• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Sydney CBDs new Drinking Laws

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bullrush

John Hipwell (52)
I don't mind watching UFC at all but to compare it to boxing is clutching at straws. In boxing, knocking a guy out is simply an outcome of skill and accuracy etc. Rendering a guy unconscious in UFC is the goal. The more innovative you can do it the better. And don't just knock him out, bludgeon him until someone steps in to stop you. I would never discount the skill of the UFC fighters, that's why I like watching it. But there is a growing legion of fans whose teeny tiny little peanut brains think that a guy falling to the ground unconscious is where the entertainment is at not the skill of the contest that led to that point. The more brutal the knockout, the better it is celebrated.

Whether it is a cause or a result of growing thuggish violence in society is the big question though.

Yeah.....the baxing fans hate that shit.

C'mon Scoey - this is NO DIFFERENT to boxing. Fans of both codes LOVE seeing a guy getting brutally knocked out. As do the participants.

Every boxer who steps in teh ring wants to knock the other guy out, They don't want wins by decision or by TKOs - they want to drop the other guy in the middle of the ring. If they don't they usually don't last very long.
 

Scoey

Tony Shaw (54)
In UFC you are no more able to attack a defenceless and dazed opponent than you are in boxing. And you can find examples in both sports where this hasn't been adhered to properly or misjudged by the ref.

Part of the UFC sport is knowing how to defend and attack from the ground - it's a grappling and wrestling sport.

Just because a man is still standing in boxing doesn't mean he is able to defend himself and just because another is on the ground in UFC doesn't mean he can't.


We're getting OT but that's BS. The percentage of knockouts in the UFC where the guy is out stone cold and has fallen to the ground and the other guy follows him down to hammer fist him a couple more times in the face/head would be in the 90's. Again, it's not the competition of fight itself it's the promotion and glorification of the brutality of the knockout that is the problem. There is a minority of fans that see this part and it gives them a hard on. When they go out juiced up on whatever they like to see guys get knocked out. I see it all the time.
 

Runner

Nev Cottrell (35)
One is boxing with its rules. UFC has rules but not at the same level of intervention as boxing.
 

Bullrush

John Hipwell (52)
In UFC you knock a guy to the ground and then proceed to mount him before he is able to get up, and continue to pummel him with punches until you are stopped by a referee. In boxing you knock a guy to the ground and are prevented from approaching him by a referee until your opponent is able to get up and stay up by his own accord.

You cannot possibly say UFC is not more brutal and encouraging of attacking defenceless opponents. Beyond the mixture of fighting styles, that's the only difference between the two.

Again, just because someone is or isn't knocked to ground make no difference.

Look at boxing matches where guys are caught flush but don't drop then spend the next 30sec getting smashed. They get saved by the bell so get a few more sec of trying to get their vision cleared and all 3 of their opponents they can see lined up into one again then step out to try and turn it around.

Have you actually ever boxed or done UFC?
 

Scoey

Tony Shaw (54)
C'mon Scoey - this is NO DIFFERENT to boxing. Fans of both codes LOVE seeing a guy getting brutally knocked out. As do the participants.

Can't agree that's there's no difference. The two sports whilst they look similar they are completely different in key areas. I know plenty of people who love boxing but despise UFC and vice versa. But we are definitely getting OT so I'm happy to agree to disagree with you. :)
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
I think you're argument is ridiculous Bullrush. The portion of times a boxer is able to get back to his feet, yet is still dazed would be a very small minority, much like the portion of times a fighter is knocked to the ground with a hit but perfectly conscious.
 

Bullrush

John Hipwell (52)
I like the last line. The Matt Burke response.

Really?! Did I say that you shouldn't comment unless you have boxed or done MMA?

I'll say that the answer to my question must be 'No' then.
Can't agree that's there's no difference. The two sports whilst they look similar they are completely different in key areas. I know plenty of people who love boxing but despise UFC and vice versa. But we are definitely getting OT so I'm happy to agree to disagree with you. :)

So boxing fans getting hyped about seeing someone get knocked the f**k out is completely different to UFC fans getting hyped about seeing someone get knocked the f**k out?!

While it seems OT, the point being made about these coward hits is that it is somehow related to the rise in popularity of the UFC. That if you have a 'Tap-Out' shirt one, you must:
a) be a UFC fan
b) be more likely to throw a coward punch
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Haven't the last few accused been MMA fighters/fans? I know the last one was.
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
OK guys don't think we are getting anywhere here, time to wrap it up or start a new thread.

There was a protest in the CBD today against the laws, reckon about 60-70 people were there. They made the classic error of having some scruffy bloke in his 20s on a megaphone leading the thing.

Ultimately this is the worst thing you can do to try and get the public on your side I reckon- it would have been far smarter to get a publican in a suit and tie talking about how the laws will affect their business and livelihood. No-one cares about scruffy blokes who are annoyed they can't get pissed at 4am, but they do care about people and business losing $$ and people losing jobs.
.
 

Bullrush

John Hipwell (52)
I think you're argument is ridiculous Bullrush. The portion of times a boxer is able to get back to his feet, yet is still dazed would be a very small minority, much like the portion of times a fighter is knocked to the ground with a hit but perfectly conscious.

If you haven't boxed the you probably do think it's ridiculous :)

Again, you can be dazed and still standing and not 'perfectly conscious' eg. not go to the ground.

Just like you can get knocked to the ground and not be knocked out. In fact, it happens all the time in boxing.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Read this article a few days ago, it probably more succinctly discussed my link to UFC/MMA but doesn't get too caught up on that element of it like I had

THE bloke accused of the coward punch murder of Daniel Christie appears to be the pin-up boy for a new ugliness in our culture which didn't exist when I was young.
Shaun McNeil is an inked-up, pumped-up, mixed martial arts-loving gym junkie.
He is a lover of social media, and has turned his dopey little corner of the internet into his personal shrine. He's posted an endless series of snaps and selfies flexing his pecs, showing off his tatts in a ripped muscle shirt, triumphantly holding an empty bottle of Bundy, apparently consumed in its entirety, in what may be the crowning achievement of his life to date.
He's a bloke who didn't go to my high school. None of us who went on to university acted like him. Not one of my friends who left school in Year 10 and Year 11 to become a tradie or work at the local car factory acted like him either.
He is a new Australian man. He is also a man, to borrow a crude but evocative phrase from the youngsters, who I really wish would just f*** off and die.
It appears to be mandatory to describe the random, mindless violence we have seen in pubs and on footpaths around the nation as "alcohol-fuelled" violence.I hate this term.
A more appropriate term would be scumbag-fuelled violence, as the focus on alcohol lets the scumbags off the hook.
There are tens of thousands of Australians who frequently engage in what those abstemious folks in the health lobby describe as "dangerous" drinking.
They do so without sending anyone to hospital, or to an early grave. I am one of them. So is almost everyone I know.
For me, "dangerous" drinking brings with it the risk of winding up in a karaoke bar and singing a woeful version of Air Supply's "All Out Of Love" or having a savage argument with my mate Darien about the result of the 1978 SANFL grand final.
This is the kind of thing which happens to the overwhelming majority of Australians when they drink to what the experts call "dangerous" levels. They end up having a dangerously good time, where the only real danger is that somebody might die laughing.
The current emphasis on the availability of alcohol, on alcohol advertising and sports sponsorships, and the mindless persecution of publicans who have a vested (and demonstrated) interest in preventing violence on their premises....it's largely a load of exculpatory nonsense which elevates the role of external factors and lets flawed individuals off the hook.
Excessive drinking has always been with us. The nation was founded by some of the world's most accomplished pissheads. The die was cast that night in or around 1788 when they decided to let the female convicts ashore and the blokes broke into the rum supplies, and Sydney's first street party erupted down by the Tank Stream.
The statistics suggest that something has changed in the past decade, with 91 deaths from coward punches since the year 2000.
Blaming alcohol is a cop-out. The people who deserve the blame hail from that moronic new breed of man described above. For what it's worth, my rat fur-lined theory is that three things have changed since I was at high school and starting out with grog.
One involves the vain and vacuous world of social media. Another goes to the increasing use of steroids and methamphetamine. The third is the influence of bikie culture on the cultural mainstream.
For all its upsides, one of the defining features of social media is its absurd level of self-absorption. The he-men of the past had only a mirror in which to admire themselves, a bit like Robert De Niro as Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver.
Nowadays they can find equally feeble-minded narcissists in cyberspace where they can boast about their physical prowess, be it their ability to cut their heads open by crushing a beer can and withstand the pain, to put the gloves on and lay into the heavy bag at the local gym, or in the worst cases, to chronicle their own acts of violence or vandalism towards people and property with stills and video.
I can't comment about McNeil, but many of these blokes also fit into the second category of being both pumped up on steroids and jacked up on speed. This week I interviewed a drug and alcohol researcher who said one of the emerging (and urgent) areas of research went to the interplay between booze, speed and steroids, and the subsequently aberrant behaviour of those who were taking this insane cocktail, perhaps on account of sporting a pair of ossified testicles though their habitual steroid use.
Give me two stubbies of Cascade, four glasses of shiraz and a Beam and Coke any day.
The third point can best be illustrated through the way in which a lot of these blokes carry themselves and choose to dress. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that having a tatt or wearing a certain outfit makes you a violent person. If you want to get a tatt, good luck to you. But if you look at these blokes, they can often be found aping (an apt word) the sort of "hard-casual" look affected by the bikie gangs, with the neck and face tatts, the G-Star Raw tees, deliberately one size too small, and most tellingly of all, a weird way of walking from side to side with their arms formed in triangles, as if they're ready to punch pretty much anyone, anywhere, any time.
It's because they are.
Our nation was once largely comprised of genial, drunken boofheads who were most at risk of passing out in a mate's toilet.
You would measure the success of a night on the turps by how much fun you've had. Sickeningly, for this new breed of blokes, you measure its success by the number of strangers you've belted.

http://www.news.com.au/national/dav...of-gutless-thugs/story-fncynjr2-1226806050689
 

Ruggo

Mark Ella (57)
Tough issue this and Sydney isn't unique in this issue. I can't be to critical of a government for having a go at dealing with it.

The party drugs seem to be more of an issue than grog. An agressive drunk as unsavory as they may be are pretty easy to drop on their arse. Some of the physical reactions some of these horrifying party drugs have the opposite effect.

Personally I don't see the allure of overpriced drinks and shitty doof doof music anyways but that's just me.
 

boyo

Mark Ella (57)
It's a mixture of alcohol, drugs, mindset, upbringing, etc.

To focus on only one of these (to the exclusion of all the others) is problematic.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
The point many are getting at though boyo, is that alcohol and even excessive drinking has been a part of modern culture in Australia, as long as we have had a modern culture. The problem has never been so widespread as today.

To say it's the major issue, pays far too little attention to the other 3 items you mentioned, which have certainly changed over time.

Upbringing is also a major issue I think. The loss of discipline in generations is a big factor. Baby boomers grew up with disciplinarian parents, many of whom had fathers that were in the war. They grew up despising what they considered a harsh upbringing and told themselves they'd never be as hard on their children, which has resulted in poorer behaviour in Gen X and Gen Y.

It's resulted in a generation of brats with an inflated sense of entitlement and no willingness to take responsibility for their own actions.

Gen X parents have then been softer on discipline again.

One can only imagine what types of children my generation, Gen Y will bring up...
 

Gagger

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Staff member
“Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book.”

Cicero, 106-43 BC

All of this is nothing new. From an excellent article by a mate of @jnor


Oscar Ruben was outside a Sussex Street pub when John Arthur, a 31-year-old Seaman, punched him three times in the face with “no provocation”.
Robert Frisby was also in a “nightlife precinct” when William Kenny, 26, walked up to him and punched him so hard he swallowed two of his teeth.
The same thing happened to Alfred Finch not far away; he had the misfortune to be set upon by two men who bashed him for no apparent reason.
These savage “king hit” attacks all had one thing in common - they happened in the 1890s. There’s nothing new about random acts of “alcohol-fuelled violence”, just as there’s nothing new about media driven moral panics.


http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/01/03/comment-no-quick-and-easy-fix-king-hit-culture

Dreaming up new legislation (like the crazy Bikie stuff in Qld) clearly can't fix it and just gives license for others to abuse those new powers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top