If they compete in Thailand that's a really good sign.
Honestly you sound like you're doing everything right. If you have brown kyu grade in judo and can box and you join a good Muay Thai gym then you can handle yourself.
Hey, mod of !combat@lemmy.ml here.
Short answer: muay Thai is good.
Longer answer: when choosing a martial art, you're not choosing in an ideal world, you're choosing in your city. You need to find a place that has a good gym, with good sparring partners that works with your schedule. You'd be better off joining a good taekwondo gym than a bad Muay Thai gym.
So I'd say spend an hour searching what's available in your area, checking their timetable to make sure you can fit it in, and then get back to us. Then you need to go to the gym and make sure you like the vibes there.
There are some bad Muay Thai gyms in the world. It's easy to tell the difference: do the students compete? If they compete, then they're actually battle-tested, not doing something for fun/fitness. Competition is unforgiving.
To justify the short answer: if you're good at Muay Thai, you can deluver a lot of destructive force in short order, you can knock out boys. They do clinch-work so you get good on the inside. (I've heard some shitty gyms don't even do clinch-work, though I've never witnessed such.) Using the '8 limbs' is a great skill to have.
I like that Muay Thai guys train hardstyle; they're not there doing kata or going light all the time. They spend a lot of time sparring, which trains their reactions, their reads, and acclimatises you to getting hit. Civilians are afraid of getting in a fight because they'll get hit, but if you get hit all the time you stop being afraid.
You'll need some wrestling too because if all you know is striking, then what do you do the first time someone bear-hugs you? It's what happened in UFC1.
Did you get up to a good belt-level in judo?
Pettis v Magomedov was insane if you can get a replay.
strikeout dot im slash fighting
Yes, Dahner is probably a good example of what I'm talking about: the conjunction of mistreatment and organic brain disorders. His parents denied scientists at Fresno permission to examine his brain before cremation, so we can't be sure exactly what was wrong with him, but we know he was an alcoholic and the son of a mentally ill mother.
Charles Whitman is another: beaten by his father, lost his brother to murder, plus a tumour on his amygdala.
The point the English professors are making is that the new generation of students see monsters entirely as victims of circumstances. It's an ideological belief.
It's a weird internet-meme that the monster is innocent. Internet-dwellers have been posting that 2018 tweet as confirmation, as though that supercedes the text.
But it is true that I am a wretch. I have murdered the lovely and the helpless; I have strangled the innocent as they slept and grasped to death his throat who never injured me or any other living thing. I have devoted my creator, the select specimen of all that is worthy of love and admiration among men, to misery; I have pursued him even to that irremediable ruin. There he lies, white and cold in death. You hate me, but your abhorrence cannot equal that with which I regard myself.
Right, and that fits with what the profs are saying here: that modern sensibilities view monsters (even serial killers) as victims.
Cool. 2nd poster! 😎
5
Police order world champ Terence Crawford out of car at gunpoint after hometown victory parade
(www.theguardian.com)
In this case, the sources were a professor of English at Exeter who wrote an intro to the book, and Mary Shelley expert Professor David Punter, of Bristol University.
The worst people in real life have both an abused background and an organic brain/genetic problem.
The monster's abnormal reaction to rejection (becoming a serial killer), I read that as he's probably got a bad brain/nature too. And why wouldn't he, given how he was made?
You could....
Frankenstein! you belong then to my enemy—to him towards whom I have sworn eternal revenge; you shall be my first victim.’
The child still struggled and loaded me with epithets which carried despair to my heart; I grasped his throat to silence him, and in a moment he lay dead at my feet.
I gazed on my victim, and my heart swelled with exultation and hellish triumph; clapping my hands, I exclaimed, ‘I too can create desolation; my enemy is not invulnerable; this death will carry despair to him, and a thousand other miseries shall torment and destroy him
...but I didn't read it that as an accident. Imagine using that defense in a courtroom: "I wasn't trying to kill the child, I was trying to kidnap him for revenge. I killed him by accident when choking him to silence him." Especially given the physical mismatch of a huge heavyweight versus a tiny child.
As I said earlier, "I think the problem is the students are giving too much credence to the monster’s monologues"
How do they work as journalists if they're illiterate?
view more: next ›
I'm trying to get !combat@lemmy.ml going for this reason.