John Fury Not Happy!

[jamesmcdonnell]

I wonder why people seem to get so much more emotionally upset when people suggest the same may be true of cognitive advantages?

Is there any evidence for that though?

Not that I have ever seen. Nothing credible.

A physiological difference only means you are good at very specific disciplines it isn't a sign of genetic superiority.

[margaret thatcher]

I've seen cases put forward. Either way, I doubt it's evidence that explains the immediate hostile and emotional reaction that gets , even though people seem far far more open to other differences. And I mean, in the end, aren't they all physical (just limbs vs brain?)

[Boxerbeetle]

Is there any evidence for that though?

Not that I have ever seen. Nothing credible.

A physiological difference only means you are good at very specific disciplines it isn't a sign of genetic superiority.

Guys who wear glasses are definitely intellectual though. That’s 100% guaranteed.

[margaret thatcher]

Brain differences are really phsyiological aren't they? At least, the brain is a physical tangible object. People are far more emotional about brains and their output than about legs and their output I guess.

Either way, saying a particular difference accounts to some general, unconditional 'superiority' is someone's own call. Perhaps any differences even out in the end.

[jamesmcdonnell]

The difference is that intelligence is far more complex and affected by a multitude of genes and environmental factors and also epigenetics.

Whilst certain educational practices can have a marked effect on cognitive abilities, no amount of training can change a mo farah into an Usain bolt, as it comes down to some fairly simple genetic differences that determine height, musculoskeletal form.

[margaret thatcher]

Pretty sure that athletic differences are affected by plenty of genes and environmental factors too. Just that we deal with things like someone's ankle composition for running, and brain for cognition.

[oogiebe]

Brain differences are really phsyiological aren't they? At least, the brain is a physical tangible object. People are far more emotional about brains and their output than about legs and their output I guess.

Either way, saying a particular difference accounts to some general, unconditional 'superiority' is someone's own call. Perhaps any differences even out in the end.

Depends on whose legs and what kind of 'output.'

[margaret thatcher]

[milpool]

Not that I have ever seen. Nothing credible.

A physiological difference only means you are good at very specific disciplines it isn't a sign of genetic superiority.

Guys who wear glasses are definitely intellectual though. That’s 100% guaranteed.

Alright four eyes!

[jamesmcdonnell]

Pretty sure that athletic differences are affected by plenty of genes and environmental factors too. Just that we deal with things like someone's ankle composition for running, and brain for cognition.

You are born with a certain amount and type of muscle fibres, nothing can change that. Running is a very simple athletic pursuit. If you look at something like tennis for instance, then there is a far wider range of body types and athletic gifts that have produced a top player.

[Ruthless-RKO]

Is this thread still about what John said??

[oogiebe]

Is this thread still about what John said??

LMFAO! Nope!!!

[margaret thatcher]

Going by Tyson's cuts it looks like Big John may have secretly been teaching Otto some of his legendary eye busting skills

Anyone get the vibe that BJ wants Tyson to lose, so then he can moan and 'see I told you!' and complain extra hard??

[oogiebe]

Going by Tyson's cuts it looks like Big John may have secretly been teaching Otto some of his legendary eye busting skills

Anyone get the vibe that BJ wants Tyson to lose, so then he can moan and 'see I told you!' and complain extra hard??

Wouldn't be surprised. BJ has a huge ego and probably has some butt sting that he's not sharing in Fury's successes.

[coneye]

Going by Tyson's cuts it looks like Big John may have secretly been teaching Otto some of his legendary eye busting skills

Anyone get the vibe that BJ wants Tyson to lose, so then he can moan and 'see I told you!' and complain extra hard??

Not me , cos i actually agree with him , he knows his son better than anyone else , he's not stupid , he see's the interviews Davidson does , , the ones where he claims the victory was great , because dispite all odds he had a vision what the opponent had for breakfast , which give him an insight into how to train Tyson ,,,

He also probably looks at the entourage and thinks , not one of them is a millionaire , how do they afford to go live over there for a few months at a time , so they can hang around the pool , singing and dancing , inbetween praying to god for the cameras ... Then i'l bet he thinks i know , brainwave , TYSONS PAYING

[rd350lc]

Not that I have ever seen. Nothing credible.

A physiological difference only means you are good at very specific disciplines it isn't a sign of genetic superiority.

Guys who wear glasses are definitely intellectual though. That’s 100% guaranteed.

That's definitely true Cos I don't and I'm thick as shit .

[Ruthless-RKO]

Going by Tyson's cuts it looks like Big John may have secretly been teaching Otto some of his legendary eye busting skills

Anyone get the vibe that BJ wants Tyson to lose, so then he can moan and 'see I told you!' and complain extra hard??

Who’s BJ??

[margaret thatcher]

BIG John

[TheGoods]

Said it before and I’ll say it again. He’s no feather duster man.

[Steveh583]

In no fight did McDermott win five rounds. If you gave him the nod, fair enough, plenty did. But that 'robbery' (the most overused phrase in the sport) was nowhere near as wide as history makes out. I had fury winning the first two and the last two of a ten round fight, with a few middle rounds where it was who's style you liked. McDermotts shots certainly looked the most spectacular no doubt, but five rounds I can't agree on.

The scoring by Terry O'Connor was so bad. That it prompted a rule change.... Hardly "who's style you like" is it?

Yes. Yes it was. One ref getting it wrong by a huge margin doesn't change the actual fight. It was a close one.

[Monte Fisto]

The scoring by Terry O'Connor was so bad. That it prompted a rule change.... Hardly "who's style you like" is it?

Yes. Yes it was. One ref getting it wrong by a huge margin doesn't change the actual fight. It was a close one.

Agree Steve. I was there that night and I had money on a JM points win. I thought that fight was a brave match up and JM May have too much stamina for him. I didn’t think it was a decision robbery, poor scorecard yes.

[Boxerbeetle]

Is there any evidence for that though?

It is, as I am sure you can imagine, a very controversial topic but there are long-standing patterns of differential achievement in IQ tests according to 'race' and ethnicity.

Lots of argument and debate about this but it goes back to Eysenck's work in the 1950s. There have been concerted attempts to discredit his research ever since.

Hmmm, yeah it’s difficult because it’s impossible to separate culture / background/ upbringing. It’s not like athletes where you can just easily examine different parts of a person’s body - we don’t even fully understand how the brain works, never mind all the rest of it.

[Grilling Machine]

Mud huts'd be chocolate teapots in the UK, a region of frequent rain and local stone, but they're perfectly adequate in Kenya. It's impossible to separate Westerners' increased rate of technological advancement from necessity's encouragement.

Attributing anything greater than highly equivocal meaning to comparative IQ tests is a hiding to nothing based on the impossibility of ensuring a fair playing field. A field that so many black people are still disenfranchised from using based on this very prejudice. You might as well call all whiteys rubbish marathoners 'cause you couldn't find a three-hour man in Dudley. Though for the likes of Peterson, scientific validity isn't even principal, because him and his kind are just happy to pedal whatever propagates their own popularity. 21st century charlatans appealing to racists for coin.

[mickey1975]

Mud huts'd be chocolate teapots in the UK, a region of frequent rain and local stone, but they're perfectly adequate in Kenya. It's impossible to separate Westerners' increased rate of technological advancement from necessity's encouragement.

Attributing anything greater than highly equivocal meaning to comparative IQ tests is a hiding to nothing based on the impossibility of ensuring a fair playing field. A field that so many black people are still disenfranchised from using based on this very prejudice. You might as well call all whiteys rubbish marathoners 'cause you couldn't find a three-hour man in Dudley. Though for the likes of Peterson, scientific validity doesn't even matter, because him and his kind are just happy to pedal whatever propagates their own popularity. 21st century charlatans appealing to racists for coin.

My dad did under 2.40 in the eighties and he’s whiter than Casper.

[Grilling Machine]

Yeah, but was he from Dudley...

[edit]

Supposing it were proven that black people have, on average, less academic intelligence than white people, what does it matter? That's always gonna be the question to put to people who've spent years working towards trying to prove it. They'll give you some fudge about wanting to help redress the balance by painting themselves as good guys, but nothing's stopping anyone from fighting for that equality right now. Out of simple human decency.