This past weekend I went to Los Angeles to attend UFC 232, the first UFC event I've ever attended in person. It was a blast. The energy in the room when Nunes beat Cyborg was the biggest highlight of the night, yet the match I felt most invested in was Jones vs Gustafsson. I was rooting for Gustafsson, both because his entertaining yet technical style makes him my favorite fighter in the light heavyweight division and because a Jon Jones victory usually means he'll fuck up soon thereafter, once again throwing the division into chaos.
If Gustafsson couldn't win, though, then I at least wanted a fight like the first. That first bout in 2013 may be my favorite MMA fight of all time, as it has a great mix of high octane action and technical thoughtfulness that checks every single box for what I want out of a fight. If Gustafsson were to lose, I at least wanted another classic that could satisfy both my fight science brain and my more animalistic brain.
Obviously, things didn't play out that way.
It was definitely disappointing to see my favorite light heavyweight lose, and even more disappointing to realize that, with two losses to Jones (as well as a close loss to Cormier), that may be the last title shot Gustafsson ever receives. I was thoroughly impressed, however, with how well Jones had learned from his first fight with Gustafsson. He implemented a lot of changes to his approach in this fight that really paid dividends.
To keep this post from becoming a novella, I'm gonna focus on Jon's use of distance and the changes he made made in how he controls distance to win the rematch. Jon's biggest gift as a fighter isn't just his reach, after all, but his understanding of how to use it. There's a reason why Stefan Struve never won a world title despite having a Jon Jones reach: his inability to fully take advantage of it. Jones succeeds not just because of his physical gifts, but because he has the fight IQ to use them. Let's dig into how.
Imagine if this friggin' skyscraper actually developed a high level jab.
First, let's start with one of the key conceptual approaches of Jon's game. One of the first things wrestling-based MMA fighters who learn to strike gravitate towards is punching. It's a pretty smart idea. Knowing how to exchange in the pocket is important, as you'll inevitably find yourself there as you try to go for a clinch or your opponent's hips. Beyond that, knowing how to throw your hands can also be great for setting up takedowns, and vice versa. This is why, for example, Khabib Nurmagomedov out-strikes fighters like Conor McGregor and Edson Barboza. He'd get demolished in a boxing or kickboxing bout. It's the threat of his grappling that prevents his opponents from knowing whether his next move will be a strike or takedown.
Jon Jones, however, makes an interesting alternative case for wrestlers developing their striking: what if you developed a really good kicking game instead?
Back when Jones first started fighting in the UFC everyone talked about the occasional spinning kicks that he threw with flair, while on a more nuts and bolts level he threw side kicks and teeps/push kicks aplenty. He used a solid jab-cross to help keep his opponents at bay, but his punching never compared to his kicking. Why? Well this takes us to his range, as well as Gustafsson's footwork.
Throwing straight-line kicks (that is, kicks that you throw immediately in front of you, like the kicking equivalent of a straight punch) is a great way to jam up someone trying to close the distance on you. Jones understand this well, and uses it to stifle fighters trying to close the distance on him to great effect. His Shogun and Rampage fights in particular saw him using these tactics to make sure that neither fighter could get in any meaningful offense against him.
Jones using Rampage's face as persuasive evidence for why wrestlers should learn kicking.
So why would this be good for wrestlers in particular? Because if you're a wrestler who can control the kicking range, your opponents will desperately try to close the distance. That's when you can use your wrestling. Your opponents are then faced with a dilemma: do they try to keep distance to avoid your wrestling, or try to close the distance to avoid your kicks? The ultimate goal is boxing range if their hands are good enough, of course, but first they need the ability to maintain that exact range. Too little or too much distance and you've fallen back into your opponent's range.
The closest Jones ever came to facing someone who could effectively use their footwork to control that distance was Machida, whom he had to out-feint and rock on his way to finishing him with a devastating guillotine. With every other fighter up until that point he was able to control the range of the fight easily, alternating mostly between kicking and grappling ranges. He could kick when he wanted to keep fighters on the outside, then, whenever they got inside, step in to use his wrestling. No need to close the distance when your opponent is doing it for you!
Then he fought Gustafsson.
In that fight Jones
struggled not just against Gustafsson's size, but his skillset. Yes, Gustafsson's size threw off Jones. But he also used his excellent boxing to land body shots that opened up punches
to the face, and vice versa, even throwing in the occasional unexpected takedown. It wasn't just Gustafsson reach, but his variety of attack. His footwork also played a key role. He was able to use his elite lateral (side to side)
footwork in order to evade the straight-line kicks Jones likes to use. While Jones did throw the occasional round kick, especially to the head, he very much favored those straight line kicks. With Gustafsson able to effectively sidestep them, however, he couldn't control the range nearly as well.
That combination
of footwork, mixing up attacks between the head/body, and his impressive
physical attributes helped Gustaffsson challenge Jones more than any fighter had, or has since. Whoever you thought won that fight, it was pretty clear that Gustafsson made things closer than most people thought possible. While many thought his height might prove an interesting challenge to Jones, his relatively unimpressive run to the title simply didn't prepare anyone for how good he would look that night.
Jones clearly learned from the experience, as he intelligently made a variety of improvements to his game thereafter. One was that he began to fight more in the pocket. Being smart enough to use his natural gifts, he didn't do so by trying to throw his long, lanky arms in such a small, confined space. Instead he relied primarily on his elbows, which have rapidly become one of his top weapons. Glover Teixeira in particular got absolutely brutalized by Jon's punishing use of his elbows up close.
Y I K E S
Then came last Saturday's rematch.
In the first round of their second fight, things were quite close. Jones succeeded in using his better-rounded skillset, which we'll get into the details of in a moment, but Gustfasson looked good, too. One of the biggest changes he made between this fight and the first was that he mixed in more kicks with his punches. Specifically, he used leg kicks and the straight-line kicks to the knee that Jones is known for. He didn't jab to the body as much as he did the first fight, unfortunately, but his skills looked sharp overall, and the first round made it seem like it could still be anyone's fight.
It was the second round that the differences began to show, however. Though the round was still close, Jones used a variety of tactics to get the upperhand. Two of the biggest changes, paired together, is that he had more mobile footwork while also better knowing how to outstretch his arms to keep Gustafsson at bay. In the past, against shorter opponents, Jones would stick out his hands to block fighters from coming in on him. He couldn't do that the same way against Gustafsson, who shared his approximate stature. In this fight, however, he stuck out his hands on Gustafsson's shoulders. This allowed him to jam up Gustafsson's boxing, forcing Gutafsson to either retreat or engage in hand-fighting, which Jones often used to try to set up elbows and short punches.
Jones also threw far more round kicks to the legs and body to take the wind out of Gustafsson's sails. Round kicks are useful for opponents with lateral movement because its line of attack isn't a single point in front of you, but a wide sweep. These kicks landed often. Because of that Gustafsson's mobility declined more quickly than it did in the first fight, where it wasn't really compromised until Jones rocked him with that beautiful spinning back elbow. The lowered mobility, mixed with Jones using his hand-fighting and improved footwork (not on Gustafsson's level, but sufficient enough mixed with everything else), allowed Jones to better control the range.
These things all worked together in different ways. Jones used the hand-fighting to set up some of his leg kicks, for example, while his round kicks helped slow Gustafsson down enough to land more straight kicks that kept Gustafsson at range. In the third round Jones used Gustafsson's lowered mobility and his own better control of range to land that takedown, which Gustafsson didn't expect considering during the second round almost every takedown or clinch attempt was a fake meant to set up strikes. Once it got to the ground, Jones showed great positional control and passing abilities en route to a pretty devastating finish by ground 'n pound.
Also, can we take a second to appreciate how Mike Beltran comforted Gustafsson after?
As I said before, it sucked watching Gustfasson lose so decisively. Still, I love me some high level MMA gameplanning and technique. Both fighters, but especially Jones, delivered those in quantities I can't help but be thankful for. UFC 232 was a great night, and this bout was an exciting, technical one that any fight fan can learn from. It'll be interesting to see what happens from here. Jon Jones has a lot more he can achieve, and a lot more greatness in technique and strategy that he can show us.
Welp, we've done it folks. We've somehow made it another year. I hope all of you had a good one, or at least a bearable one, and that 2019 is better for everyone.
However hard 2018 may have been for each of us, there's always cool shit from even the roughest of years. Many websites are now reflecting back on their favorite movies, or MMA fights, or scientific discoveries from last year. A lot of those lists are gonna be worth checking out. As for me, though, I find a lot of things cool and interesting. It'd be impossible to choose just one topic, or even set of topics. So, as usual, here are my top picks for everything from 2018. Enjoy!
MOVIE: Sorry to Bother You
I really don't wanna say too much here. Just mentioning some of the themes and ideas present in this movie in detail might be giving away too much, even if I'm not specifically spoiling any plot points. I'll just say this: this is one of the most creative, thoughtful, daring, sharp, unique films I've ever seen. It flies off the rails a bit sometimes, but ultimately it's an incredible dark comedy that brilliantly takes on ideas of class and race in a way that'll make you wonder (in a good way) how this film ever got green-lit by any studio in the first place.
(Note: usually I specifically choose a favorite comedy in addition to a favorite overall movie, but since I chose a dark comedy as my overall fave, I'll be skipping out on designating a favorite comedy this year.)
ANIMATED MOVIE: Spider-man Into the Spider-verse
Spider-man: Into the Spider-verse follows Miles Morales, a young teenager who actually represents the diversity of New York City. One of the most noteworthy things about this movie is, despite how many characters and plot threads it balances- supporting characters, alternate versions of Spider-man, a convoluted story about merging realities are all part of this movie's juggling act- it still manages to keep Miles at the center. Ultimately, this is his story about finding himself and rising to the occasion to save the world (or worlds, in this particular case).
That's a pretty standard character journey for a movie, of course, but as with most good stories, it's the execution that makes it truly special. The first few minutes immediately give us a good sense of who Miles is: a social, likeable kid in the middle of a big time of change in his life. He has a police officer as a father who wants to connect with him but has trouble doing so. He looks up to his Uncle Aaron, who lives a life more on the margins but is more encouraging and less judgmental of Miles than his father. He's also just plain cooler.
It's hard to go much further into what happens without giving too much away, but let's just say that there are many different versions of Spiderman, and these different versions come with different warnings for what Miles can expect. Some have their lives far more figured out than others. Miles spends the movie trying to figure out what kind of Spiderman, and what kind of person, he will be in the face of such a steep learning curve and serious threat.
The movie has an incredible balance of comedy and serious drama. There's a certain gag involving the Noir Spiderman and a match that had me laughing to the point of tears, while other times I felt myself on the verge of tears due to surprisingly well-executed emotional moments. Among those moments is perhaps the best Stan Lee cameo of all Marvel movies. Though there are a couple times I feel the movie leaned a bit too much toward being a fun comic book movie at the expense of serious drama, overall the film makers reaches a great equilibrium between the two.
It's hard to say whether Black Panther, Avengers: Infinity War, or this movie was my favorite superhero movie of the year. Each had their own strengths and weaknesses. What I can say, though, is that this is the superhero character journey I cared about most this year, and I can't wait to see more of Miles Morales.
ACTOR: Michael B Jordan
For the first time since starting my "top everything" write-ups back in 2014, I've finally repeated a choice. Michael B Jordan was my pick for my 2015 actor of the year, and here he is again. I can only imagine he is reading this blogpost on a private jet somewhere, weeping tears of joy for the honor of being chosen twice on a small blog that will be read by no more than a couple hundred people. Ahem.
In all seriousness, though, Jordan is exceptional actor and his two performances I've seen this year, both as protagonist (Creed II) and antagonist (Black Panther), show his abilities as an actor. In the sequel to the incredible first Creed (which has only gotten better with age in my mind, and may now be my favorite movie of 2015 despite it not being my pick for that year's "top everything" post), this new entry finds Adonis Creed trying to rise to the challenge of fighting the son of the man who killed his father in Rocky IV.
There's a lot I could say about this movie, but to stay on the topic of Michael B Jordan's performance, what really blows me away is that I absolutely bought Adonis Creed's fear and inner conflict. This is despite the fact that Rocky IV is so full of corn that it receives subsidies from the federal government. The fact that Jordan is able to sell the drama from that movie as a genuine thing to be taken seriously is absolutely incredible. While the movie suffers from a weaker script and lack of Ryan Coogler's more focused direction when compared to the first, Jordan absolutely makes the most of his role and (along with the supporting actors) helps elevate this movie beyond its so-so writing and directing.
Jordan's performance in Black Panther is similar in some ways, but different in others. In both roles Jordan has clearly understandable, sympathetic motivations that he sells to us with utter sincerity. In Black Panther, however, he is arguably more sympathetic. His motivation isn't just personal, but ideological. His belief that arming black people around the world to foment revolution is hard to argue with morally, even if it makes little sense in practical terms. In the end he comes up short, but the fact that he forces T'Challa to actually reckon with Wakanda's isolation from the rest of the world means that his character did have an impact after all.
Can we get Tessa Thompson a friggin' starring role in a major Hollywood picture already?
This year I've seen Thompson as wife/mother in Creed II, as a romantic partner to the main character in Sorry to Bother, and as a side character in Annihilation. Together, these roles show her range as an actress: Creed has her reprise her role as a supportive significant other (and now parent) who nonetheless has her own dreams; Sorry to Bother You shows her as a fiery idealist who believes in her art but also struggles with its ability to effect change; Annihilation casts her as a quiet, solitary scientist with an odd tranquility about her.
In each role she does a great job with the material provided to her, and indeed, helps make each movie better. Yet other than Sorry to Bother You, these roles are not given much prominence in the story. She is technically the third or fourth most important character in Creed II, depending on how you rank the supporting characters, but she isn't given nearly as much of her own identity or agency as in Creed. In Annihilation her character isn't based on her relationship to a man the way it is in the other two, but she is only of moderate importance among the team of female scientists in the movie.
Again, all of these movies are great, and none are individually guilty of anything bad. But it's a shame that the industry as a whole doesn't often give excellent women of color like Tessa Thompson leading roles. Thompson turned in some incredible performance in 2018. Hopefully she gets the recognition she deserves and is given starring roles in huge Hollywood movies sooner than later. I mean, who wouldn't love a spinoff Valkyrie movie for the Marvel Cinematic Universe?
TV SHOW: The Good Place
I usually don't mention TV shows on here because I don't watch much TV. Not because I consider myself "above" TV (anyone who thinks that way needs to get over themselves), but because I get a weird sort of anxiety when it comes to committing to a show that has multiple seasons. But holy moly, y'all, The Good Place is incredible, and everyone needs to see it.
The show takes place in a fictional afterlife. Its protagonist is Eleanor Shellstrop, a selfish, rude, yet somehow likeable person who accidentally ends up in this neighborhood of "the Good Place" because she died at the exact same time and place as a much more saintly woman with the same name. The shows follows as she tries to conceal her identity while also trying to become a better person with the help of her (or, rather, other Eleanor's) Good Place-appointed soulmate Chidi Anagonye, a philosophy professor with a specialty in ethics. The cast is rounded out with a lot of talented up and coming actors, as well as Ted Danson as the angel in charge of this Good Place neighborhood.
There are two particular things that stand out about this show. The first is that it muses on different philosophical concepts and problems in a truly special way: it fully delves into these ideas with the knowledge of an expert, but frames them in such easy to understand and funny ways that the show never gets boring or preachy. The Good Place does for philosophy what someone like a Carl Sagan does for science, but with the added bonus of top-notch comedy. It vividly shows that creator Michael Schur did extensive amounts of reading to prepare for the show, and his ability to make it hilarious and interesting really speaks to the talents of him and his writer's room. The other thing The Good Place does incredibly well is avoid wheel-spinning. Film Crit Hulk has an in-depth explanation here, but the quick definition of wheel-spinning is what happens when a TV show stays mired in the same conflict/plot set up without ever going anywhere new or interesting. Normally it's not something you think about when it comes to a sitcom. Most sitcoms remain stationed in the same situation, minus an occasional major event like an old character leaving or a new one entering. The Good Place, though, shows us that even a sitcom can benefit from constantly moving things forward. I won't spoil anything, but let's just say that the first season doesn't end with the characters in the same situation they are at the beginning. Hell, even halfway through the season the show's set up isn't the same. That becomes only more true with the second and third seasons, the latter of which started this year.
Overall, this show is an excellent comedy with smart but accessible ideas, great wit, incredible pacing, and quality characterization. For most things on here I say something like "if you like ___, then you should definitely check out ___!" In this case, though, this is a show that anyone can enjoy; everyone should definitely check it out.
MMA PROSPECT: Renato Moicano
This one is admittedly an odd choice. Renato Moicano is, after all, ranked #4 in the UFC's featherweight division, he was scheduled as a backup fighter in case either Max Holloway or Brian Ortega had to pull out at UFC 231, and he's currently scheduled to fight Jose Aldo in early 2019. He's less of a prospect and more of a top contender.
The reason I chose Moicano for this spot, though, is because despite his immense skill, he's not talked about nearly as much as he should be outside of hardcore MMA circles. Because both Holloway and Ortega are young and immensely talented, it seems that there isn't room for another "immensely talented young featherweight" hype-train. Add in the fact that Zabit Magomedsharipov is much flashier than Moicano and we have yet another name in that category that overshadows him.
It's a shame, because Moicano has a lot of striking fundamentals down to a tee. His footwork in particular is excellent. He does an incredible job with his lateral (that is, side to side) movement and always retreats in different directions, preventing his opponents from following him or cutting him off as he tries to escape. I was surprised to find out jiujitsu is his specialty, because he moves precisely the way an MMA striker should.
He also has the best jab in the featherweight division, which is really saying something in a division that has fighters like Jose Aldo. Offense-wise, his jab is the foundation for his entire game. This is supposed to be the case for all fighters, and indeed it is to various degrees for most of them, but Moicano really takes extra care to always keep his opponent at the end of his jab, and only fires off follow-up attacks whenever that jab creates the opening. Sometimes it leads to him chipping away at his opponent and gradually breaking them down with increasingly elaborate combos, like against Calvin Kattar. Other times it helps him drop his opponent, like against Cub Swanson, where he was then able to bust out his jiujitsu and finish with a rear naked choke.
I also love that he occasionally goes for the takedown when his opponent least expects it. This is something Alexander Gustafsson and a few other fighters who are primarily strikers do as well: use the threat of your strikes to land a takedown that the opponent doesn't expect. We've seen it done countless times the other way around, where wrestlers land shots they would've never landed in a pure striking match because they know how to use the threat of the takedown to set up their shots. It's nice to see strikers catching on to the fact that they can use the same principle in reverse.
MMA FIGHTER I'D LIKE TO SEE BOUNCE BACK:
Korean Zombie
Korean Zombie, real name Chan Sung Jung, is a hell of an entertaining fighter. He earned his nickname early in his career for his ability to move forward no matter how much punishment he took as both a kickboxer and MMA fighter. His reckless, entertaining, effective striking is also backed up by an entertaining, fast-paced grappling style that even the most casual of fans can appreciate. Throughout his career he has earned fight of the night, submission of the night, or knockout of the night bonuses for every single UFC fight of his except for one. Earlier in his career he was regarded as an entertaining mid-level fighter who could always please a crowd, but would never fight for a belt. After beating Leonard Garcia with a 10th Planet submission called "the twister" that Jung said he learned by watching Eddie Bravo videos on Youtube, though, he went on to beat Mark Hominick, who had just challenged for the title himself, and Dustin Porier, who today is ranked #3 in the ultra-stacked lightweight division. He was no longer just a fun fighter, but a serious contender.
He fought featherweight champion Jose Aldo in a decent but not great fight, thanks in part to Jung dislocating his shoulder early in the fight after an overhand right gone wrong. This was the only fight he never won a performance bonus for. Afterward he left the UFC to complete his two mandated years of service for the Korean military. Many wondered if he would be the same upon his return. He came back against Dennis Burmudez with a knockout that won him yet another performance bonus, quelling fears among many (including myself) that he would have serious ring rust. He then faced a knee injury that kept him out of action until he fought Yair Rodriguez back in November of this year. He actually looked great against Yair, having improved some of the technical aspects of his striking game, particular in using feints to draw strikes from his opponent that he could then counter, but he lost at the literal last second of the fight by an incredible upward elbow delivered by Yair. Despite all this, Korean Zombie is only 31. On top of that, while his two years in the Korean military means he has an experience gap compared to other fighters, it also means his body didn't take severe damage during that time, either. Hopefully Jung can bounce back from his loss to Yair and return with the same entertaining zombie charm we all know and love.
MALE MMA FIGHTER: Daniel Cormier
The funny thing about this spot is that I had it between two fighters: Cormier and his training partner Khabib Nurmagomedov. Pretty impressive for American Kickboxing Academy to produce two champions this year with such striking (pun totally intended [I know, I know, they're grappling specialists]) success. After winning would could be debatably be called a sham title against Al Iaquinta, Khabib earned the championship unambiguously against Conor McGregor, the most popular MMA fighter of all time. Khabib definitely had a great 2018.
But to defend one title, earn another title, and defend that new title all in the same year?
And these were not easy fights, either. Volkan Oezdemir was, at the time, unquestionable the best light heavyweight outside of the Jones/Cormier/Gustafsson triangle. His striking for MMA is excellent, and he's adapted grappling at a pretty impressive pace for a striker. Cormier's next victory against Stipe was even more impressive. Stipe, after all, is the UFC heavyweight champion with the most ever title defenses, and is right up there with Cain Velasquez in how well-rounded his game is. Those victories alone would be enough to put him in contention for fighter of the year, but beating someone as dangerous as Derek "My Balls Was Hot" Lewis is the cherry on top that cemented this choice.
Going forward, I'd love to see rematches with Jones, whom I believe he has the tools to beat, and actually looked better in their second fighter until he got knocked out than in their first, and Stipe, who really should get a rematch considering his accomplishments vs other people who have received immediate rematches. If he could beat both of them, he would unquestionably enter the argument for greatest of all time. Hell, even if he beat one of them, he'd become part of the conversation. But, whatever happens, 2018 is the year that he cemented a legacy that very few other fighters in the sport will ever accomplish.
FEMALE MMA FIGHTER: Amanda Nunes
Yesterday I was lucky enough to attend UFC 232, the first UFC event I've ever been to in person. I went into the Nunes-Cyborg fight with a bit of a somber mood about me because one of my all-time favorite fighters, Carlos Condit, lost his fifth fight in a row. Yet was I was excited to see this fight; I'm a fan of both women for their styles, who despite their differences can be summed up as vicious but technical brawlers. I decided to cheer for Nunes because I like rooting for the underdog, but like everyone else, I gave her very little chance of actually getting the W.
The moment the fight began both women charged forward. They went at each other with all that they had, and the atmosphere became so electric that I lost my normal eye for fight science and strategy. What unfolded in front of the crowd was a wild, chaotic sort of art; an energy enveloped the crowd that everyone felt. The two women went back and forth, each wobbling the other, until finally the Lioness got the upperhand. She stalked Cyborg around the cage just as her name suggests, and ultimately overwhelmed her until she couldn't take any more.
This win cements Nunes as the first ever female two-division champion. She is also both the first ever LGBTQ and Brazilian double champion. She did so by beating the consensus best female fighter in the world, both in the absolute sense and pound-for-pound sense. It's almost easier to find ways her win yesterday wasn't historic than to find ways it was.
The awe that fell across the crowd when Nunes won created an unusual mixture of loud, ecstatic cheering among some and quiet astonishment among everyone in the crowd. Strangers high fived and hugged each other; adults with even the most reserved airs about them abandoned their normal demeanor to jump up and down; some were so awed they actually stood with their mouths agate, still trying to process what happened. That moment alone, where everyone collectively recognized that, together, we had witnessed both history and an example of true greatness, made the price of admission worth it all by itself.
It's hard to say what comes next. If she can defend the 135lbs belt again, she'll become another first: the first champion to actually defend both belts, rather than just getting a new belt and abandoning the old one. If she can alternate between the two weight classes, she'll become the first to actually, truly earn the 'simultaneous double champion' moniker. Even if that doesn't happen, though, I'm sure she'll continue displaying greatness inside the octagon, regardless of weight class.
FIGHT OF THE YEAR: Poirier vs Gaethje
Ultimately this category came down to this fight, Korean Zombie vs Yair Rodriguez, and Anthony Pettis vs Tony Ferguson. Had Ferguson vs Pettis gone to a third round it probably would've won, as it had an incredible mixture of chaotic action, variety of attack, and fight science/strategy. Korean Zombie vs Rodriguez, meanwhile, had the best variety of attack of all three fights and had almost five full rounds of great action.
With all that said, though, Poirier vs Gaethje was just too high-octane to ignore. Gaethje fights like a man possessed; he presses forward without stopping and seems allergic to the thought of being boring. Poirier, for his part, is always happy to oblige, and traded with Gaethje frequently. It takes two to tango, as the saying goes, and Poirier didn't back down on his end to give fans a memorable fight.
Despite the chaos of this, though, it certainly didn't lack in fight science, either. Poirier's footwork looked outstanding: he almost never went in on a straight line of attack, and he always exited on a different line than he came in on after almost every combination. He also went to the body with his punches, something that is still woefully underrepresented at even the highest levels of MMA. Mixed with the occasional kick and takedown attempt, he had a pretty well-rounded arsenal that he used effectively to turn the bout around and secure the win.
Gaethje, for his part, has some of the leg kicks in the game and even mixed in a few elbows when he had Poirier along the fence. Going forward, I'd love to see more elbows from him, as well as using is high level wrestling. I respect wanting to brawl instead of grapple, but even just going for a takedown a couple times around means your opponent has more to worry about than just your hands and leg kicks. If he got his opponents to worry more about his wrestling it could open up the chance to land even more strikes.
Hopefully Poirier gets a title eliminator bout after his impressive wins this year against Gaethje and Pettis. The lightweight division is in a bit of a logjam after the post-UFC 229 debacle, and Tony Ferguson should be the next one fighting Khabib after the dust settles. As for Gaethje, he's nowhere near done for, as we saw in his first round victory over James Vick. Hopefully he can keep improving his craft while keeping his entertaining style.
SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY: Life on Enceladus?
Enceladus is Saturn's sixth largest moon. It's also the best potential source of life in the solar system outside of Earth. Back in 2015 it was discovered that Enceladus has a saltwater ocean beneath its icy surface. Earlier this year, in a paper published in June, it was further revealed that complex organic molecules, which are basically the building blocks of life, are on Enceladus. This now means the three things required for life as we know it: a source of energy (in this case, the moons volcanic core), liquid water, and complex organic molecules.
This doesn't actually mean there is life on Enceladus. It does make it the most likely source in the solar system, however. Considering how revolutionary it would be to many scientific fields to find life outside of Earth, hopefully we can find out more in the coming years. The subsequent scientific discoveries would be astounding, especially with the fact that we'd learn a planet/moon doesn't need to be an ideal distance from the star it orbits if it's able to produce enough energy from it's volcanic core. It would make the idea of the "goldilocks zone" irrelevant, or at least subject to drastic change.
It'd also probably lead to some pretty rad sci-fi, too.
SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENT: Possible Alzheimer's Cure
Okay, so this one requires a quick explanation before delving into the actual discovery. The full description for what the apoE4 gene is can be found here, and should be read by anyone with even a little bit of scientific literacy (seriously, I'm an idiot; if I can read this, you probably can, too). The summary version, however, is that there is a gene called apoE4. If you have one copy of the gene, you have a 47% chance of getting Alzheimer's. If you have two copies, it raises to an alarming 91% chance that you'll get it. If you don't have it at all, you only have a 20% of getting it.
Basically, apoE4 sucks for your brain. The chart above lists some of its effects. The decrease in neurogenesis is of particular importance, as that is the process by which your brain creates new brain cells. By creating less new brain cells, in addition to all the other potential effects listed above, you're essentially working with both less brain cells and lower quality brain cells. It also increases production of the amyloid beta protein, which can clump together and form plaques in the brain.
That takes us to this year's achievement. In April of this year researchers in San Francisco took brain cells from people who had Alzheimer's and restructured their apoE4 genes so that they no longer had the same negative effects apoE4 genes usually have on the brain. The result was a complete disappearance of the effects of Alzheimer's from those brain cells.
The researchers have been very clear that this doesn't mean they'll have a cure to Alzheimer's tomorrow. There is a difference between doing this to isolated brain cells extracted from a human patient and actually doing this inside a patient's head, and they're still not sure how to do the latter. It'll still take some time before they can run human trials. Still, this is a promising breakthrough, and an awesome example of what can be done when brain power is put toward finding ways to help people.
BULLSHIT NEWS STORY: Gender Neutral Santa
One of the most popular things for hacky click-bait websites to do is find a thing that fits perfectly into the "look at what these whiny SJWs are demanding now!" narrative, which is always guaranteed to generate a bunch of hate clicks and boring "fuck sensitivity, these SJWs have gone too far!" posts in the comment sections of these of articles. Pretty often these articles are either phrases in a disingenuous way to make the so-called SJWs sound less reasonable than they would fully in context, while in others they are based on very little evidence.
This story is a case of the latter. It all stems from a logo company asking 400 people what could be done to update Santa, then using those suggestions to survey 4,000 people which of those choices they thought might work in modernizing him. About 10% suggested having him be gender neutral might work, whereas about 19% said the same about having him be portrayed as a woman.
Now, I could go on to say that about 71% said he should still be a man, but that's besides the bigger point: this was people filling out a survey about what they think might be a good way to modernize him. There are literally zero cases of people angrily protesting for a gender neutral Santa or calling people shit lords for not wanting him to be a woman. Rather, it's a case of some bored people at home thinking to themselves "ahh, yeah, kids these days seem to like gender-neutral things. I guess he can be gender-neutral or whatever" as they fill out the survey. That's the problem with a lot of so-called "debates" around big issues. Traffic-hungry website don't actually bring up the debates that people are gonna feel the most connection to, but rather the debates that are gonna get the most clicks. Those two can overlap, of course, but other times shit like this happens, where a nonexistant "debate" is covered extensively to generate outrage clicks. This is a particularly stark example, and therefore wins my Bullshit Story of the Year award.
ACTUAL NEWS STORY: Trump's Ever-Changing Cabinet
Last year we got to witness the beautiful mess of Trump's cabinet constantly shifting around. Sketchy goofballs like Anthony Scaramucci, Steve Bannon, Sebastian Gorka, and Rance Priebus all resigned or got fired in 2017. It was chaotic, like many new administrative cabinets trying to find their footing, but that was 2017. At least in 2018 things settled down, right? Hah. The first resignation this year came from Carl Higbie, who resigned as the head of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which is in charge of AmeriCorps and SeniorCorps. It came after comments he'd made over the last few years, with racist remarks of the 'black people are on welfare because of their "lax morality"' sort, as well as plain admitting he doesn't like Muslims and thinking people on welfare shouldn't vote. Yikes.
Ever since then the resignations and firings have kept coming. There have been too many to mention by name, but some of the biggest ones of 2018 have been Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Chief of Staff John Kelly, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, and, perhaps most devastating of all thanks to his badass last name, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster. Double yikes.
And yes, this is pretty unprecedented. This mixed with his increasingly aggressive tweets, paint a picture of an isolated Trump, who currently is unable to stabilize his administration. Hopefully we can all hold on until the 2020 elections; I don't believe the Democratic Party leadership understands what it will take to beat him, but it seems that Trump himself may be too tired and isolated to want to run again in 2020. Hopefully he withdraws from politics. But, more important than that, hopefully we can get to fixing the root problems that led to his election in the first place.
MEME: Surprised Pikachu
Aw yisss.
VIDEO: Shut Up About Plot Holes
This video needed to be made. As someone who loves movies, and loves watching video essays on Youtube to learn more and be challenged to think more critically about them, I often find myself sighing internally whenever I finish watching a thoughtful, interesting video only to see recommended videos featuring some grumpydoofus in their 20s or 30s obnoxiously nitpicking so-called plot holes to show everyone how much of an ~intellectual cinephile~ they are. No thank you.
The first half of this video does an excellent job of pointing out that "plot holes" are a vague, arguably useless concept, and that many plot points accused of being "plot holes" are not even a problem or mistake. This part I agree with entirely. As I mentioned above, I can't help but roll my eyes whenever I see those sorts of videos pop up on Youtube in the recommended section. Nitpicking surface level details does not make you a smart film critic.
He then goes on to say that people who make those kinds of videos are "watching movies wrong" for doing so, a take I don't agree with, nor his argument that logical inconsistencies don't matter at all. I think it's fair to say that, if someone who is watching a movie in good faith (that is, going into a movie to enjoy it instead of trying tooutsmart it) finds glaring contradictions in a movie's internal logic that are so apparent it'll take them out of the experience, that movie doesn't have good writing.
Beyond that, though, even if I think that someone going into a movie to nitpick it is silly, it's hard to call someone "wrong" if it's how they like to view art.
Still, even if I don't like those arguments, he got people online who like to talk about movies to evaluate how we talk and think about them. People should be allowed to make and/or enjoy whatever types of videos they want. But we should also try to reflect about what that all means for our understanding of movies, and this video created a lot of great discussions online about what exactly we can and should be doing with video essays. Even if I don't agree with everything he said, it launched many, many worthwhile conversations, and that's pretty cool.
BOOK: "War on Peace" by Ronan Farrow
Ronan
Farrow's "War on Peace" is an excellent book that traces back the
increasing reliance on military solutions over diplomacy during the last
couple decades. Interviewing an incredible array of diplomats for this
book, including every living secretary of state and diplomats from other
countries, this book is thoroughly researched, and it shows. Mixed with
Farrow's own time in the state department, it's hard to imagine this
book could've been any better informed.
It's also very readable.
Farrow has an approachable prose that makes this book pretty accessible
to anyone curious about the subject. You don't need to be steeped in
foreign policy terminology or be intimately familiar with diplomatic
history to pick this one up.
That said, that also brings me to a
warning: read this book critically, because Farrow reveres the
post-World War 2 diplomatic model so much that he is uncritical about
its shortcomings. For instance, he lays out how the US during the Cold
War helped escalate the war between the FARC and right wing government
forces in Colombia, but calls it a success because it eventually ended
in diplomacy. Our role in Latin America during the Cold War was anything
but good, and certain conflicts ending in diplomacy doesn't justify the
violently repressive dictatorships and subsequent human rights abuses
we brought to the region.
So, read this book critically. In doing
so, you'll learn an incredible amount about the state department and
its recent history. Considering how important diplomacy is, and how much it could help us right now, this is a book everyone should read.
PHOTO: Migrant Camps
Kids don't belong in fucking camps.
BADASS: Firefighters
Living in California, one of our most frequent problems is wildfires. We go up in flames about as often as suburban dads say "let's rock and roll" after getting ready to leave a restaurant. These fires becoming worse is just one of the many negative climate change will bring to our state specifically, but it's also one of the biggest. And firefighters are really all we have standing in the way between us and everything burning down to the ground.
In today's modern society, we don't have many heroes. This is, from my perspective, due to both good and bad reasons. On one hand, we have immense amounts of information at our disposal and incredible chances for transparency compared to any other time in human history. It's not nearly as easy to bullshit the public into believing in heroes as it used to be, and indeed, we have also uncovered the dark side of many individuals and groups of people once thought to be heroic. On the other hand, this has also made us pretty cynical and irreverent. How many people, or types of people, do we consider heroes in the modern day?
Ultimately I think it's good to be skeptical of assigning the label of "hero" too freely. However, we should really include firefighters in that group. They risk their lives day in and day out to protect everyone, and unlike cops, they manage to do so without murdering unarmed black people. They do this everyday despite the fact that they face rough working conditions, severe health complications (who knew irregular sleep and inhaling smoke would be bad for you?), and, in certain areas, low pay.
And that's not even getting to the fact that so many firefighters in California and elsewhere are incarcerated people, who will be unable to find employment as firefighters once they leave prison.
Firefighters sacrifice so much for so little, and yet don't receive the same level of adoration that, say, members of military or law enforcement do. That's a damn shame. So here's a shout out to the firefighters out there working to keep us safe (and, again, not shooting unarmed black people). If you wanna donate to help them during the holiday season, or whenever you happen to be reading this, here's a link to the California Fire Foundation.
