Logically Speaking, Shouldn't Rich People Be Better Fighters/Wrestlers than Poor?

Tell that to the Vietnamese. They turned out to be better fighters than the richest nation in the world.

bartholomew_maxwell wrote:

I say this because they have the money to workout all the time and to eat the healthiest food and get the strongest bodies overall. I think it's almost guaranteed with women. Those women who can afford to do CrossFit are going to be significantly stronger than your poorer women.

In the end boxing comes down to has the thickest skulls, and tropical peoples have thicker skulls on average than Europeans and NE Asians. Amerindians have thicker skulls on average than Africans. People who aren't afraid of PC apologists can look this up. It also has to do with the "chin" - actually meaning the connection with the skull. E Asians and Europeans on average have a wider lower jaw - at the back where it connects to the skull - than Africans and Amerindians, even though they tend to have wider frontal jaws. A wider rear lower jaw is a actually a disadvantage when being hit for most.

On a side note, those darn white people actually have thicker skulls than other groups in the forehead area. That's why the UFC decided to disallow head butts, as the sport had been taken over by white wrestlers who were tackling everyone and head butting them for the most part. The TV networks said they would only contract with the UFC if they made the sport more "TV friendly", meaning less white fighters / champions. Since then the UFC has tried to steer the sport bit by bit into being more like boxing, along with looking the other way at positive drug tests by certain non-white fighters; Cormier and his laughable "passed" drug tests when his tests showed he obviously was in the middle of PCT, moving a fight to a different state when John Jones was caught AGAIN a couple of months ago, covering up repeated positives for Amanda Nunes and certain other women from Latin America, among many other things.

Fighting may not come down to economics actually, just genetics. And then there's the political factor when the people the media wants to champion, wants to rally behind, aren't tops in a particular sport. The media dollars will eventually help "adjust" things to help out these underdogs, because the people running the media don't really like palefaces. They just pretend to be them when it's to their advantage. Then behind the scenes they lie to the POC and tell them they're with them in the battle against the palefaces due to historical oppression. They are the ultimate in self-deception.

One day you'll all wake up.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Tell that to the Vietnamese. They turned out to be better fighters than the richest nation in the world.

They didn't win a single major battle. The US military was never allowed to win - it was controlled in DC, just like in Korea you dope. Are you another brainless soc student or just another Hillel House troll putting in their mandated attack the cattle internet time? lol

Look at military ... wrote:

English knights were fitter and better fighters than the common man. Armies of wealthy nations tend to have stronger and more fit soldiers than armies from poor nations. On average, young O-2 commissioned officers tend to be more fit than enlisted men. Commissioned officers tend to come from wealthier families.

Knights were fat drunkards who did their fighting on horseback, if they bothered fighting at all, wearing full armor that the hordes of fit footsoldiers (who marched everywhere they went) could not poke their spears through.

The beginning of the end for knights was when the English longbowmen were recruited into Edward's army and unleashed on the unsuspecting William Wallace, whose knightly allies wisely deserted him to save themselves. It took a lifetime of exercise to develop the ability to draw and shoot a high-pull longbow.

Nobody in the US military is fit or a good fighter. They are machine operators.

Bad Wigins wrote:

It took a lifetime of exercise to develop the ability to draw and shoot a high-pull longbow.

.

That makes no sense and is wrong anyway. It takes a couple of years if the person has the inherent ability.

bartholomew_maxwell wrote:

Logically Speaking, Shouldn't Rich People Be Better Fighters/Wrestlers than Poor?

If it were logical then it would be true. It is not true. Therefore it is not logical.

QED

Listen up shitt hedd wrote:

Only someone wealthy or well off /spoiled would post this.

For those of us who grew up poor or had parents that gave us zero, that rage/hunger comes up when you get into a competitive mode or really need to push. You think of a holes like you that have everything given to them and that anger makes you a better fighter, runner, whatever. You know deep down you had to earn everything and we are not about to let some privileged white kid beat us. Maybe it’s a deep down resentment some of us have that some of you spoiled white guys, older and young, act like you’re better than us because you have a car, house, etc given to you by your families. Guys like you should be punched at the end of all races. Assseipe.

This guy is basically Duckie from the 80s movie pretty in pink.

Pierce Rock'n Welt wrote:

bartholomew_maxwell wrote:

I say this because they have the money to workout all the time and to eat the healthiest food and get the strongest bodies overall. I think it's almost guaranteed with women. Those women who can afford to do CrossFit are going to be significantly stronger than your poorer women.

In the end boxing comes down to has the thickest skulls, and tropical peoples have thicker skulls on average than Europeans and NE Asians. Amerindians have thicker skulls on average than Africans. People who aren't afraid of PC apologists can look this up..

Uh...you do know that Amerindians are Asians...So NE Asians have thicker skulls on average than AFricans as well... Your BS science is torn to shreds.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Nobody in the US military is fit or a good fighter. They are machine operators.

That's a very trollish statement unless you think the US military begins and ends at the Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard...

The physical fitness standards are much higher for Special Forces soldiers and Marines.

bartholomew_maxwell wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

Nobody in the US military is fit or a good fighter. They are machine operators.

That's a very trollish statement unless you think the US military begins and ends at the Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard...

The physical fitness standards are much higher for Special Forces soldiers and Marines.

Physical fitness =/= good fighter. They're good at pulling triggers while in body armor.

Floyd Mayweather Jr is the best Boxer of this generation and he is VERY RICH, Osacar De La Hoya, Sugar Ray Leonard, Mike Tyson, Evander Hollyfield, Muhammad Ali were all rich men.

Look up Noel Ignatiev wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Tell that to the Vietnamese. They turned out to be better fighters than the richest nation in the world.

They didn't win a single major battle. The US military was never allowed to win - it was controlled in DC, just like in Korea you dope. Are you another brainless soc student or just another Hillel House troll putting in their mandated attack the cattle internet time? lol

So you had a history by-pass.