Could someone who has steadily and determinedly studied MMA for two years survive in prison?
Do you mean survive based solely on their MMA prowess? Nope.
Daryell Dickson Meneses Xavier was a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu instructor who was accused of sexually abusing his 1 year old stepson, leading to a seizure and eventually the child’s death.
Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is the the martial art that the winner of most of the early UFCs used. And is now an integral part of almost every MMA fighter’s training.
Despite almost certainly being the best fighter in the jail, once the other inmates discovered what he was accused of, he didn’t stand a chance.
According to reports, at his initial 30-day incarceration, the perpetrator is said to be brutally raped by his 20- fellow inmates as he awaited for a hearing of his case before a presiding judge – receiving vigilante justice. After the initial assault, Xavier was then tended to by the jail’s medical staff with numerous sutures across his back and noticeably on his anal area.
However, he was then instituted back to the prison where he received another round of prison justice, raped and otherwise abused for the second time tearing out the fresh stitches from the wounds, brutalizing him more. Injuries became more prominent over his entire body especially on the region of his back side.
An image of Xavier following the savage attacks was posted on the internet – attesting the form of justice he has undergone from the bloody stains on his back.
No matter how good a fighter you are, numbers will always win. An amazing fighter might be able to take on a higher number, but if you have a whole cell block against you then you’re out of luck. I imagine that BJJ, which relies heavily on grappling and submission, is especially ill suited for multiple opponents.
– Sam Priestley
Could the #1 female tennis player beat the #2000 male player?
We have had the best women’s tennis player of all-time (Serena) do just what you asked, albeit she was 16 at the time, before her peak, and two years before she would reach 4th in the world for women’s tennis. And the guy was ranked 203rd in the world, not 2,000th — though a couple weeks after he would fall to below 350.
Let’s take a look at what happened:
Battle of the Sexes (tennis)
1998: Karsten Braasch vs. the Williams sisters
Another event dubbed a “Battle of the Sexes” took place during the 1998 Australian Open between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams, aged 17 and 16 respectively, had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world’s top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as “a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice cold lager.”
The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park, after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two beers. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.
Braasch said afterwards, “500 and above, no chance.” He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game “fun.”
Braasch said the big difference was that men can chase down shots much easier, and that men put spin on the ball that the women can’t handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.
An 18 year old 4th ranked Serena Williams claimed she could compete with men in professional sport; the US Open champion believing she could take on and beat the best players in the men’s game. Nothing ever came to be from this claim.
Interesting to repeat: Braasch in a manner of a couple weeks fell below 350th. So you see just how small a deviation there is in the men’s rankings for hundreds of spots. Considering this, I think his statement anyone in the top 500 would smoke both sisters, is spot on.
Men’s sports vs Women’s sports is Night and Day.
I think Serena would get beaten by the #2,000 male ATP player.
A similar question was once answered by an ex College Player and Satellite player: Laurence Shanet’s answer to Which ranking should a male tennis player be to lose with the #1 female player?
Female pros play male players all the time. They seek out male college players as practice partners precisely because they give the top women all they can handle. At full gas, any top ranked Division 1 male college player will routinely beat the world’s top female professional players quite comfortably, and most of those males can’t even get a computer ranking.
Here’s more:
After their drubbing by Braasch, the thing the Williams sisters noted was that he was able to comfortably get to all the shots they expected to be clean winners. Against their WTA opposition, those shots were weapons, but against any high level male player, they are just rally balls. The higher shot tolerance of the men means that the top women really don’t have any weapons they can hurt elite men’s players with. This is true for the 1000 ranked player as much as the one ranked 100. Further, the top women don’t have to face the combination of spin, pace and angle that the men generate. So they’d be facing shots they aren’t trained to return and can’t. As Chris Brandi correctly points out below, Serena’s first serve would seem average at best to her male opponents, and this is the shot she depends on to win her a lot of points.
Annnnnnnnnd the dagger:
There is now a metric that rates the relative level of all tennis players, regardless of age, sex, etc. It’s called Universal Tennis Rating (seeUniversal Tennis). It uses actual competitive results and data to make its assessments, and is constantly being improved as more data is added. But it already gives a fairly accurate idea of how male and female players might compare to each other across the board. Top male players such as Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, and Roger Federer are rated as level 16 (they use decimal places to provide further comparison as needed). For reference, the male player currently ranked 500 in the world (Yannick Hanfmann) is rated as a 15. Most of the men ranked on the computer below 1000 (down to 2200 or so where the rankings stop), are either 14 or 15. Serena Williams, the best women’s player in the world, is rated as 13. This is completely in line with what you’d expect, and is equivalent to a mid-level male college player.
Soccer was my sport, not tennis. Same thing applies.
The US Mens U-17 soccer team played the USWNT three months before they won the Gold at the Olympics. The U-17 Men’s team won 8-2.
They also routinely lose to the U-15 squad!
The US Women’s team at the time was the #1 ranked women’s team in the world, club or nation, World Cup runner ups (2011), soon to be Olympic Gold Medalists, and later on World Cup winners (2015). The Barcelona of women’s soccer. And high schoolers between 15–17 years old slaughtered them.
That is the equivalent of the Men’s German team which just won the World Cup losing to the United States’ Under-17 girls national team.
– Daniel William Gray
Was The McDonald’s “Hot Coffee” Lawsuit Frivolous?
The newspapers don’t report enough detail, and people assume the party doing the suing is wrong, when in reality there is a good reason for it. People see a woman suing McDonald’s for her coffee being too hot, and they laugh at her and say the country is going to hell. What they don’t do is read into it, where they’ll find out that she severely burned herself (NSFW) and required expensive medical treatment and had permanent damage to her vagina. Nor do they read about how that particular McDonald’s was serving their coffee too hot on purpose so people would take longer to drink it and increase their chances of ordering more food. Nor do they read about how the McDonald’s had been warned several times in the past to quit this practice by health and safety authorities.
These, taken together, greatly reinforce the perception of how common ridiculous lawsuits actually are successful.
Is it true that during the Vietnam War, American troops would throw away their weapons if they found a fully functional AK-47 or AKM?
I served in I Corps (the northernmost part of South Vietnam) from May of 1970 to May of 1971.
Yes, the M16 and the M16A1 were not the best weapons and many of us who could exchange them did. But my unit, being Military Intelligence, was not an ordinary unit.
When I arrived, M16 in hand and issue .38 caliber revolver holstered to my belt (the standard issue sidearm for Military Intelligence personnel), my supply sergeant asked if I wanted to keep using them. When I said, “Not particularly”, he took me to a storage container behind our supply room, took my M16 and my .38 caliber revolver (after tagging them) and pointed to a rack of assorted weapons, saying, “Take what you want”. There were M-14 rifles, a few M-2 carbines, some M79 grenade launchers and assorted handguns – but no AK-47’s or SKS carbines.
I took a .45 caliber Colt Commander pistol and a .45 caliber M-3 submachine gun (also known as a “Grease Gun”) and carried them as my weapons the entire year, occasionally checking out an M79 Grenade Launcher for special missions. Every month I would give the supply sergeant $10.00 to clean and maintain my M-16 and my .38. At the end of my tour, before I shipped out I gave the supply sergeant the Grease Gun and the .45, took my M-16 and my .38 (which had never been fired that whole year) and turned them in at higher headquarters in Saigon before getting on the plane back to the States.
Of the 50 some men in my unit, only maybe 10 carried the M-16 and .38 revolver during their tour. The rest of us all carried American weapons but better quality and more reliable weapons than the M-16’s.
What I had been issued:
What I carried:
Both weapons I used fired the same U. S. Army issue ammo.
FYI: anyone who has heard an AK-47 fired and has also heard an M-16/AR-15 or a “Grease Gun” fired knows that they have very individual, distinctive sounds. In the Vietnam jungle environment, if you fired an AK-47, you would also inevitably be fired on by American or South Vietnamese troops who heard you but could not see you, based on the sound alone.
– Richard White
What’s the most disturbing truth about marriage?
There are many disturbing truths. To me, the most disturbing is how the actual thing is so vastly different than anything it’s purported to be.
Marriage is not unconditional love.
There is hate. Resentment. There is bitterness, isolation, betrayal and pain. I don’t feel love for my husband 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Nor does he.
Marriage has inertia.
There are times when we cannot access our love. Sometimes, it’s marriage – not love – that keeps us married. This thing manifest in shared cutlery and mattresses, Thanksgiving rituals and holiday cards – this thing sometimes keeps us together.
Marriage is not the agent nor the perfection of you.
It doesn’t fill your cracks and makes you complete. It’s not what you’re missing in life. It’s not the fulfillment of your true self. Marriage doesn’t do anything; it – perhaps – allows you to do things.
Marriage is not enough.
Marriage is not a signal of success or achievement to the world. I’ve done this, I’m married, stop worrying, stop doubting. Perhaps for a while, but not for long. Not for ever. The what’s next questions persist. And nothing – not even marriage – is immune.
Marriage can be a bad thing.
Marriage endures beyond lies, beyond broken trust, broken dreams – if you want it to, it can. Marriages – good marriages, ones that work – must exist in dark spaces too, not just the light.
Marriage has no baseline.
With a few exceptions, there is no standard of what is good, normal, acceptable, and what is not. No one can tell you what to do with it, about it, it is entirely your responsibility to manage your marriage. There is no right answer so don’t seek one.
Marriage is bigger than you. Bigger than both of you.
If my answer sounds like marriage is this mythical thing that cuddles in bed with you and your spouse and at times steals sheets – that’s because it is. Well, it’s not mythical, but it’s there, amorphous. It’s the third thing, between you, in your relationship.
It’s a responsibility, a commitment, a power, an profound intimacy. Ensuring we are seen, witnessed and bound to another before we expire. More than any other social institution we have as humans. (Paying taxes notwithstanding).
(If you think I’m overly down on marriage please read any of the 150 or so answers I have written lauding it. You can’t feast on the meat without delivering a kill shot. Kapow!)
– Ellen Vrana
How did Mr Rogers use his television show to express his beliefs?
Mr Rogers – The quiet radical. He didn’t go on marches, he was not confrontational, but nevertheless he had a ground on which he stood and he wanted to do something about it.
“a quiet but strong American prophet who, with roots in progressive spirituality, invited us to make the world into a counter-cultural neighborhood of love,” – Michael Long, author of the book, Peaceful Neighbor: Discovering the Countercultural Mister Rogers.
He worked from a steely social conscience. He used his program, with its non-threatening puppets, songs and conversation, to raise provocative topics such as war, peace, race, gender and poverty with his audience of preschoolers and their parents — patiently guiding them across the minefields of political and social change.
Examples: This one is one of my favorites … The puppet King Friday XIII was posting border guards, installing barbed-wire fences and drafting passersby to keep out those fomenting social change. “Down with the changers!” he proclaimed. “Because we’re on top!” This was 1968 and was aired as part of a weeklong series on conflict, change and distrust. King Friday’s declaration of a national emergency to preserve the status quo is a political statement. It is not a plot line merely to entertain children. It’s the idea that when we resist change, it’s because we want to maintain our position. In the end, the neighborhood was saved, but only through the bold civil disobedience of King Friday’s subjects. People who want change are often labeled as troublemakers.
Rogers was an uncompromising pacifist, and when Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood debuted nationally in 1968, during the height of the Vietnam War, he used his first week of programming to share his antiwar beliefs.
Rogers opposed the nuclear arms race, and in 1983 he developed Neighborhood of Make-Believe episodes in which King Friday appears confused and downright silly for calling for an arms race with a neighboring community. When Friday orders “one million and one parts” that he imagines to be weapons — they are not — he uses funds designed to support music in the neighborhood school. The neighborhood is appalled by this crass act.
At the beginning of 1984, the Presidential Task Force on Food Assistance, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, reported that it could not find evidence of rampant hunger in the United States. Rogers did not appreciate the report, and by the end of the year, he broadcast episodes highlighting the presence of hunger and addressing the need to combat it.
In 1987, at the height of the cold war, he traveled to Moscow and appeared on a Soviet children’s television show called Spokoinoi Nochi (Good Night, Little Ones).
Rogers was committed to racial diversity, and not long after inner-city riots erupted following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., Rogers introduced the character of a black police officer keeping everyone safe in the Neighborhood.
In 1975, 14 years before an African American woman would become mayor of a major U.S. city, Rogers created the character of Mayor Maggie of Southwood, played by African American actor Maggie Stewart.
He wore an apron and ironed clothes on a mid-day broadcast set in a house, when most men would have been at work, modeling a revolution in gender roles. The puppet Lady Elaine Fairchilde anchored a newscast long before Barbara Walters did, and she rocketed into space a decade before Sally Ride broke the glass stratosphere.
In 1983 he arranged for Lady Aberlin, played by Betty Aberlin, to sing a quiet song (“Creation”) in which she refers to God as “She.” A fact that was not lost on the protestors of the time.
Rogers and regular cast member Francois Clemmons, an African-American, dipped their bare feet in a wading pool on a 1969 broadcast, when bitter conflicts over legally segregated swimming pools were still being discussed.
Rogers became a vegetarian in the early 1970s, saying he could not eat anything that had a mother, and in the mid-1980s he became co-owner of Vegetarian Times. In 1985, Rogers also signed his name to a statement protesting the wearing of animal furs.
When politicians in the 1980s spoke of welfare recipients as lazy and unworthy of government help, Rogers portrayed hard-working parents who still couldn’t afford all that their children wanted or needed.
Rogers broadcast public-service announcements on helping children deal with news of war and other tragedy, and he advocated for legislation that would allow at least one parent in a military family to remain with his or her children rather than be deployed.
– MiltownKBs
The post A Few Answers To Questions You Always Wondered About appeared first on Caveman Circus.