Why has British fighting culture since the 19th Century Has been stereotyped as being"Fists Only"?

I'm guessing Cloud Cuckoo Land?
Although it could be La La Land?

 

Chausson is like a slip over (Slipper, sandals, socks). Savate is like "iron toed boot". Hence the chausson savate I've posted below.

If you said you were a "Savateur" in Paris, I think most people would think you were an EMT or something. Doctor, lawyer. Some saint. Then when you told them it had something to do with fighting shoes, they'd gawk.

Needless to say, any combat sport with this gear is a blessing because somebody took a lot of time to develop an athletic kicking shoe like this.

 

Sorry had to do it...

Actually you have tempted me...


https://chat.openai.com/


Why has British fighting culture since the 19th Century Has been stereotyped as being "Fists Only"?

"The stereotype of British fighting culture as being "fists only" likely stems from the popularity of bare-knuckle boxing in the 18th and 19th centuries. During this time, bare-knuckle boxing was a widely practiced sport, and many famous boxers emerged from the British Isles, such as Tom Cribb, James Figg, and Jem Mace.

Bare-knuckle boxing involved fighters using only their fists to strike their opponents, without the use of gloves or any other protective gear. The fights were often brutal and lasted for many rounds, with fighters enduring significant injuries.

The popularity of bare-knuckle boxing declined in the 1860s when the Marquess of Queensberry rules were introduced. These rules required fighters to wear gloves, use a square ring, and prohibited wrestling and hitting below the belt. The introduction of these rules made the sport safer and more accessible to a wider audience.

However, the stereotype of British fighting culture as being "fists only" persisted, even as the popularity of bare-knuckle boxing declined. This may be due to the enduring image of the tough, working-class boxer as a symbol of British masculinity and toughness, which has been perpetuated through popular culture, literature, and film."

Blimey... some inaccuracies, but pretty concise and on the ball. Lets try another one...

 

just for the lolz...

https://chat.openai.com/

Do British soccer hooligans develop superior combat kicking skills?

"There is no evidence to suggest that British soccer hooligans develop superior combat kicking skills. In fact, the violent behavior of soccer hooligans is widely condemned and is not representative of the majority of British soccer fans or the wider population.

It is important to note that violent behavior, such as that exhibited by soccer hooligans, is not an indication of combat or self-defense skills. Violence is not an effective solution to conflict and can often lead to serious physical harm and legal consequences.

Furthermore, combat and self-defense training emphasize the importance of discipline, control, and ethical considerations, rather than aggression or violence. These principles are not compatible with the behavior of soccer hooligans, who engage in violent acts primarily for the purpose of intimidation and disruption.

In summary, any notion that soccer hooligans develop superior combat kicking skills is a misguided and inaccurate stereotype. Violence and aggression are not indicative of combat or self-defense skills and are not acceptable forms of behaviour in any context."


Bit worthy as usual. But concise and largely accurate.

 

"British soccer fans"?? "Soccer hooligans"??

The AI appears to be heavily flawed when it comes to language. It's just a toy IMHO, like the rest of the Web.

You'd think the first thing it would point out is nobody calls them "soccer hooligans". American soccer has no hooligans. American football and international football, sure

 

Its fun playing about with its limitations. It draws its knowledge I think from an corpus of aggregate information on the web. I asked it some really obscure fencing questions and I could spot the few places it drew the information from on the web from its language patterns, but its sometimes 'packages' the information incorrectly and constructs arguments accordingly and sometimes the information it draws on has been superseded or is wildly out of date. On one occasion it clearely used something I had wrote years back on a separate website, but came to a different conclusion to them I had made.

However it's eerie in the way it can draw forth knowledge.

 

You know, I've been following these latest AI crazes a bit and wondered, if a lot of the internet is filled with fake and false info, how does the AI know what's real?

A human with decent intelligence and/or wisdom can typically use critical reasoning skills developed over decades to determine the veracity of a fact. But how does the AI deal with things like Flat Earth or science denial? There are plenty of websites out there that spill out falsehoods as matter of fact, and millions believe the lies. So how could relatively young AI do any better? What are the consequences of lying or tricking AI?

Spooky stuff in the wrong hands.

 

This is a very good point, to and this thread, which I don't really think did use chatgpt, is a good example of the type of false information amalgamated from various sources without any verification on the validity of those sources.

It's easier now more than ever to get complete nonsense posted online and presented in a way that appears to be of authority in that sector.

 

Odd timing, but I kid you not the same day I posted that, I came across a couple interesting articles about the subject.

Somebody created a sort of conspiracy theory spewing, Nazi-like ChatGPT, and another article on the overall dangers of AI machine learning involving false or biased information in general. As in, dictator governments using AI effectively for population control, something right out of an Orwellian horror.

I'm no computer scientist or IT guy but having had a few conversations on Facebook with friends that are, this stuff is becoming worrisome fast, almost like the tech is already too dangerous today and nobody is noticing except really smart people (that no one will listen to, same people who keep saying our smartphones are ruining us, which I believe 100%).

If anyone saw the "deep fakes" of Trump getting arrested and the Pope dressed like a rapper from the Wu Tang Clan, that's just scratching the surface. Now we have "deep fake audio" from AI, get ready for phantom calls from your friends that are really bots. Reminds me of that scene in The Terminator when the cyborg kills Sarah Connors mom and uses her voice to trick Connor into giving up her location.

Unfortunately I can't find the articles at the moment, I'll look later.