Discussion in 'MMA Betting Discussion' started by Ukram, Nov 21, 2016.
Better yet a parlay of both!
Early baldness= inferior athletic ability? thats a stretch. it could be true but without large scale experiments it is an unknown. I tend to think baldness is just a gene inherited similar to eye color. i would expect it is totally seperate from other heritable traits like strength, athleticism etc.
for once i've changed my mind on the main event and am gonna go with the reaper if i'm in the profits.
not gonna chase if i'm down (looks like the kind of card you can get buried on if you're recklass).
my main play is volkanovski and mathews for £400.
But we do have a large scale experiment. The entire history of pro athletics. AthleIicism is a broad term, but the traits are gene inherited as is baldness. Maybe I'm wrong cause I'm speaking out of my ass about this, but how is athleticism not gene inherited when you see similar traits in its regards throughout a family history same way you would eye color? Perfect example being the Jones bros who are all freak pro athletes. Can't be coincidence
I was just trying to think outside the box for a confidence increase, dk why Jim took a shot at me for it
Strength, flexibilty, coordination etc. are heritable traits. in other words you could keep selectively breeding strong people to get a freaky strong person. The important part is whether early baldess is intrinsically tied to other genes like strength. i tend to doubt it. i would guess there are roughly equal amount of bald strong people as bald weak people. You could be right tho I really dont know.
True and to clarify I didn't want it to sound like under the realm of inherited traits I think athleticism is even close to something like eye color, but clearly there is something to it when one person could practice an armbar for 50 hours but a more athletically gifted person could practice it for one hour and be just as good. And I genuinely think it's interesting how few pro athletes of history began balding in their mid 20s. Only other person in MMA I can even think of is McCrory. Jim thought it was all jokes, but look at the deep thinking I have sparked
Its funny cause i used to bet the pretty girls but now im at the point where i try and fade the good looking girls. The traits of a good fighter are often different than traits associated with attractiveness. Anyway it is an interesting question from an evolutionary point of view.
And your right there arent a ton of bald pro athletes. However there are enough that it makes coming to a meaningful conclusion difficult.
Imma do some googling tomo and see what i find.
attractiveness is subjective. make up can make anyone look pretty. going down a rabbit hole...
i'm bailing on brunson. i have a bad feeling about this. i don't think he's suited for a prolonged battle. i just don't. i think when the going gets tough, whittaker will have more heart and better striking. he will probably have to come from behind.. and yea, it's entirely possible that brunson gets another rd 1 ko if he comes out like a madman as usual.. if that happens, so be it, i'll cash the brunson +450 rd 1 i have. but i'm bailing on my moneyline play here. i'm kinda leaning whittaker overall but gonna live bet it.
To be honest there is zero ways to know what is going to happen in this fight. I think we are know that brunson is going to come out strong with heavy hands and wrestling, but no way to know how Whittaker will handle it and if he can come back after withstanding it or if he catches brunson with something as he can be chinny at times. Since i started thinking about this fight i made my decision not to place any bets on it and just live bet a little on Whittaker every round he isn't finished. Brunson is the legit favorite, but was always too many factors to put down money one way or another. Its just live bet for me.
leaning brunson-whittaker FOTN +450 for reasons stated above. i think whittaker comes from behind and takes it.
small hunch that it could be pedro-rountree +800 even tho it's likely to be a fast fight, think they're going to go AT it, or herrera-nguyen +650 a totally good candidate, too
never easy picking it out of 13 fights.
Michael Jordan was going bald at a very young age and just razored it all off. That started a trend and a lot of others do that too, so it is difficult to tell if someone is bald by choice or using the Jordan method. Lebron also seemed to be going bald.
Brunson will probably win. I want Whittaker to win but its tough, he has beaten a lot of good figters and only lost to Romero and Souza in recent fights. He destroys everyone else so far
Elevated levels of DHT from testosterone use is a fast shortcut to baldness.
Ronde Barber was a beast back in the day, said he went bald at 21. Jordan Spieth is a golfer so don't really know how much that counts towards being a legit athlete but that dude's hairline is fucked and he's super young.
Balding talk over I have to win a unit on Brunson and risking a unit on Kelly. That's it so far.
Kelly is old and not very good but I still think this line should be closer. Chris tdd not good Kelly a good judo guy. Might up it to 1.5u on Kelly. Probably add a couple more plays I haven't pulled the trigger on by the time the card kicks off.
Lausa 7-0 as a boxing pro
was he? Well damn all confidence increase gone than. Lebrons issue seems to be receding hairline more than going bald
Ilya Ilyin is definitely one of the best olympic weightlifters in the world. I always thought he was older than he is due to the balding.
Well known side effect of steroid use
Separate names with a comma.