Posts by Dennis Long13

Is it just me, or is the way we consume combat sports changing in a way that feels almost... clinical? I was scrolling through some fight schedules earlier, and it struck me how much the "spectacle" aspect of fighting has been subdivided into these hyper-specific, data-driven micro-events.

I remember back in the day—well, maybe "back in the day" is relative, but certainly a decade ago—when a major fight night felt like a massive, singular cultural moment. You didn't necessarily need a spreadsheet to understand who was fighting or why it mattered. There was a certain mystique to the big cards. You watched because the hype was palpable, and the fighters felt like larger-than-life gladiators. Now, everything feels so granular. We have specialized leagues, different scoring systems for different seasons, and an endless stream of niche matchups that are marketed through pure statistical probability.

Don't get me wrong, I love the data. I love looking at reach advantages, takedown percentages, and betting odds. It adds a layer of intellectual engagement that wasn't there before. It turns watching a fight into a bit of a puzzle. But I can't help but feel like we’re losing the "soul" of the sport in favor of the "product." We’ve transitioned from being fans of athletes to being consumers of "matchup data."

There’s this growing divide between the massive, flashy organizations that focus on celebrity and the newer, more structured leagues that feel almost like a professional circuit or a high-stakes tournament. The latter often feels more "fair" or "athletic," but does it capture the imagination of the casual fan? Or are we just training ourselves to only care about the fighters who have the most favorable betting lines or the most interesting statistical outliers?

I think about this a lot when I see how much energy goes into the "pre-game" analysis. We spend more time discussing the "why" and the "how" via digital breakdowns than we do actually feeling the tension of the walkouts. It’s like we’re trying to solve the fight before it even happens. If you know the odds, if you know the stylistic matchup, if you’ve seen the three-minute highlight reel of their last three wins, have you actually experienced the fighter, or just their profile?

I also wonder about the longevity of these newer formats. They are so efficient, so organized, and so easy to digest via a smartphone screen. But is efficiency the enemy of passion? In many ways, the most memorable moments in sports history come from the unpredictable, the chaotic, and the "unfavorable" outcomes that no algorithm could have predicted. When everything is so carefully curated and segmented into specific time slots and predictable structures, do we lose that lightning-in-a-bottle feeling that makes a sport legendary?

I’m curious to hear what the hardcore fans here think. Do you find that the increasing specialization and the "data-first" approach to fight cards makes the sport more engaging for you, or do you miss the days when a fight night was just a singular, massive, unpredictable event?

Hey there, got a question I'm hoping someone can clear up for me.

If someone gets hit with a judgment here in the States, can the creditor actually go after assets or pull funds from a bank account located in another EU country?

There are basically two ways to go about this. One is the old-school way, like sitting through a formal class and grinding through lessons in order. The other is just learning on the fly—you look up how to fix something specifically when you actually need to do it. That’s how I handle Adobe Photoshop. It’s way too massive to try and memorize everything, and honestly, you never really need to know every single feature in a program anyway...

For instance, let's say you have a photo that just needs a quick touch-up before posting it online or printing it. In most cases, that's all you'll ever need: maybe a quick crop, some color correction, adjusting hue and saturation, or messing with light via contrast, levels, and curves. You might need to fix red-eye (which you can do with masks, though most software has wizards for it—better to learn how to do it manually though), plus a little retouching to clear up a pimple or remove some clutter from the frame. Then there's sharpening details or blurring out the background...

Just getting a handle on those basics takes some time, especially the red-eye stuff and retouching...

And before all that, it wouldn't hurt to at least understand the fundamentals of photography, color theory, composition, and stuff like that...

Then you get into heavy photo manipulation. That's where you start dealing with layers, selections, masking, transformations, and all sorts of filters to make things look realistic. Every one of those topics is its own beast. It's best to tackle them one by one depending on what you're trying to pull off. Honestly, the best move is to just grab a camera, mess around with whatever's in front of you, and play with the shots. Like, if you edit a photo of a friend to slim her waist, boost her chest, and wipe away her dark circles, she might buy you a beer... or start a fight with you if you go too far...

Don't freak out just yet, but yeah, there's a ton to learn. I've been using Adobe Photoshop since '95, and I'd say I probably use maybe 40% of what it can do. And really, I don't even need more than 20% for anything I actually do...

Seriously, why is everything in bold? You could buy the book, but it costs a freaking fortune... $223 one version is one price, then another is like $88, just find something online instead

http://www.google.com/search?client=...utf-8&oe=utf-8 tutorials on all sorts of sites

Having quick guides is pretty much pointless anyway since the software is way too complex. Better to just learn it bit by bit—like selection tools, color correction, layers, filters, retouching... plus, you'll actually get more out of it if you learn in English, since you'll be practicing the language at the same time

Over here: http://hr.diplodocs.com/414159.php?k...T%20SHOP%20PRO there are some guides in American, but I have no clue how useful they are or which version they cover

p.s. before posting stuff like this, try typing the question into Google or some other search engine first. Like, "Adobe Photoshop tutorials"... you'll be surprised how many answers pop up...

If I were you, I'd start with this— http://www.grafx-design.com/psp_tut.html it's broken down by chapters

Honestly, IrfanView has everything you actually need... it’s got "save for web" and batch processing built right in, plus you can handle all your basic editing like color correction, cropping, and whatever else...