UFC 164 Results and Poll Question (Regarding Co Main Event) (MAJOR SPOILER ALERT) *UPDATED* Frank Mir Speaks

Here are the results from UFC 164:

Anthony Pettis def. Benson Henderson via submission (armbar)
Josh Barnett def. Frank Mir via first-round TKO
Chad Mendes def. Clay Guida via third-round TKO
Ben Rothwell def. Brandon Vera via third-round TKO
Dustin Poirier def. Erik Koch via unanimous decision
Gleison Tibau def. Jamie Varner via split decision
Tim Elliott def. Louis Gaudinot via unanimous decision
Hyun Gyu Lim def. Pascal Krauss via first-round TKO
Chico Camus def. Kyung Ho Kang via unanimous decision
Soa Palelei def. Nikita Krylov via third-round TKO
Al Iaquinta def. Ryan Couture via unanimous decision
Magnus Cedenblad def. Jared Hamman via submission (guillotine)

And now the poll question:

Was The Co Main Event Stopped Early?

In my mind, yes, it absolutely was stopped early. Fights usually get stopped on a fall from one big hit if the fighter is visibly knocked out or if they had been taking sustained/heavy damage prior to being knocked down . Neither of those two was the case here, imo.

UPDATE: Frank Mir had this to say about the stoppage when asked about it at the post fight press conference:

"Obviously I thought it was a bad stoppage," Mir said in the post-fight press conference. "We're fighters. If every fight was stopped on any kind of a flash shot or anything like that — actually, I took the knee, and I remember going, 's--- I'm in a bad position.' And that's why I dropped my other knee out from underneath me so that could fall to the ground and make sure I didn't take a second one. I didn't belly out, I didn't flatten out, and I actually tried to redig my underhook so that i could get a single. And I actually looked at the referee stopping it.

"And then at first I thought, maybe I was out? Did I take a bunch of shots that didn't see? And then after watching it, I was conscious the whole time. Even when I stood up I wasn't wobbled, I was completely coherent. So at best your argument is it was a flash knock down. I didn't know fights stopped on that. If that was the case I never would have beaten [Antonio Rodrigo] Nogueira, I don't think we would have seen Travis Browne knock out [Alistair] Overeem last week. There are too many fights in our sport that are exciting, and you've got to let us fight. I didn't sign up for a tennis match. It's nothing against Josh, he's a great fighter and he did what he had to do."

Well that certainly is interesting, isn't it? On the one hand the fact that he (at least claims to have) dropped down by choice to avoid further damage and attempt to initiate a takedown makes this stoppage all the more annoying for the fans and seemingly unfair for the fighter but on the other it actually lends the referee in this case a little bit of a sympathetic light in which he can be viewed- I mean, if fighters are going to be dropping to the mat on purpose and this looks indistinguishable from a knockdown, well, I'd hate to be a referee in a main event. 

Texas Church Causes Measles Outbreak

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2013/08/24/measles-outbreak-traces-to-vaccine-refusing-megachurch/

This is the type of story that in the past would have caused me to rant both in writing and aloud, but at this point my outrage has been blanketed by a nonstop torrent of stories like this (by this I mean stories in which ignorance causes measurable (and avoidable) harm) so for now I find it sufficient to merely link to the story for anyone who may have missed it (this story broke a few days ago).

At this point all I can do is sigh and shake my head.

Quick Thought- A Parody of Oneself

Mormonism is a religion featuring magic underwear started by a known con man and it is adhered to by droves of people in multiple countries. Scientology, a religion that deals with aliens and souls trapped in volcanoes was started by a science fiction author who is on record stating that the best way to get insanely rich is to start a religion- Religion seems to almost be satirizing itself at this point.

One Armed MMA Fighter Wins a Championship Belt

Lyoto Machida Got Robbed. MMA Judging Is Seriously Flawed

As soon as the third round ended at UFC 163's Phil Davis vs Lyoto Machida fight I felt certain that Davis was going to get the nod, and sure enough he did. In an ideal world, that would have been because Davis had clearly won the fight. In the world we inhabit, it was because, well, because he succeeded with 2 out of his 10 takedown attempts. 

Yes, you read that right. 

Phil Davis, an accomplished wrestler, was 20% successful at his main thing- the takedown. That means that Machida was 80% successful at doing his part- stuffing said takedowns. Well, then Davis must have significantly outstruck Machida on the feet, right? Nope. I think he landed a few more shots, but his accuracy was much worse than Machida's and Machida landed a lot more 'significant' strikes. All Davis did was land 2 takedowns, both near the end of the rounds in which they occurred. Machida, on the other hand, stopped an accomplished wrestler from taking him down 8 out of 10 times. That means He kept the fight where HE wanted it, and while he was there he did more damage. Yet for some reason, the judges don't seem to allocate points for stopping a takedown, which is INSANE. A takedown attempt is a fighter's attempt to establish Octagon control (placing the fight where you want it; one of the scoring criteria used by the inept judges). If the fighter in question is successful, the gain points (and rightfully so). However, if the opposing fighter fights against the takedown and is successful, he gets.....no credit? 

How the fuck is that fair, reasonable, or logical? 

Machida won that fight and I believe the UFC should award him a title fight. 

Some Unlikely Video Game Sequels I'd Love To See Made

Remember, these are more unlikely than not, so I am not listing stuff that will most likely be happening (Alan Wake 2, for example).

Just off of the top of my head, so to speak:

Ninja Gaiden (2D) (sequel/prequel, w/e)
Streets of Rage 4
Shadow Complex 2
Alpha Protocol 2 (Obsidian was onto something with that game man...stupid SEGA)
Geometry Wars 3
Psi Ops 2

Dynamite Cop 2 (please please please)
Road Rage 4 (?) (probably not as fun as we may like to think though)
Winback 3 (in the style of 1, not 2)
Shinobi (3DS one was great)
Final Fight 4 (?) 

NHL Hitz

Onimusha 4

Astro Boy: Omega Factor 2 (most people have no idea how good the GBA game was)
Jade Empire 2
Sudeki 2 (yes, seriously)
Altered Beast 3 (there was one on the GBA that many are unaware of- and it was actually good)
Chromehounds 2 (I am not into these types of games but I know many loved it)
Condemned 3 (in the style of 1, not 2)
Dead Space 4 (again, in the style of 1)
Amnesia 2 (consoles please!!!)
The Saboteur 2
Ninja Five-O 2
Tokyo Beat Down 2 (first had some potential)

How about you? 

Being Single Is Selfish....Sure, But Relationships Are Just As Selfish

Find that shocking? Ridiculous? Demeaning? Insulting, even? Okay, tell me: Why do YOU get into relationships then? Why does anyone?

(Note: This is a follow up of sorts to an earlier post I did regarding the selfishness of having kids. Click HERE if you want to read that one.)

 Here are some (arguably) selfless reasons (I say arguably given the selfish altruism theory popular in some psychology circles):

New Strider Game Announced!!!

Capcom has announced that they are publishing a new Strider game for both current and next gen Microsoft/Sony consoles, as well as the PC. The game, which is being developed by Double Helix (the development studio currently working on the new Killer Instinct game for the Xbox One) will be released in "early 2014." Click HERE to read all about it, as well as to look at additional screenshots/video not posted below.

Here is a quick comparison between the old and new (click the link above to see several more screenshots of the game in action):

Strider For the Sega Genesis

Strider in 2014

Gameplay footage:

I cannot wait to jump back into the boots of the ninja Hiryu....2014 cannot come soon enough!

The Cell Phone And The Parent

The other day I was walking my dog through a park when I witnessed a scene that, far from being uncommon, is unfortunately repeated all across the world each and every day. A father (and I use that term loosely) was sitting on one of the park benches while his daughter, who seemed to be about 5 years of age, played on the playground. The entire time I was there the dad was on his cell phone (probably texting a girl), looking up only when his daughter would call out to him, asking him to watch whatever trick (in her mind they were tricks) she was about to do. And even then his glances were perfunctory; devoid of any emotion or attention.

Seeing this filled me with a potent mix of pity and anger. Pity for the girl (just imagine what kind of message her father's averted gaze sends her) and anger towards the man who is spending once in a lifetime moments with his daughter being distracted by his phone.

Those scenes sure would have made for an interesting home video. I should have offered to film it for him.

On Ghosts and Hauntings (the hottest extra-curricular activity in the ghostiverse)

Poll a random group of one hundred people and you'll probably find at least thirty who believe in ghosts/spirits. A further ten of those people will likely believe in hauntings. I do not count myself a member of this group of people. There are just too many problems with the idea for me to subscribe to it (aside from the obvious lack of evidence). For one thing, this planet has been home to roughly a thousand trillion deaths over billions of years. Yes, billions, not six thousand. Sorry, Jesus freaks. Yet there seem to be maybe a hundred and twenty seven ghosts in existence and for some reason most of them lived in the Victorian era. Where are the Neanderthal ghosts? The Viking ghosts? Or more importantly, the dinosaur ghosts? I mean, what, only humans come back as ghosts? Humans from the Victorian era? If ghosts were real  they would be everywhere.

Not only would they be everywhere, if they had the ability to haunt life would be absolutely fucking unbearable because everything would be haunted.

Get it together people. You can rest easy tonight, okay? There are no ghost pterodactyls flying around your bed.

UFC 162 Predictions

Mike Pierce  vs. David Mitchell

Pierce via submission in round 2.

Seth Baczynski vs. Brian Melancon

Baczynski via submission in round 1

Edson Barboza vs. Rafaello Oliveira

Oliveira via boring ass decision

Gabriel Gonzaga  vs. Dave Herman

Herman via TKO in round 2

Norman Parke  vs. Kazuki Tokudome

Parke via tko in round 1

Chris Leben vs. Andrew Craig

Craig via ko in round 3 cause Leben gasses

Cub Swanson vs. Dennis Siver

FOTN contender imo. Tough to call. Siver by decision? Siver's been rejuvenated as of late and Swanson is a dark horse imo. can't wait!

Mark Muñoz  vs. Tim Boetsch

Hmmm....Munoz by decision I guess

Tim Kennedy vs. Roger Gracie

Kennedy via knockout in round 2

Frankie Edgar vs. Charles Oliveira

Edgar via decision (unless I'm wrong about his TDD). Btw, I like Edgar as a fighter. I hate all of that "point fighter b.s." He's technical and fun to watch, imo

Anderson Silva vs Chris Weidman

If Anderson doesn't come out more aggressive than usual and knock him out, then Weidman via submission or boring ass decision (it all depends on how much space he has to work with. If he gets Silva down (we'll find out) and doesn't smother him like Sonnen did I wouldn't be shocked if he submitted him during a scramble. Guillotine or a D'Arce or something. He just needs to have the balls to risk leaving that space. I just don't see him submitting him from within Silva's guard). If he doesn't nail his takedowns though....hahaha good luck. Or if he does but has no space to work with then it's going to decision (I doubt he'll get caught like Chael did). 

Beginning of a New Short Story I Am Currently Writing

The following is the beginning of a short story I am writing. I'm not entirely sure how this one will turn out but if it goes well I might end up with a pretty neat one (I have an ending in mind, but the path to it is murky and may not be traversable). If I do end up with a decent completed tale I might post it here, if anyone is interested. The tentative title is "Something To Think About." Here is the first little bit:

Dentist's Business Booming After Alleged Sex Abuse

Dentist's Business Booming After Alleged Sex Abuse

New York (Associated Press)

The dentist, Bedros Yavru-Sakuk, 62, of Edgewater, N.J, who was charged with the sex abuse of a 19 year old woman has been enjoying a rather unintended consequence of this recent turn of events: Business is booming. I ask him about this over the phone.

"Yes, it is true," he answers, speaking breathlessly into an office phone, his already strained voice being rendered even more indecipherable by the unmistakable sounds of an office teeming with activity emanating from what would presumably have been behind him. "I have been busier than ever since well, since that article was released." The article to which he is referring of course being the one detailing the alleged sex abuse. When I press him for details about it, he declines the offer to comment and instead says that anything he will have to say on the matter will be said in court. Any other questions I may have, he says, are to be directed at his lawyer.

Knowing better than to try again, I return to the earlier topic of his recent business success. I had spoken to some people from the area before my phone conversation with Mr. Yavru-Sakuk and almost everyone I spoke to who knew him had nothing but positive things to say. And so I ask him if he believes this increase in business to be a means of public support; a rallying cry of sorts, issued in his favour. He hesitates and then drops a bombshell on me: The increase in business has been exclusively female.

My Dog Maya

Meet my dog Maya:

Yes, I know; she's adorable. And yes, she's crossing her paws in the second pic. Why is she crossing her paws, you ask? I don't know. Why is she wearing a sock on her head in the following pic?

Sock it to me, baby

She does both of these things for reasons that are likely to be forever unknown to me and I wouldn't have it any either way. I may very well have the world's most enigmatic dog. 

Okay, you say. She is enigmatic. And admittedly very cute (although she looks a little you know......if dogs rode in schoolbuses as pups she would have rode in the short one, nomsayin'?). What else is she? 

What else else she? Well, let me show you:

Welcome to Mayaland. 

Dichotomy Between People's Actions and Their Self Perceptions

What do you call a person that eats meat? A meat eater.
What do you call a person that kills? A killer.
What do you call a person that cheats? A cheater.
What do you call a person that loves? A lover.
What do you call a person that hates? A hater.
What do you call a person that rapes? A rapist (not a raper...I wonder why?)

etc.

Basically, the above examples were made to illustrate a simple point. Said point being that most, if not all, people define other people by their actions. So far we are all in agreement? Okay, so here is where things get interesting. The farther out from someone's social circle is the more likely they are to be defined, in that person's mind, by their actions. The closer they are to that person the less likely (or at least the less intensely)  they are defined by their actions. There seems to be an inverse relationship between the degree to which one is defined, in the minds of others, by one's own actions and their social proximity to the other person/people. The rate of adherence to the rules of defining people vary with this proximity.

In the examples given above, one would assume that the people in question are people on the periphery of one's social group. Most people would refer to someone they read about in a magazine cheating on their significant other as a cheater. However, in the event that their best friend had an affair, would they be as likely to apply the cheater label? Taking this to the furthest point on the inverse end of this relationship is the judgement passers  themselves. What do most people call themselves when they do x or y?

I posit that they are quite unlikely to define themselves by these specific actions and instead are more likely to grant themselves psychological/moralistic leeway in the form of a statement such as "I'm not that kind of person," "I don't know what I was thinking- I don't do things like that" or "that's not me; I'm not really like that." Furthermore, I contend that you the reader have yourself done this, as, I will readily admit, have I, your gracious host and sexually proficient blog author.

So why the dichotomy?

Well, for the same reason that (in my opinion) most negative aspects of humanity exist: Ego.

Ego is a motherfucker. Ego is an incredibly strong motivator for much of the world's population; one that can be bested (or at least mitigated to a certain degree) but in order to learn to do so one must undertake a measure of study and practise. For most people, this process is unknown to them, and therefore out of their reach, regardless of their readiness to partake in it. This unreadiness/unwillingness to tackle the inhibiting effects of the ego (and the maintenance thereof) keep people in the default state in which they are prone to bending the truth (or at the very least use whatever techniques/tricks that are available to them in order to  maintain a certain narrative in their minds-a narrative regarding themselves and who they are as a person).

It is this psychological phenomenon that is responsible for the shift from actions being held to be the defining characteristic of a person's character to there being an essential "self" that exists outside of one's actions. The logical question is thusly evident, although the answer to it is not:

What are the criteria by which this essential self is judged? 

The answer, it seems to me, is partly past actions, partly the moral code that the person assimilated throughout their upbringing (a code that nearly no one follows at all times) and partly an idealized version of the self that is congruent with both a person's culture and the attributes they ascribe to a self actualized, idealized 'hero' character. Basically, we define ourselves by who who want to be, not who we are as would be judged if we were to be judged as we judge others; that is, solely by our actions.

The problem with this is that it can't be both. People either are the sum total of their actions or they are not. So which is it? Just remember that whichever choice you make applies to both you and everyone else. One interesting aspect of this fact that just struck me as I am writing this is that this choice basically comes down to either being harder on yourself or easier on everyone else. I'm not sure what people would rather do but I do know that either one comes down to the same unavoidable implication: You and everyone else will be held to the same standard. The exact thing that I believe sparks this problem in the first place.

I have a saying that applies here, and it as follows: You will be judged not by your actions but by the perceptions of your intent. Unless those doing the judging aren't you ;)

How Life Changes After Having a Kid (or at least how I felt about it two years ago)

The following is from a conversation I had online 2 years ago or so. I found it saved as a blog draft in a folder on my computer, and I remembered how I had planned on posting this here as a post about children from the point of view of someone who did not want one and did not experience a life changing shift in my viewpoint after having done so. I thought it interesting to read my thoughts at the time and compare my situation then to my situation now and I thought I would post it here given the recent post I made here about having children (if you have not read that I suggest reading it before reading this). 

Online friend speaking to a group of us online: "You guys are in your late 20's? I feel so young :( I'm only 21."

Me: "I'll be 30 in November :(

However, as depressing as that fact may be to me (very much so), much of the time I feel about your age. "Young at heart," as they say. Speaking of which, let me make a suggestion to you (any of you, really): If you plan on getting married, and/or having a kid (or kids), delay as much as possible. Get your shit together (career, finances, etc) but, more importantly, enjoy the everloving FUCK out of your twenties.

Is Having Kids Selfish?

Note: I posted a follow up of sorts to this article if you're interested (It pertains to the selfishness of romantic relationships).

Not having kids has been traditionally labelled a selfish decision by people who either have or want children. And while this accusation has been levied less and less as the numbers of childfree couples continues to rise around the world, it is not yet uncommon for someone who expresses their lack of a desire to have children to be chastised for even considering living such a selfish life.

When considering this one could easily think of some reasons one could possibly give for not wanting children that could actually be qualified as selfless rather than selfish. Not contributing to the ongoing overpopulation problem comes to mind. However, my my contention here is that one can take this a step further and actually claim that the desire to have kids is a selfish one, and quite possibly more so than desiring not to have them.

Think this to be a ridiculous notion? Well, read on and let's see.

Play Super Mario Crossover

Religion and Masturbation

I recently watched a movie entitled 'Teeth.' The movie (which wasn't very good but I digress), an indie horror with some comedic elements (it mostly failed on both fronts....some of it was amusing, none of it was scary, but again, digressing...), is about a very religious teenage girl who has taken a vow of 'purity' (aka abstinence) and goes around to other schools prattling on to younger kids and other teens about the 'evils' of sex and how it's only right to save your 'gift' until marriage, and blah blah.

Anyways, one day, this chick is sexually assaulted by a guy that she was starting to date. Not long after this guy forcefully enters her, his penis is bitten off and he dies. You see, her vagina has a set of teeth inside of it (hence the name of the movie) that clamp down and bite anything that enters her, unless she wants it in there and is completely comfortable (this aspect of her fucked up sexuality is discovered later in the movie). Any discomfort and CHOMP! So, throughout the course of the movie, a few penises and some fingers get bitten off, and magx01 gets a laugh or two watching this happen.

Watching this movie got me thinking (and in the mood to rant) about religion and its attitude towards human sexuality. One obvious area of immense damage done by religion is homosexuality. Another is premarital sex (abstinence being a big focus of the movie in question). However, I am going to avoid these particular aspects of sexuality for this blog and focus specifically on masturbation.

Introductory Thoughts on Xbox One.

Well I think its about time I hopped back on the blogging train.



After watching Microsofts Press Conference for the new Xbox I felt like talking about what I liked, what I hated and what I thought was just not needed.