Best view of the fight AJ Francis perfect power right hand.

Excellent view here, if you slow it down under the cog settings playback speed I doubt you can hit somebody harder its just perfect with full set-up delivery and follow-through i doubt there is a HW that could take that shot, Francis was in shock after the first KD. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k4C3IJ30ek - - Blubber still in shock...R.I.P...:hitit:

What a lame ass response fck me. Directly answering a question is polite in any conversation normal people don't have an issue with it I've never lost a debate about a subject I know by answering questions, I don't dig in on sht I know little about, I can tell you the same stuff here from 20 different angles because I understand it, Im not an opponent Im a guy talking to you, I know what I know and I know what you don't know because of that, this is a subject Ive studied and practised for 50 yrs, Ive created a pure breed of dog in doing that I studied Nature and the best performance breeders in history, everything from the fox farm experiments to the Jax mice to the King Ranch, you know nothing about this, fkn nothing. The point of prepotency is that it is the key that sets traits and type stemming from the prepotency of the parents where one parent influences the offspring more than the other parent ultimately effecting the direction of the breed species or strain, prepotency is not dominant and recessive genes, what it means is the degree of influence on any particular individual takes on from its inheritance, why it matters in this conversation is because we are talking about Natural selection right, you don't understand the link do you lol. So now you say Natural selection is impartial, well that's a crock of horse sht lol , Natural selection is the act of the best survivors passing on their genes, there is nothing impartial about it. the best survivors must pass the tests to become the best survivors this is how Nature weeds out the rubbish. It is extremely selective in its process, Nature is so impartial its kills its failures, lol God Dam youre spinning some sht. Get back to some books to try and win a debate in a forum on a subject you know nothing about, way to go buddy I will drown you on this subject which is why you cannot answer anything because you have no understanding of it at all, no experience no nothing, all the books in the world cannot and will not prove your point because you are so wrong its not funny. Youre name calling and smart ass mouth doesn't hide your BS. I noticed your quote "When smart people do dumb things, it's usually due to one of two things. The two things are greed and fear." - Cormac McCarthy​ , well there is a third reason that's when people try to be what they are not, the proverbial big noter, put them on the spot and they become as dumb as rocks and spit out rubbish like little kids . You haven't drowned me in anything. You continue to try to hammer home your view of things which is right in your head but wrong in mine. Of course natural selection is impartial. It is impartial by definition to its vary core. Yes, it is weeding out the 'fittest', but there is no thought or consideration, only impartiality. The KT extinction was a random event. It wasn't an experiment. There was no partial outside hand at play. When that meteorite slammed into the earth in what is now the Yucatan, every living thing was subject to its aftermath equally. That's impartiality. That's nature. This impartial event naturally and fairly selected for mammals and against sauropods, among other creatures. To suggest nature and by extension natural selection is anything but impartial is to suggest a power beyond nature pulling the strings. It is to suggest a watchmaker. You've created a breed of dog. That's very neat (seriously, I'm not being condescending), but it isn't you playing the role of nature. It is you playing the role of 'god'. Nature didn't say, "I want a cat with stripes. World, give me a tiger." It happened naturally and impartially over millions of years. Breeders decided they wanted a cat with tiny legs and made the abomination that is the Munchkin; a creature that would never exist when subject to the impartial forces of nature. I know about the silver fox breeding program in Russia. Very interesting stuff. If I remember correctly they selected for behavior (docility, tameness) but started getting physical changes. It was, however, humans picking which foxes bred, and those scientists may have been sub-consciously selecting 'cuter' more 'appealing' looking foxes and therefore selecting for both behavior and (inadvertently) appearance. Also, the foxes weren't 'wild' to begin with. They were from a fur farm in Canada. I used to live in Houston so I know through osmosis the King Ranch created their own breed of cattle adapted to the conditions of south Texas. I don't know about the mice. Hey, I did you a favor with the moot point thing. Now you know the proper phrasing and are all the wiser for it. You're the one cursing all over the place and I'm the one spitting out rubbish like a kid? Yeesh.

That process - as i mentioned in my oh so worthless opinion - is de-evolution ; going backwards or re-evolution; creating new species. Why did you pick that to quote I wasn't having a go at you I know you don't get it, I was curious in your comment that man made breeds can't survive in the wild which is 99% wrong, only novelty breeds would have trouble, breeds that cant run cant breath cant do anything but sit on the couch, all the others have no problems at all returning to the wild, after all that's where they all originally come from.

Hey there Jimmy the Greek. I've kept you waiting, but hopefully it gave you time to muck out the kennels. Mute point? That isn't a thing. I'm pointing this out to you, but my efforts are probably moot. Directly answering an opponent's question is a good way to lose an argument. Observe... Challenger: Why is crime in our city so high? It's out of control. Incumbent: Crime is so high because, etc. --- incumbent in answering this question directly just conceded their opponents point. Observe again... Candidate: Why is crime in our city so high? It's out of control Incumbent: Crime is a problem all major cities are confronted with. In the last four years, we've introduced initiatives, etc. --- addressed crime, but did not concede it being high or out of control. You want me to give you the definition of prepotency? What would be the point of that and what in the world would it prove? Maybe I knew, and maybe I didn't. I could have given you the definition and you could have just assumed I looked it up. We're hiding behind keyboards here. Do you know what the capital of Bulgaria is? Did you, before this evening, know what an aurochs is? I'm assuming you didn't, but it doesn't matter. One can refute another's points with out directly answering their questions. Natural selection is a process. It is an impartial process. Nature is impartial. Selective breeding/artificial selection is also a process. It is a partial process. Breeders are partial. I'll say it again. Natural selection is a process governed by impartiality. Breeding is a process governed by partiality. Yes. They are both processes, but they are fundamentally opposite. One cannot introduce impartiality into a partial system because one's attempts at impartiality would be influenced by just how and why they wish to be impartial making these attempts inherently partial. What a lame ass response fck me. Directly answering a question is polite in any conversation normal people don't have an issue with it I've never lost a debate about a subject I know by answering questions, I don't dig in on sht I know little about, I can tell you the same stuff here from 20 different angles because I understand it, Im not an opponent Im a guy talking to you, I know what I know and I know what you don't know because of that, this is a subject Ive studied and practised for 50 yrs, Ive created a pure breed of dog in doing that I studied Nature and the best performance breeders in history, everything from the fox farm experiments to the Jax mice to the King Ranch, you know nothing about this, fkn nothing. The point of prepotency is that it is the key that sets traits and type stemming from the prepotency of the parents where one parent influences the offspring more than the other parent ultimately effecting the direction of the breed species or strain, prepotency is not dominant and recessive genes, what it means is the degree of influence on any particular individual takes on from its inheritance, why it matters in this conversation is because we are talking about Natural selection right, you don't understand the link do you lol. So now you say Natural selection is impartial, well that's a crock of horse sht lol , Natural selection is the act of the best survivors passing on their genes, there is nothing impartial about it. the best survivors must pass the tests to become the best survivors this is how Nature weeds out the rubbish. It is extremely selective in its process, Nature is so impartial its kills its failures, lol God Dam youre spinning some sht. Get back to some books to try and win a debate in a forum on a subject you know nothing about, way to go buddy I will drown you on this subject which is why you cannot answer anything because you have no understanding of it at all, no experience no nothing, all the books in the world cannot and will not prove your point because you are so wrong its not funny. Youre name calling and smart ass mouth doesn't hide your BS. I noticed your quote "When smart people do dumb things, it's usually due to one of two things. The two things are greed and fear." - Cormac McCarthy​ , well there is a third reason that's when people try to be what they are not, the proverbial big noter, put them on the spot and they become as dumb as rocks and spit out rubbish like little kids .

We know evolution is the process lol, the subject matter is what is that process in the context of selecting breeders, and how breeders copy that process...blah blah blah That process - as i mentioned in my oh so worthless opinion - is de-evolution ; going backwards or re-evolution; creating new species.

You took in nothing, answered nothing and continued a mute point. Natural selection is not a item it is a process that follows the rules of the universe, breeders of performance animals follow the very same rules in producing better performance just as Nature uses her tests to produce better performing survivors, the only difference is Nature hovers around average of the gene pool which is why it takes so long for change, performance breeders hover around the elite of the gene pool, which is why Man can speed adaption up so fast. I cant spell this sht out any more basic for you, you are not trying to debate or dispute anything Ive said to you, you cannot answer anything put to you, all you are doing is acting all nerdy trying to prove a mute point, I don't know if its because of comprehension but I suspect that as you answered my last post in a few minutes absorbing nothing that was said. The point is Natural selection is a PROCESS, and performance breeders follow that PROCESS, let that Hey there Jimmy the Greek. I've kept you waiting, but hopefully it gave you time to muck out the kennels. Mute point? That isn't a thing. I'm pointing this out to you, but my efforts are probably moot. Directly answering an opponent's question is a good way to lose an argument. Observe... Challenger: Why is crime in our city so high? It's out of control. Incumbent: Crime is so high because, etc. --- incumbent in answering this question directly just conceded their opponents point. Observe again... Candidate: Why is crime in our city so high? It's out of control Incumbent: Crime is a problem all major cities are confronted with. In the last four years, we've introduced initiatives, etc. --- addressed crime, but did not concede it being high or out of control. You want me to give you the definition of prepotency? What would be the point of that and what in the world would it prove? Maybe I knew, and maybe I didn't. I could have given you the definition and you could have just assumed I looked it up. We're hiding behind keyboards here. Do you know what the capital of Bulgaria is? Did you, before this evening, know what an aurochs is? I'm assuming you didn't, but it doesn't matter. One can refute another's points with out directly answering their questions. Natural selection is a process. It is an impartial process. Nature is impartial. Selective breeding/artificial selection is also a process. It is a partial process. Breeders are partial. I'll say it again. Natural selection is a process governed by impartiality. Breeding is a process governed by partiality. Yes. They are both processes, but they are fundamentally opposite. One cannot introduce impartiality into a partial system because one's attempts at impartiality would be influenced by just how and why they wish to be impartial making these attempts inherently partial.

Damn...AJ put everything into that shot. And that's as good as it gets!!! As for natural selection. Its evolution in action. That's the process. Artificial selection can be de-evolution if the organisms can't survive in the wild because your selecting against nature left to its own devices. If the human effected organism can survive in a natural environment devoid of human assistance, i suppose you could call it re-evolution. What domestic animal can't survive in the wild? Very few only those bred for novelty, and there is countless proof of feral species ranging from cattle to cats and dogs, reptiles you name it it can survive in the wild, especially so if they were developed for physical attributes such as hunting dogs. We know evolution is the process lol, the subject matter is what is that process in the context of selecting breeders, and how breeders copy that process in creating new breeds which are all hybrids developed from animals made by Nature, breeders are only rearranging the genes that are there, thats the only change, every cell has its origins from Nature, man is just redirecting a path for his own purpose. Lots of experts in here that have no practical experience in what they profess to know, its as if they just want to argue some mute point of phrasing that's doesn't mean anything in the context of whats being said.

Damn...AJ put everything into that shot. And that's as good as it gets!!! As for natural selection. Its evolution in action. That's the process. Artificial selection can be de-evolution if the organisms can't survive in the wild because your selecting against nature left to its own devices. If the human effected organism can survive in a natural environment devoid of human assistance, i suppose you could call it re-evolution.

Man, that was totally like being ringside at the fight. I’ve been to low-level cards where I had ringside seats; it was just like that. AJ looked completely in control — confident but not reckless. That last shot would’ve felled an elephant. Yeah I love these sort of angles and the ones from the fans view that seem to grasp the atmosphere of being there.

The point is if it is being selected for by man for his purposes, it isn't natural. It is artificial. This is textbook. Here, from Cal-Berkeley... Artificial selection Long before Darwin and Wallace, people were using selection to change the features of plants and animals. Farmers and breeders allowed only the plants and animals with desirable characteristics to reproduce, causing the evolution of farm stock. This process is called artificial selection because people (instead of nature) select which organisms get to reproduce. ​ There you have it. Textbook. What nature is doing and what you are doing, though they follow the same principle of passing along genetic material, are defined academically as different. Now, if you want to make the argument that humans are of the natural world and therefore all that flows from us is by necessity natural, go for it. You took in nothing, answered nothing and continued a mute point. Natural selection is not a item it is a process that follows the rules of the universe, breeders of performance animals follow the very same rules in producing better performance just as Nature uses her tests to produce better performing survivors, the only difference is Nature hovers around average of the gene pool which is why it takes so long for change, performance breeders hover around the elite of the gene pool, which is why Man can speed adaption up so fast. I cant spell this sht out any more basic for you, you are not trying to debate or dispute anything Ive said to you, you cannot answer anything put to you, all you are doing is acting all nerdy trying to prove a mute point, I don't know if its because of comprehension but I suspect that as you answered my last post in a few minutes absorbing nothing that was said. The point is Natural selection is a PROCESS, and performance breeders follow that PROCESS, let that soak in.

Man, that was totally like being ringside at the fight. I’ve been to low-level cards where I had ringside seats; it was just like that. AJ looked completely in control — confident but not reckless. That last shot would’ve felled an elephant.

I think you don't understand what is being said and getting more left-field with each post, the entire subject was based around selecting genetics and muscle types, I described how that is done based around the process of Natural selection, and off you went with saying you cannot compare dogs to man genetically well that's so wrong you don't even know how far wrong you are. I'll dumb it down even more for you. Natural selection is Nature's best survivors mating to create the next generation. There is no argument to that, no matter how complicated you try to make it, at its core it is exactly as I've described. The principles of Nature is the very same principles that breeders use in creating new breeds. read that again slowly, in creating better performance in everything from producing more milk to running a sprint race to tracking scent, the PRINCIPLES used in selecting breeders are the same as used in the wild, best to best, you have tests the animal must pass and then its genes are used to influence the next generation, its not hard to understand I don't know why you have so much problem with it. You are missing the point of the process harping on the term "Natural selection" like its the only thing said and totally ignoring the methods of what is actually comprised in the process over time. I'm not talking about Nature making a Giraffe; I'm talking about how selection created the long neck. Im not talking about Nature made a Lion Im talking about how she culled it because it had faults where it could not survive, Adaption to an opposing force is at the heart of Natural selection, and in Nature that force is the environment, man can create an environment that animals must adapt to, same principles are at play in selecting the best breeders, you test them for the traits and type required for that environment, to say it doesn't work this way is you not knowing what your talking about. I will repeat it again breeders of performance livestock DO follow the RULES that Natural selection follows, you don't understand the methods of breeding for a purpose so how can you say they don't follow Nature when you have no experience what so ever, you bypass everything said to you to hang on the term Natural Selection like its a button, its a long process of testing genetics to build the best survivers, its not a yes-no, its not a one-off, its a continued process, with dogs man has sped up that process by utilizing selections and mutations, as Nature uses a mutation to evolve if the mutation is beneficial to survival, if its not the mutation is culled out. Ive asked you many questions along the way and you cannot answer a single question, if you want to debate answer some questions put to you. The point is if it is being selected for by man for his purposes, it isn't natural. It is artificial. This is textbook. Here, from Cal-Berkeley... Artificial selection Long before Darwin and Wallace, people were using selection to change the features of plants and animals. Farmers and breeders allowed only the plants and animals with desirable characteristics to reproduce, causing the evolution of farm stock. This process is called artificial selection because people (instead of nature) select which organisms get to reproduce. ​ There you have it. Textbook. What nature is doing and what you are doing, though they follow the same principle of passing along genetic material, are defined academically as different. Now, if you want to make the argument that humans are of the natural world and therefore all that flows from us is by necessity natural, go for it.

If you insist on demonstrating your complete misunderstanding of natural selection, I'll keep pointing it out. Breeders don't mimic natural selection. They do the opposite. They make animals that don't exist naturally because nature either selected against the desired traits or didn't select for the desired traits. Nothing like a greyhound exists in the wild because nature didn't select for its unique traits. Canids have been around for a few million years and in that span of time nothing like a greyhound or a pug or a boxer or a saluki evolved. In creating these breeds humans have done what nature did not intend. Take Spanish fighting bulls. Nature did not create the bull, nature creature the much larger aurochs. The bull is the the aurochs as nature did not intend it. Man is not playing the role of nature. Man is playing the role of man. Survival of the fittest really means survival of the best adapted. The sloth being an excellent example of this. I think you don't understand what is being said and getting more left-field with each post, the entire subject was based around selecting genetics and muscle types, I described how that is done based around the process of Natural selection, and off you went with saying you cannot compare dogs to man genetically well that's so wrong you don't even know how far wrong you are. I'll dumb it down even more for you. Natural selection is Nature's best survivors mating to create the next generation. There is no argument to that, no matter how complicated you try to make it, at its core it is exactly as I've described. The principles of Nature is the very same principles that breeders use in creating new breeds. read that again slowly, in creating better performance in everything from producing more milk to running a sprint race to tracking scent, the PRINCIPLES used in selecting breeders are the same as used in the wild, best to best, you have tests the animal must pass and then its genes are used to influence the next generation, its not hard to understand I don't know why you have so much problem with it. You are missing the point of the process harping on the term "Natural selection" like its the only thing said and totally ignoring the methods of what is actually comprised in the process over time. I'm not talking about Nature making a Giraffe; I'm talking about how selection created the long neck. Im not talking about Nature made a Lion Im talking about how she culled it because it had faults where it could not survive, Adaption to an opposing force is at the heart of Natural selection, and in Nature that force is the environment, man can create an environment that animals must adapt to, same principles are at play in selecting the best breeders, you test them for the traits and type required for that environment, to say it doesn't work this way is you not knowing what your talking about. I will repeat it again breeders of performance livestock DO follow the RULES that Natural selection follows, you don't understand the methods of breeding for a purpose so how can you say they don't follow Nature when you have no experience what so ever, you bypass everything said to you to hang on the term Natural Selection like its a button, its a long process of testing genetics to build the best survivers, its not a yes-no, its not a one-off, its a continued process, with dogs man has sped up that process by utilizing selections and mutations, as Nature uses a mutation to evolve if the mutation is beneficial to survival, if its not the mutation is culled out. Ive asked you many questions along the way and you cannot answer a single question, if you want to debate answer some questions put to you.

A big difference here is your talking out of a book, Im talking from doing it, A wolf pup taken out of Alaska and raised in the Sahara desert will have a short coat, in 3 generations they will slick if thats what you want to select for in your breeders, you shouldn't talk about knowing how DNA is passed on because that don't mean nothing, why don't you me tell me how traits, type and temperament is passed on as that means something in the real world of breeding. Do you know what prepotency is, how is prepotency built genetically, do you know what inbreeding does, did all species begin from just two, if so how much inbreeding do you think went on? how about mutations do you know how they work in the adaption of a species. Natural selection, its not some special magic formula, its phenotype and genotype being tested by the environment in its ability to survive and procreate, and even then the high ranking survivors fight it out to see who has the best genetics for the next generation, Nature is not fancy she is hard and fast, if something is weak in any way it doesn't survive and is culled by Nature , she is ruthless in the wild, Nature kills the weak, that is what is referred to as Natural selection and survival of the fittest, understand whats being said before you start hanging on terminology. Now if you select for the race track you are selecting body type for speed like Nature would a cheetah if it has physical faults it wont run fast and is culled out, then we look at temperament and high prey drive just like Nature would need in her catch and kill predators, these are the same principles of Natural selection, the best breeders of performance animals operate very close to nature including using inbreeding to set the type they also cull hard just like in Nature, once you set the phenotype you then work on temperaments and drives from a family of animals bred around the original crosses which then form the genotype, just like Nature did in her beginning with just two, and inbreeding creating subfamilies of the same species that expanded there environment, the wild is driven by the will to survive, that is the only test Nature needs to have in place. I fully understand Natural selection and how it behaves in terms of breeding to create the next generation, you think the slow Lions that cant catch anything are breeders, this is Natural selection at work he is thrown out the pride to scavenge or die but he ain't bred, just as a smart man doesn't breed a slow greyhound or one carrying physical faults if he wants to catch something, there is also elements of DNA that sit dormant because the triggers to turn it on is not present, the long coat when its cold and short when its hot is a form of this called epigenetcs, then when you get through that we start looking at the immune systems and how Nature inbred so tightly yet built robust immune systems, and if you study the long term creation of performance breeds one can see how she did it, performance breeds of animals are tested in head to head completion to find the best breeders , instead of Nature doing it man is playing the role Nature and doing the selections for the environment they are to compete in just as Nature would do it. If you insist on demonstrating your complete misunderstanding of natural selection, I'll keep pointing it out. Breeders don't mimic natural selection. They do the opposite. They make animals that don't exist naturally because nature either selected against the desired traits or didn't select for the desired traits. Nothing like a greyhound exists in the wild because nature didn't select for its unique traits. Canids have been around for a few million years and in that span of time nothing like a greyhound or a pug or a boxer or a saluki evolved. In creating these breeds humans have done what nature did not intend. Take Spanish fighting bulls. Nature did not create the bull, nature creature the much larger aurochs. The bull is the the aurochs as nature did not intend it. Man is not playing the role of nature. Man is playing the role of man. Survival of the fittest really means survival of the best adapted. The sloth being an excellent example of this.

They really did Nngannou dirty with the sound effects lol lol, that's what I thought too. If I were him, I'd have to stay off social media for at least a month or so. I can't imagine how many times algorithms are bringing himself up as being ktfo. The way all videos autoplay, I doubt he can even avoid it.

Didn’t fury get busted for peds ? Ya have u seen him off cycle? 350 lbs natural

Figure I'd post it here for others to see as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s34uHK0lEyw&t=1269s&ab_channel=MatchroomBoxing The bomb drops at 21:00 They really did Nngannou dirty with the sound effects lol

Better comparison would be a shaved primate to a human in terms of natural muscle bellies. {"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"hbe7gi2steb91.jpg?auto=webp&s=c39e75f30d018a40c8c645d29103cf373a1152fc.jpg","data-attachmentid":32199800} That's just Joe Rogan doing his daily cold plunge.

Joshua and Ngannou can walk out of the ring and win an amateur bodybuilding championship. Or a natural bodybuilding championship. yet they don’t even bodybuild lmfao

The funniest part is they in an endurance sport. they aren’t spending hours doing slow heavy reps to build their delts. Yet they have delts the size of ur head lmfao. Natty surely.