Sites We Like

RealUltimatePower

Poop Report

Fat Chicks in Party Hats

Xbox-Scene

TechLore

NEWS 256 - 50 Comments
From: Ross Entered on: January 27, 2005 9:54 AM
Ah yes! I understand! Wait, what do I understand again?
From: Jackzilla Entered on: January 27, 2005 10:05 AM
WTF? I was all ready to see Mike knock someone on their ass and instead I get this? Napolean Dynamite got better moves!
From: Creeko Entered on: January 27, 2005 11:16 AM
He may have earned some props if the hoochies were full-on nude going at three-way, but all I see is some low budget music video with a washed up boxer. He could probably still whup some ass though.
From: The Bone Entered on: January 27, 2005 6:35 PM
Ha Ha Ha. I linked this as a joke. A man whose made $300 million in his life is reduced to making cheesy videos. The skipper hat - hilarious. I may love Mike Tyson but it doesn't change my grasp of reality. I laughed my ass off when I saw this video.
From: The Bone Entered on: January 27, 2005 6:37 PM
I've developed a formula for this situation:     Mike Tyson + a bunch of hoes = big trouble
From: Ross Entered on: January 28, 2005 10:47 AM
Aided by my extensive mathematical training, I have further refined your forumula:     Mike Tyson = Big Trouble
From: The Bone Entered on: January 28, 2005 6:34 PM
Hilarious!     Seriously though, if Mike finds out you are dissing him, you will be knocked out, convulsing on the floor like an infantile retard.
From: The Bone Entered on: January 28, 2005 6:50 PM
If find this guy pretty amusing as well. Certainly better than that Hung Chinese guy - what a misnomer.     http://www.leroy-wells.com/movie.htm
From: The Bone Entered on: February 3, 2005 1:05 AM
Halo - Some guy falls asleep while playing Halo and his friends abuse him. Watch how fucking high they blast him at the end.     http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=scut
From: Creeko Entered on: February 3, 2005 2:42 AM
I don't know what's a greater waist of time...     You searching for such childish things,     Me watching this in its entirety,     Or the effort some loser invested making this video.     I swear Bone, if you look for this shit at work, I refuse to pay another cent to the IRS for as long as I live.
From: Ross Entered on: February 3, 2005 8:37 AM
That was fucking hilarious, though. The lullaby music was a nice touch.
From: BigFatty Entered on: February 6, 2005 7:47 PM
I have been watching this Eurosport channel. At night they feature Fight Club. There they show a bunch of different fights - boxing, kickboxing, and open fight. It is pretty cool. I like the kickboxing and open fights best. They are mostly european boxing matches but the others are asian. I saw the big American Bob Sapp on the open fight. He is ex-NFL, ex-Pro Wrassle'n, 300+ pounds of pure, mean, black muscle. Man, he looks tough and mean! I couldn't wait for this Jap-chump to get his ass whupped. The dude was significantly smaller, and a whole lot gumpier. He got Sapp on the ground and started kicking him in the head. It was so funny! Sapp had to tap out on the first round.     Sapp showed up a few nights later in a kick-boxing match. It was pathetic! He got the shit kicked out of him. At first I thought he was an easy win. He had the smaller asian dude in the corner and was pummelling him with his huge meat hooks. The dude just took it with some good covering. He got out of it and was taunting the Big Ass Sapp! Sapp was twice the size of him and much stronger. That asian dude was tough. He took Sapp's punches, then decided to kick the shit out of him. One deciding factor though. He knee'd Sapp square in the nuts. After that, Sapp just fell apart. It was still great to watch a huge monster like that get handled!     I like to watch me some fight club now. It is another distraction keeping me from my thesis.
From: The Bone Entered on: February 6, 2005 8:56 PM
I've been loosely following the UFC/Pride mixed martial arts scene for the last year since I've been training at my mma gym. I've seen Bob Sapp. He's a gigantic scary looking sumbitch. He has done relatively well considering he flew right up in there and took on guys with years and years of training. That is the main difference between boxing and MMA. If he fought a boxing match, he'd get fubared by any credible heavyweight.     http://www.sherdog.com/fightfinder/fightfinder.asp? fighterid=4416
From: Ross Entered on: February 7, 2005 8:50 AM
Somehow I have lost my taste for that particular brand of barbarism - I used to be all about it, but I think that over the past few years I've grown increasingly aware of my own mortality. Those competitions just seem like an express ticket to lower quality of life.
From: John Entered on: February 13, 2005 6:19 PM
It's funny how you can be 300 + pounds of solid muscle and punch nowhere near as hard as a 230 pound George Foreman in his prime. It isn't just training either, like big George himself said, "you either have punching power, or you don't." I believe you can train to enhance your power but you'll never enhance it to be on par with guy's like Foreman, Tyson, or Listen. These guy's just had that innate power that goes beyond being pumped up.
From: The Bone Entered on: February 13, 2005 6:26 PM
Just like me.
From: John Entered on: February 13, 2005 6:30 PM
Ha, ha Bone, yes, just like you.
From: Ross Entered on: February 13, 2005 8:26 PM
This all goes back to the standard Roche/Johnson argument - nature vs nurture. Roche has an irrational affinity for inborn talent. Yes, the fastest and strongest people in the world usually have genetics that help make them the best. But talking like "you either have it or you don't" is an insult to everyone who trains their asses off, including the ones who "have it."     George Foreman may have been a great fighter, but that doesn't make him very smart. People who are good at shit rarely know WHY they're good at it. Just look at all the football players who think God made their team win. Athletes are fucking morons, man.
From: The Bone Entered on: February 13, 2005 8:50 PM
Still, I do see Roche's point. In physically demanding sports such as football, basketball, boxing etc, you need to have been born with natural physical gifts beyond the average.     For example, Bert, you could train your ass off for one hundred years and you would never be able to beat someone like Floyd Mayweather in boxing because he is just too fucking naturally gifted with regards to speed, coordination, and power for his size. Combined with a lot of training = champion. You would just be a journeyman if you had the same amount of traing. No offense - so would I.     Last Friday I met one of the defensive ends for the Pittsburg Steelers. I was amazed at how big and muscular he was yet he was very graceful and smooth as he walked. You could tell that he was an above average physical specimen. Sure he trained his ass off and probably took steroids but I could take all the steroids I wanted and I'd never duplicate his sweetness. Lucky for me my penis is above average.
From: Ross Entered on: February 13, 2005 9:33 PM
Absolutely, for the best of the best, their natural talent is a key ingredient of what makes them the best (though it's not nearly as important as their training). But that's exactly why it's not worthy of Roche's reverence - they didn't earn it! They have no control over it, they were born with it. It's an accident, and nothing to admire.     But let's be clear: for the VAST majority of people, natural SKILL (not size or strength, mind you) is a extremely minor factor in what makes them win. Only when all parties have essentially maxed out their training do these kinds of small factors become disproportionally large. Granted you have to be born with the size just to compete in some of these sports, no one is contesting that.     So yeah, I agree with the basic sentiment - but every time Roche brings up that stupid George Foreman line "you either have it or you don't," I see red. It's not just a gross oversimplification - it's just plain wrong. And honestly, I think Roche likes it because he thinks it gives you a license to be lazy. You can claim that if you are good at it, it must be because you were born good at it, and if you suck at something, oh well, you probably never could be any good anyway so might as well not even try. It's a completely defeatist attitude and I'm totally repulsed by it.
From: John Entered on: February 14, 2005 3:41 AM
Just one question, Bert, what is it that you're training at that you were not born good at? It's good to see that it's still not all that hard to make you see red.
From: Swerb Entered on: February 14, 2005 7:49 AM
It's so flippin' sweet that Johnnybells is back on the forum, mixing it up. We haven't had a heated debate like this in a while. :)     With this argument in mind, I feel it necessary to declare that I was born with zero Halo skills.     Bone, which Pittsburgh Steeler did you meet last week? The all-pros were in Honolulu for yesterday's Pro Bowl game, so I'm sure it wasn't some shlub.
From: The Bone Entered on: February 14, 2005 9:42 AM
Sorry Swerb, I fornicated my process. It wasn't a Steeler, it was John Abraham from The New Jets. All these dudes are in town for the Pro Bowl and they go around checking out how I teach dudes to whoop submarine's asses.     http://www.newyorkjets.com/roster/index.php?practic e_squad=no&player_id=4#4
From: BigFatty Entered on: February 14, 2005 11:50 AM
I don't know if there is a side to take on this issue. For ordinary shlubs, training can make you good. It takes talent and training to be truly great. On our ordinary level, there are some talented fucks that can whoop up on us naturally, even if we train our asses off. Especially in physical feats. Training is key to anything, but it is talent that gives the edge over to greatness. It is all a matter of degrees. If two dudes are close to one another, and one is more talented - the other can overcome the deficiency by training more.
From: John Entered on: February 15, 2005 8:41 AM
The statement that my reverence for inborn talent is greater than the training that goes into any sport is simply not true. If it were my favorite boxers would be Roy Jones and Floyd Mayweather because they have the most inborn talent in the sport today. I love that Glenn Johnson a hard working tough journeyman not only knocked Roy out but out worked him through the whole fight. I also want to see Floyd fight Kostya Tszyu and I hope Kostya will knock him out. What I respect even more than the training is the will to win and that is what Glenn and Kostya have that I admire so much.     For what ever reason Bert likes to dismiss inborn talent as a major factor when it comes to elite athletes. None of the truly elite could have gotten as far without the inborn talent they have. It's not that I revere inborn talent so much, it's just that I accept that it plays a major role in the success of athletes in any sport. Hard work and the will to win are important but you must also have talent.     It does seem that I have the natural talent to make Bert see red.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: February 15, 2005 8:50 AM
What an interesting discussion. Unlike Bert, I do think that inborn ability can be something to admire. For instance, I admire Prince's innate musical talent. There's no denying his work ethic and passion to create music but I think it's his innate musical ability that makes him Prince. I could spend the rest of my life learning music and practicing instruments and I know I'd never gain the ability he already had at age 18.     On the other hand, I bet I could kick Prince's little ass in Halo. (No innate ability, I've just played that bitch a lot!)       To bring it back to boxing for you guys, I just watched a preview video for FIGHT NIGHT, ROUND 2 and it looks killer. Johnnybells might want to take a week sabbatical from work just to taste it's fruits.
From: John Entered on: February 15, 2005 9:02 AM
I may need to, Zilla. I can't wait till FIGHT NIGHT, ROUND 2 comes out and I'm sure Bone can't either.     You make a good point about Prince, Zilla. Without his inborn talent he could not have become the musician he is today. I do to some degree admire inborn talent and this for some reason bothers Bert.
From: Ross Entered on: February 15, 2005 10:28 AM
Look, I am essentially on the same page as you guys. If you go back and read what I said, I believe that I have already adequately explained what my objection to Roche's stance is.     And there's a difference between admiring what someone can do BECAUSE OF their inborn talent and admiring the fact that it is inborn, which is what I seem to see Roche doing sometimes. This is the key difference.     I saw a review of Fight Night Round 2 on TechTV and they gave it 5 out of 5 stars, they said it was by far the best boxing game ever.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: February 15, 2005 10:35 AM
Gosh, we're getting spoiled with so much Johnny recently. Hmmm... Bells - You didn't get shit-canned from work, did you?     Bert - What's wrong with admiring the fact that some things are inborn? It might make life "fairer" if we all started with the same abilities, but it sure would be boring, don't ya think? Come on, Bert. What's your innate ability? My mommy says everyone is special!
From: Ross Entered on: February 15, 2005 11:49 AM
Acknowledgement and admiration are two vastly different things. And for the record, I'm not interested in fairness. You're right, differences between people are what make life interesting. But they're not worthy of admiration.     I can't make it much plainer than this: I don't admire Michael Jordan for his inborn basketball ability any more than I disdain my sister because she's deaf. These are both differences between people dictated by how they were born and they do not affect the way I think about them.
From: BigFatty Entered on: February 15, 2005 2:53 PM
I see Ross' point he is getting across. It seems a lot of people admire other folks based on their natural abilities. While admiration of the abilities is fine, some people tend to look to that person as being superior (outside the superior ability - of course). That person really isn't so sweet - they had nothing to do with their abilities besides being born.     Take Tony and me. He was born with a better physical structure. As teenagers, he looked far sweeter than me, was bigger, faster, stronger, etc. But he did nothing for it but be born into it. Looking at the two of us, people would think he was sweeter than me and hold his shite!     But Tony has continued to work out and maintain himself. He continues to be sweet and has worked at it. So he gets more props now. Myself, I have done little to maintain my averageness. Since I have no real genetics to become sweet, I have no real incentive to work hard at maintaining myself. Ross says that is a cop-out. I agree.     The real shame is when true talent is wasted. People seem to frown especially hard on that. Buy why should they? We all waste our true potential everyday. Very few try and maximize their potential. Why should the ones with more talent pushed more than others?
From: Ross Entered on: February 15, 2005 3:30 PM
Thank you Fatty, that's a perfect description.     And I agree 100% about Tony. I admire his ability to maintain being in good shape, but I don't give two shits either way about his good genetics. I don't love it (like Roche), but I don't hate it either. I acknowledge the difference and I move on. Note that that doesn't preclude me from jealousy, either. :)     Interesting point about "wasting" talent. You're right that people shit on it particularly harshly but when you put it like that I think you're right to question it. It also depends on the kind of thing they have a knack for, and just HOW talented they are. The world doesn't really (IMO) need another super sweet basketball player nearly as much as it could use a biologists or geneticists who can help advance human knowledge. The pressure on them is a little more justified in my mind but hey, if someone wants to say "fuck you" to the rest of the world, that's their prerogative.
From: The Bone Entered on: February 15, 2005 10:43 PM
This has turned into a pretty interesting discussion. Related to it is the persons desire to better themselves and improve on what they have. For me, I have a lot of desire to be sweet but it isn't always there. Sometimes it's just easier to neglect the hard work. I can't really pinpoint what it is that motivates me to bust my ass. A lot of it is vanity as well as health but I'm not sure that that is all there is to it. When it's not there I get depressed and start to get a little sloppy. I guess that's why I like to hear about Ross's success as well as anyone else. If Ross can get to the gym and workout after a full day of work and manage to eat well, then I should buck up, be a man and do the same. It really motivates me.     Of course you can relate this to mental improvement as well. I have a goal to get better at math and improve my Spanish and French. I'd also like to improve my writing. I feel that all of these traits have declined since college. I hardly utilize any one these skills. Even for my work, I write for effect and not for style.
From: BigFatty Entered on: February 16, 2005 2:47 AM
Shit negro - My writing skills have declined whilst in college. I think my degeneration has begun, the good times are behind me now....
From: John Entered on: February 16, 2005 7:56 AM
The Bells is still fully employed, Zilla. This discussion has made me think about how unmotivated I've been lately. My wife and I have been so busy that it's been easy to fall into poor eating habits. Since I've been working I've gained weight. This has a lot to do with what us techs refer to as BIG MONEY LUNCHING. When I get to work the hot topic is what's for lunch. None of us bring a lunch we just spend big money to eat unhealthy tasty food. It's so easy to slip into these shitty patterns yet so hard to break them. I must stop this craziness soon.
From: Ross Entered on: February 16, 2005 10:29 AM
I've said it before, but the hard part is making the full commitment to making the change. I work out every damn weekday morning now, I get up about an hour earlier than normal to do it. It's been about 5 weeks now and at this point it's just my routine. It had been so long since I worked out this regularly that I"d forgotten what it was like to make gains in strength, which is easy for now since I'd gotten so weak. The eating is actually more diffcult this time around since people are always wanting to go out for lunch or beers and I'm finding it more difficult to say no. But most of the time I manage to do pretty well.     If you really want to get philosophical about people improving themsevles beyond their natural abilities, though, you have to ask yourself: is the desire to improve yourself also natural? So in a sense, isn't EVERYTHING inborn? Of course the answer is no, but it's also impossible to know how much of a person's ambition is innate and how much is acquired, and it's difficult to fault someone for not having the ambition to improve.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: February 16, 2005 10:47 AM
That's funny Ross -- I almost went there earlier. When discussing admiration for innate ability vs. someone's work to improve that ability: Wouldn't the will power itself be innate?     Not only does that reasoning reduce everything about a person to being innate, it also allows you to "blame fate" for being lazy and eating too much crap.     And does any of this contradict our admiration for The Girl Next Door's innate hotness? Bert, is it wrong to admire natural hotness? (That is, assuming she's naturally hot... it's not like everyone in Hollywood works at it afterall... right?).
From: Ross Entered on: February 16, 2005 11:20 AM
Yes Zilla, so long as you do not confuse the PRODUCT of some innate quality with the fact that the quality is innate. Admire the hotness, not the reason she's hot. That's been my argument since the beginning of this thread.     And to be clear: you cannot reduce everything about someone to their genes at all. Dawkins sums it up well: DNA is not a blueprint for a person, it's a recipe. If you bake a thousand cakes by the same recipe, you might get some that are very similar to each other but none will be the same. And cakes are a lot simpler than humans. It's why identical twins are not literally the same person - a whole lot of who we are comes from our experiences, which of course come from our interaction with the environment.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: February 16, 2005 11:45 AM
So, "You're HOT!" becomes "I must say that I greatly admire the environment that shaped your present physical condition."
From: Ross Entered on: February 16, 2005 12:43 PM
No.     To quote my last post:     "Admire the hotness, not the reason she's hot."
From: Ross Entered on: June 13, 2005 9:49 AM
Bone - it's over now.     Right?
From: Ross Entered on: March 28, 2007 7:32 AM
I hate to bring up Mike Tyson again, but I recently came across this list of 10 most awkward TV interviews ever.  So far, they're all pretty, funny, but Tyson hits the list at a very respectable #2, though it's from practically every TV appearance ever as everything he says is insane.  Now I know why Bone uses the word "fornicate" so much.
From: Ross Entered on: December 4, 2007 1:55 PM
I thought I'd re-open an age-old debate (even though one of the primary debaters, Johnnybells, is completely absent from the site these days) in respect to natural talent vs. hard work.  Though that's not, strictly speaking, the focus of this article from Scientific American about how to raise smart kids, it does address the issue: Teaching children such information is not just a ploy to get them to study. People do differ in intelligence, talent and ability. And yet research is converging on the conclusion that great accomplishment, and even what we call genius, is typically the result of years of passion and dedication and not something that flows naturally from a gift. Mozart, Edison, Curie, Darwin and Cézanne were not simply born with talent; they cultivated it through tremendous and sustained effort. Similarly, hard work and discipline contribute much more to school achievement than IQ does. Anyway, the article is good for those of us new fathers, regardless of your stance on the nature vs nurture debate.
From: BigFatty Entered on: December 4, 2007 2:21 PM
I hear what you are saying...  but these 'Legends' had both... They had the talent and skills from nature, which was recognized and nurtured.  They also had the drive to be the best and stay the best.  Raw talent will only get you so far.  It has to be cultivated, plus you have to have the desire to take it places.  I am sure there have been some gifted people (lets say in the piano) who just did not have the interest in playing.  They would rather play baseball. So lets say I agree with you in the hard work and drive department.  That certainly can win against raw talent in certain arenas.  But at the top levels - it takes both.
From: Ross Entered on: December 4, 2007 2:36 PM
Absolutely, and I have never claimed otherwise, if you read this entire long-ass thread. My main problem with Roche's standpoint is that he has always placed such an emphasis on natural talent that he tended to behave as though if you weren't naturally the best at something from the get-go, it wasn't worth pursuing.  And to be honest, I believe this has negatively affected him throughout his life, in exactly the way the article describes.  I think he lost interest in school once it was no longer easy for him, and probably never participated in athletics, even though he was a talented athlete, because he wasn't necessarily the best all the time.  And as much as anyone I know, Johnny needs to be the winner.   In any case, my parents didn't do it perfectly, either - my dad tended to stress both intelligence and hard work... but he did sometimes wonder out loud why I gave up on hard problems too easily in his opinion.  This article sheds a little light on the possible reason.  So let's be honest here:  none of us are likely to be the best in the world at anything we pursue (unless we are very narrow specialists) but how we approach the nature vs nurture debate can greatly influence our successes.
From: BigFatty Entered on: December 4, 2007 2:53 PM
But that is why they wrote the story 'The Little Engine that Could'
From: Ross Entered on: March 11, 2009 8:59 AM
Just saw this movie was being made.  Bone, are you on top of this?
From: Jackzilla Entered on: March 11, 2009 10:44 AM
I was just reading an article on FIGHT NIGHT 4 and it sounds super sweet.  It has both Ali AND Tyson this time too.
From: Ross Entered on: March 11, 2009 11:20 AM
I would love to have them fight in the game, although only if there is a crazy-o-meter, for maximum realism.
From: The Bone Entered on: March 13, 2009 8:38 PM
Ross said: Just saw this movie was being made.  Bone, are you on top of this? First I've heard of it. Tyson is a good actor unbelievably. He had a small role in a 1999 movie called Black and White where he did a decent job.