apology and follow-up interview about the rematch between Weidman and Silva would have been a safe play, but don’t worry, that doesn’t even come close to happening. Instead, Maggie uses the most condescending tone possible while discussing the roundtable that was totally just about combat sports in general (it wasn’t), yet somehow managed to offend Dana White (maybe all that fight fixing stuff). Any remaining doubts that the upcoming interview would be a total clusterfuck are erased when Maggie concludes her opening statement with the MMA-ish non-sequitur “After sparring a few rounds – no one tapped out! -we moved on discussing the rematch between Weidman and Silva.”

Yeah, we’ll be offering play-by play for this one after the jump…

MG: *Long-winded opening rant that I won’t even try to type out that tries to justify why Weidman vs. Silva could have been fixed* …Can you explain why so many people – not just us – had these questions about that specific fight [being fixed]?

Right off the bat we’re given a question worthy of being included in our “Questions You Should Never Ask in an MMA Interview” list. Starting an interview off with such a defensive, passive-aggressive question is pretty much guaranteed to produce a hostile response from the person you’re talking to. Dana doesn’t disappoint.

DW: Not just you guys? First of all, you guys are Sports Illustrated, number one, okay? I want to know did anyone on that panel even watch that fight?

Huh, turns out that Dana White doesn’t accept “Trolls on the Internet thought the fight was fixed, so why should a legitimate news website be held to higher standards?” as a valid argument. *Writes this down for future reference*

Your move, Maggie.

MG: After hearing what you said on ESPN yesterday I have to ask you, did you watch our segment? Did you actually see what kind of conversation we had?

DW: Oh yeah, well how about this: “My first thought when I read the results on Sunday morning, yeah, that made me nervous, but I would have thought they would have fixed the Anderson Silva fight for Silva. If they fixed the fight, I thought they would have fixed it for Silva. UFC – and correct me if I”m wrong – is even less regulated than boxing, right?” WRONG! You guys are talking about a sport that you know nothing about. We’re regulated by the same exact people who regulate boxing.

Well, that backfired tremendously. Turns out that Dana White actually watched the segment he’s commenting on, so wherever you were going with the “Did you even watch our show?” question is now off the table.

But even the best interviewers make mistakes, so let’s see how she rebounds from this.

MG: We weren’t the only people who were asking you about this. After the fight the people who were in Vegas covering the fight were asking you about this.

DW: No no no no no. The guy who asked me the question, that was covering the fight, said “people on Twitter are saying” and “people on the Internet.” There’s a big difference between people on the Internet and Sports Illustrated. I would hope so at least.

MG: Well our show’s on the Internet, so we consider ourselves all part of one brand.

Honey, forget the ballpark. You’re not even in the same fucking city by addressing his comment about how there should be a difference between random people on Twitter and Sports Illustrated’s trusted analysts by saying “Sports Illustrated’s website is considered the same brand as the actual magazine.” You could have asked 1,000 different contestants from 1,000 different beauty pageants to respond to Dana’s statement, and none of them would have come up with something this tragically hilarious.

There’s blood in the water. Your move, Dana White.

DW: You know what? I was hoping you were calling to apologize, that’s what I was hoping you were calling me for.

MG: We were having a general conversation and the likelihood in combat sports…

DW: About something you know nothing about! If you don’t know anything about what you’re talking about you probably shouldn’t talk about it. That sounds like a really good idea. That’s why you’ve been getting smashed by fans and why I smacked you yesterday on ESPN. Because if you’re going to talk about something you might want to do your homework and know what you’re talking about. Or at least you might want to have at least seen the fight, so somebody on that panel would have had half a brain to say “You know what, I saw that fight. The guy was viciously knocked out. How could that be fixed?”

The conclusion of your roundtable should be that you guys should do your homework and understand exactly what it is you’re talking about. And if nobody watched the fight that day, then you should at least know the sport is regulated, at least know some general things about the sport. At least do your homework. I honestly thought you were calling to apologize because you guys were so embarrassed by how ridiculous your show was. Now as I sit here and talk to you, you’re even more ridiculous and I’ll bet you this whole interview doesn’t see the light of day.

Checkmate.

MG: Unfortunately that’s not up to me it’ll be up to our producers...

DW: Yeah, well if he’s smart he’ll take this tape out and throw it right in the garbage, so that the world can’t hear what I’m saying to you right now.

The day that we got the cover of Sports Illustrated I walked around with it for two days to show you I was so pumped to be on the cover of Sports Illustrated. What happened the other day, when you guys did that piece… I’m saying Sports Illustrated, you guys did not represent what Sports Illustrated is supposed to be about.

MG: We did not have an MMA expert on our panel that day, which is why we tried to take the conversation into a general space and make it something about the likelihood of fight fixing, and the panel came to the conclusion at the end that it was unlikely, that this did not happen, we do not think that there was anything happening in that fight. And that’s where we left it.

Translation: “We did not have an MMA expert on our panel that day, which is why we sent out a few clueless reporters to argue that the fight they didn’t watch was fixed. Why is this so upsetting to you?”

DW: My point is that some of the things that were said were totally incorrect and you don’t have to be an MMA expert to do some homework.

It’s at this point where Maggie Gray finally recognizes that the interview is going absolutely nowhere, and actually asks Dana White some questions about Weidman vs. Silva II. It’s also at this point where the interview becomes a total waste of time, since Dana already answered all of her questions on “Highly Questionable.”

But at least Sports Illustrated got to attempt to defend their honor, so…mission accomplished?

@SethFalvo

Tim Sylvia Explains the Delicate Intricacies of Racial Prejudice in the United States


(He also explained why Sour Patch Kids were a better snack than Skittles, but apparently that rant was completely unrelated.)

By now there’s a good chance that virtually everyone reading this has heard that George Zimmerman has been found not guilty for his role in the death of Trayvon Martin. There’s also a good chance that most of you reading this first saw the verdict not on your television, but rather, on one of your social media accounts. The mix of shock, anger, distrust and disappointment – not to mention debate over racial prejudice in the United States – brought on by this case has caused pretty much everyone on Twitter to try to make sense of it, to the point that no matter who you follow, you have a vague idea of what happened, and are still scrambling to make sense out of it.

Fortunately for us, Tim Sylvia took a break from his intense workouts to address the Twitterverse with his reactions to the story. I know that we like to poke fun at Tim Sylvia on occasion around here, but believe it or not, he offered some very insightful opinions, tasteful humor, and observations that no other pundits were bold enough to address. For example…


“Not guilty oh shit here comes the riots.”


(He also explained why Sour Patch Kids were a better snack than Skittles, but apparently that rant was completely unrelated.)

By now there’s a good chance that virtually everyone reading this has heard that George Zimmerman has been found not guilty for his role in the death of Trayvon Martin. There’s also a good chance that most of you reading this first saw the verdict not on your television, but rather, on one of your social media accounts. The mix of shock, anger, distrust and disappointment – not to mention debate over racial prejudice in the United States – brought on by this case has caused pretty much everyone on Twitter to try to make sense of it, to the point that no matter who you follow, you have a vague idea of what happened, and are still scrambling to make sense out of it.

Fortunately for us, Tim Sylvia took a break from his intense workouts to address the Twitterverse with his reactions to the story. I know that we like to poke fun at Tim Sylvia on occasion around here, but believe it or not, he offered some very insightful opinions, tasteful humor, and observations that no other pundits were bold enough to address. For example…


“Not guilty oh shit here comes the riots.”


“O Shit not guilty now here comes the riots”

See, Tim Sylvia realized that “black people will riot because Zimmerman isn’t going to jail” was such a profound thought that it wouldn’t register with us the first time he posted it. He knew that we weren’t ready to hear about the terrible riots that went on entirely in his mind after the verdict was read, so he gave us two separate tweets for our feeble little brains to absorb his powerful message.

But knowing that we live in an age that doesn’t accept new ideas that aren’t endorsed by at least two minor celebrities, Sylvia goes on to cite the greatest intellectual of our time, Ted Nugent:


“Uncle Ted has spoken.”

In case you still aren’t convinced that “This is Not About Race,” Tim Sylvia provides you with an accurate first-hand account of the history that liberal America doesn’t want you to read about…


“I don’t remember this much up roar when OJ got away with what he did.”

Compelling argument, Maine-iac, but let’s hear what the other side has to say in response.


(Source)


(Source)

Barely any tweets indeed. Advantage: Sylvia, obviously.

Now that this complex social issue has been fully resolved, there’s only one question that remains: Is Sylvia a great philosopher, or the greatest philosopher?

@SethFalvo