Ufc 165

[quote]AsaAkira13 wrote:
"The vikings had to plunder because they lived in such harsh lands, the result was a form of naturally enforced eugenics that led to a genetic level where they all reached a certain stature, like Giraffes did and black people in North America have today.

This stuff really inst up for debate, it is just a fact."

The GERMANIC tribes were 5’11 to 6’2 dude. Do you realise that can not be put against people’s sizes today with a massive disparity in calorie access and all the modern things we have to let us grow.

The average federal soldier in the American civil war was 5ft 8 and 3 quarter inches.

The “other” Vikings" most people think of as the Vikings were smaller, because their land was more forgiving, meaning it didn’t enforce such harsh selection processes on its inhabitants.

Lol you really need to educate yourself on a topic before telling people their opinion on said topic is not an educated one.

The Vikings weren’t only from Sweden homeslice!

Name a tribe… OK

Visigoths
vandals
Ostrogoths
Burgundians
Lombards

The German Vikings were tall and for the times giants before men, because they were in much harsher lands than their Scandinavian counterparts.
This lead to the biggest and strongest only surviving, reproducing and creating the Aryan man the Germans and British like to think of themselves as, many years before our inbreeding took our genetic stock down quite a few levels.

Odin be with you.[/quote]

sigh I don’t mean to further derail the thread, but you’re wrong.

obligatory credentials comparison: you’re twenty and haven’t even been to college. I’m a fair bit older and studied Scandinavian culture for a few terms.

The term ‘viking’ originated in the late 8th century; its origin is debated but one likely explanation is that it comes from their way of attacking from the open sea by sailing into fjords or attacking out of them - the name for those was ‘vik’. Geographically, those do not occur in what is now known as Germany; they are a distinctly Scandinavian feature.
Concerning the ‘survival=height’ argument… It sounds oh so good in theory, but then, why have humans in the Western world grown taller and taller since 1900, while living became increasingly easy? Because nutrition is crucial for producing big fuckers on a regular basis. So you’re contradicting yourself here.

Concerning the ‘non-northern tribes’ you mentioned:

Visigoths, Ostrogoths and vandals were walking around Europe centuries before the term ‘viking’ or raids on Irish monasteries ever occurred. This would be like asking an 18th ct Bostonian if he’s a Red Sox fan - pure anachronism.
Burgundians and Lombards did come from Scandinavia and settled elsewhere; in this respect, they can be compared to the Rus. Scandinavian Expats.

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:
sigh I don’t mean to further derail the thread, but you’re wrong.

obligatory credentials comparison: you’re twenty and haven’t even been to college. I’m a fair bit older and studied Scandinavian culture for a few terms.

The term ‘viking’ originated in the late 8th century; its origin is debated but one likely explanation is that it comes from their way of attacking from the open sea by sailing into fjords or attacking out of them - the name for those was ‘vik’. Geographically, those do not occur in what is now known as Germany; they are a distinctly Scandinavian feature.
Concerning the ‘survival=height’ argument… It sounds oh so good in theory, but then, why have humans in the Western world grown taller and taller since 1900, while living became increasingly easy? Because nutrition is crucial for producing big fuckers on a regular basis. So you’re contradicting yourself here.

Concerning the ‘non-northern tribes’ you mentioned:

Visigoths, Ostrogoths and vandals were walking around Europe centuries before the term ‘viking’ or raids on Irish monasteries ever occurred. This would be like asking an 18th ct Bostonian if he’s a Red Sox fan - pure anachronism.
Burgundians and Lombards did come from Scandinavia and settled elsewhere; in this respect, they can be compared to the Rus. Scandinavian Expats.[/quote]

So when people were playing “soccer” before the term association football was coined, they weren’t actually playing soccer?

People were murdering before it was given a term.

Of all the books on German history, Roman history etc the German tribes are called vikings.

Also lots of people have said cattle rearing was a big reason that kept the Germans growing , again down to the fact they couldn’t do much with the land.

[quote]AsaAkira13 wrote:
you just told me to shut up, which is fine, but not really new or intelligent.[/quote]
I’m OK with fine because race baiting is neither new nor intelligent.

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]AsaAkira13 wrote:
you just told me to shut up, which is fine, but not really new or intelligent.[/quote]
I’m OK with fine because race baiting is neither new nor intelligent. [/quote]

What the hell does race baiting mean in this context?

Calling out white people for being cunts?

[quote]AsaAkira13 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]AsaAkira13 wrote:
you just told me to shut up, which is fine, but not really new or intelligent.[/quote]
I’m OK with fine because race baiting is neither new nor intelligent. [/quote]

What the hell does race baiting mean in this context?

Calling out white people for being cunts?[/quote]
I’m calling you out as one.

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]AsaAkira13 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]AsaAkira13 wrote:
you just told me to shut up, which is fine, but not really new or intelligent.[/quote]
I’m OK with fine because race baiting is neither new nor intelligent. [/quote]

What the hell does race baiting mean in this context?

Calling out white people for being cunts?[/quote]
I’m calling you out as one. [/quote]

Based on what ? Saying white people are racist and want black champions to lose? How racist I am! I am at the exact opposite end of the spectrum. I usually get called an anti white feminazi on the internet, how refreshing <3

[quote]AsaAkira13 wrote:
So when people were playing “soccer” before the term association football was coined, they weren’t actually playing soccer?

People were murdering before it was given a term.

Of all the books on German history, Roman history etc the German tribes are called vikings.

[/quote]

  • when Neanderthals were kicking sheep skulls over a field it was not soccer. The term ‘viking’ specifically describes A CULTURE that came out of Scandinavia. The Romans never even reached this far up north and they certainly did not know or use the term Viking. The ‘northern’ (AKA anything more northern than Austria) tribes were generally called Barbarians.

If you knew anything about Geography, you’d know that the more temperate areas of Europe - Germany, Poland and such - are a completely different area than Scandinavia, hence agriculture and nutrition also differs. What you are trying to put together is a line of argument based on understandings of racial heritage and human development that has been debunked countless times since the 1930 (which was the last time when it was REALLY popular). Biology is more complicated than that.

Also… You are racist insofar as you ascribe certain attributes to different races and consequently favour them based on the colour of their [EDIT] skin. The sentence ‘My plan is to impregnate a black ghetto chick, mix my white slow twitch shit with her fast twitch and make an epic milk chocolate baby’ would have any black guy I know knock out your teeth and shove them down your throat.

Fuck off, troll.

Guys, don’t feed the trolls. This forum is for discussions of Combat Sports and Martial Arts, don’t let it get bogged with arguing about off topic subjects.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Guys, don’t feed the trolls. This forum is for discussions of Combat Sports and Martial Arts, don’t let it get bogged with arguing about off topic subjects.[/quote]

But people are wrong on the internet. On the internet!

On topic:

I notice Glover sort of stalks inside in most of his fights. Those more familiar with him, does he have the footwork to close with Jones?

Does Glover have the takedown ability/grappling chops to make that an issue for Jones?

Regards,

Robert A

[quote]Robert A wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Guys, don’t feed the trolls. This forum is for discussions of Combat Sports and Martial Arts, don’t let it get bogged with arguing about off topic subjects.[/quote]

But people are wrong on the internet. On the internet!

On topic:

I notice Glover sort of stalks inside in most of his fights. Those more familiar with him, does he have the footwork to close with Jones?

Does Glover have the takedown ability/grappling chops to make that an issue for Jones?

Regards,

Robert A[/quote]

Lol! Yeah, I realize it’s probably a loosing battle. :slight_smile:

I honestly haven’t seen Glover close all that explosively in any of his fights, and I’m not sure he’s got the strategic or technical knowledge to allow him to close the gap without relying on explosiveness. But, he is very tight (always has hands up), throws tight technical punches that don’t leave glaring openings for counters, can take a shot and has KO Power. If he can continually pressure Jones (force Jones to fight while moving backwards), cut the ring off on him, and hit him hard when they do exchange (think how Fedor bullied Cro Cop), I think he could take Jones out of his comfort zone and possibly frustrate him into opening up and possibly getting KO’d.

Glover took Rampage down during their fight. While I know that Rampage isn’t the fighter he used to be, he is still known for having excellent take down defense. Whether that means that he will be able to takedown Jones, who knows. I think he’ll have a harder time (if he’s successful at all) due to the reach issue, but then I wouldn’t have expected Gus to take Jones down either.

Again, I’m expecting Jones to win from a match-up standpoint, but I’ll probably be rooting for Glover due to mutual friends.

[quote]Robert A wrote:
But people are wrong on the internet. On the internet!
[/quote]