Hi again, NoRiceBoys. Thanks for taking the time to write back.
Here are some thoughts I have on your reply.
Originally posted by NoRiceBoys:
The black swan theory. I'm familiar with it. But now, let's be
practical. If every single crow you've seen is black, and I made a
bet with you to guess the colour of the next crow we'll see.
Will you put your money and say it's a white crow?
I'd be pretty dumb to bet on white, of course. That said,
inductive support is still not deductive proof, which was my point
here to begin with.
Originally posted by NoRiceBoys:
The best were invited to fight. They declined. In his prime, Tyson
was personally invited to a fight by Rorion Gracie. Tyson never
replied. I don't blame him, he was making millions, why risk it to
fight a relative unknown?
That still means that the best boxers in the UFC aren't the best
in the world, possibly by a long shot.
On the other hand, didn't the Gracies invent BJJ? I would imagine they're at
the top of their game.
Originally posted by NoRiceBoys:
Why do they have to be the best they can ever be? Doesn't this same
standard apply to the MMA fighter? Not every MMA fighter that
enters the cage is the best nor is he the best anyone ever can
be.
Of course the standard applies to everyone. Since it cannot be
met, a UFC contest only proves that one man beat up another man. It
does not prove that one art is superior to another art. Again, this
was my point in the first place.
Originally posted by NoRiceBoys:
A usual ploy used by those who will not compete. But I'll humour
the question.
What are the rules in question? No eye gouging? No groin strikes?
No fish-hooking?
These rules are there to protect the sportsmen entering the cage to
fight. Nobody wants to do a sport and end up dead.
Dying would be quite a downer, wouldn't it? 
The rules I was talking about include things like the fighting
environment. A cage with a flat, clear floor in the case of the
UFC, and a square ring in the case of K1. Would the usual suspects
fare as well on a flight of steps, for instance? That said, I would
imagine that if matches were played out on a greasy surface the
groundfighters would win even more easily than they do now.
Another rule would be the one-on-one, bare-handed, refereed nature
of the fights. Effective self-defence calls for the ability to
defend oneself from multiple armed opponents with no safety net. A
good cage fighter may not actually be a good street fighter. Of
course, this doesn't mean that a bad cage fighter would
automatically do well on the streets.
What's fish-hooking, by the way? I'm guessing it's sticking fingers
inside someone's mouth and yanking at the flesh.
Originally posted by NoRiceBoys:
Again, it can't be helped if the lecturers were smart and refused
to take part, isn't it?
Yep. However, this does cast quite a shadow on the "UFC fights
have proved..." statements.
Originally posted by NoRiceBoys:
Again, a strawman argument. Why does it have to be the best boxer
against a mediocre MMA fighter? The MMA/BJJ fighter is also not the
best in all time. Do you see why this argument is irrelevant? Maeda
is dead. Helio is old and frail.
And what does putting Jack Dempsey or Ali to the test do? You're
never going to be them, and that's what you want when you train, to
protect yourself.
Actually, that's not a strawman argument. A strawman argument is
when you misrepresent someone's position with an easily refutable
one and then tear that down.
Your statement was "MMA fights have proven which martial arts are
the best". All my responses were directed at the fallacy of that
statement, and I have not at any point pretended that your position
was anything else.
If anything, your response here was the strawman argument. That
part of my post you were responding to there was one reason I gave
why results from the UFC et al do not prove your statement: that
the different martial arts were not evenly represented. Whether or
not Maeda is alive, Helio is young, and I am Dempsey does not make
my reason less cogent.
Originally posted by NoRiceBoys:
Fact: When you get into a fight with a grappler, it's you who's
going to end up on the bottom, not the grappler. So glass, lava,
razors, stale pizzas is going to hurt you more than the
grappler.
It's the stale pizzas I fear most, of course!
I concede your point here: when two fighters clinch, the one who
knows how to grapple is more likely to be able to control the
fall.
Originally posted by NoRiceBoys:
So why can't another 2 BJJ guys with guns appear and take the
grapplers side? Or M16s and bazookas? Why does the grappler always
have to be unarmed and outnumbered and out weaponed but the other
guy does not face the same? See where this argument is going?
Because in both versions of my story, the outnumbered person was
the martial artist. If two BJJ guys with guns get to come in to
save their BJJ friend, then I demand that they come in to save the
boxer too!
You've kind of missed the point here, really: Ending up on the
floor is not a good idea unless you're the one with all the
friends.
Edit: Oops. I got longwinded and the post wouldn't show properly.
Have cut it into two chunks.
