INSANE Mortal Kombat II World Record! 2 Records in 1 night!!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лют 2025
- I literally got 2 Records in 1 night lmao! Johnny Cage done in 7:43! ... I know this one can go lower but damn is it hard.
Broadcasted live on Twitch -- Watch live at / tenka
![WORLD RECORD DESTROYED! Mortal Kombat II with Jonny Cage! - 7:12 [WR]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rOp1WmfwavA/mqdefault.jpg)
That Kintaro fight was a turning point, holy moly that was clutch to get you this, congrats Tenka!
Never stop running!
@@SamuraiTX90 🔥🔥🔥💯 you know it my dude!
@SamuraiTX90: I don't know, there's something about wanting to tell someone that if they want an explanation for something, they should already be banned, rather than just giving the explanation that seems a bit unreflective. Oftentimes the very thing that got public opinion to change over the past centuries was the need of explanations for things that people thought should be taken for granted. When we noticed that certain traditions actually didn't give much in terms of explanations and instead just shamed you for wanting one, we reformed society by abandoning those traditions. Explaining a position isn't a burden, because it's expressing things that are dear to you; that's more expressive than demanding that people should already know something; if you feel like you are part of a large number of people who do that, then for all you know, the people who "don't get it yet" maybe don't get it because instead of 50 explanations they got 50 cases of "I don't need to give you an explanation and how dare you ask me to do so" from various people.
Most likely, though, sometimes, at least, people may have received explanations, but they have also heard different viewpoints, from people who seem to hold them equally strongly, and they might want a means by which they can sift through the actually good principles from the strong assertions and that's not going to be an insistence that they accept the assertion or earlier instances of that assertion. There's also a case to be made for defining one's terms. After all, people do put labels on things in different ways, and often with different motivations in mind, and defining terms can only help alleviate this issue. I guess you can use this lack of clarity as some kind of way to filter out people who "just don't get it," but that can be the kind of thing that keeps people like that from learning. We want some way for people to come to know something, and if they get stuck in a catch-22 in which them not "getting it" earlier makes people progressively less willing to explain it to them, you can have cases of a person who would have been only slightly late in getting it be very late in getting it because at each step of the chain people contributed to the lack of explanation based on the justification that they should have gotten it already, but again, in that case you just mostly have a lot of people saying that they should have gotten it already rather than the explanation by which any person, no matter how early they got it, would have needed to get it, which is often confused with explaining it many times, which is something different. Again, it may not be black and white in that an explanation has occasionally been given, but it seems like this kind of approach of scoffing at explaining one's views rather than simply explaining one's views can take otherwise salvageable, slightly late cases of getting it and making it closer to hopeless unnecessarily.
People deserve to be here equally, and one should also monitor the words that are often used only about m*n even though the words often refer to despicable things that don't pertain to gender. M*n are often the only real-life humans who are called monsters (I have had much trouble googling counterexamples in the past, but it would be great news if you could supply me with many of them); a monster makes us think of horror movies, and you can have fictional monsters of either gender, but very rarely do people want to give a real-life human w**an the disservice of being compared to something as vile as a monster, even sometimes when they've committed terrible crimes, whereas it's not especially rare for men to receive this comparison. There are many words/phrases similar to "monster" to which this disparity still applies, with one of them being along the lines of "a piece of filth," but "monster" makes for the clearest and most vivid example of this phenomenon, and I would say that the way "monster" is used towards m*n is more offensive than, say, "d*ck," even though that's gender-specific and "monster" is not, which just goes to show that the way in which the word is used is sometimes more telling than merely seeing how gender-specific the term is in itself/by definition.
@SamuraiTX90: I don't know, there's something about wanting to tell someone that if they want an explanation for something, they should already be banned, rather than just giving the explanation that seems a bit unreflective. Oftentimes the very thing that got public opinion to change over the past centuries was the need of explanations for things that people thought should be taken for granted. When we noticed that certain traditions actually didn't give much in terms of explanations and instead just shamed you for wanting one, we reformed society by abandoning those traditions. Explaining a position isn't a burden, because it's expressing things that are dear to you; that's more expressive than demanding that people should already know something; if you feel like you are part of a large number of people who do that, then for all you know, the people who "don't get it yet" maybe don't get it because instead of 50 explanations they got 50 cases of "I don't need to give you an explanation and how dare you ask me to do so" from various people.
Most likely, though, sometimes, at least, people may have received explanations, but they have also heard different viewpoints, from people who seem to hold them equally strongly, and they might want a means by which they can sift through the actually good principles from the strong assertions and that's not going to be an insistence that they accept the assertion or earlier instances of that assertion. There's also a case to be made for defining one's terms. After all, people do put labels on things in different ways, and often with different motivations in mind, and defining terms can only help alleviate this issue. I guess you can use this lack of clarity as some kind of way to filter out people who "just don't get it," but that can be the kind of thing that keeps people like that from learning. We want some way for people to come to know something, and if they get stuck in a catch-22 in which them not "getting it" earlier makes people progressively less willing to explain it to them, you can have cases of a person who would have been only slightly late in getting it be very late in getting it because at each step of the chain people contributed to the lack of explanation based on the justification that they should have gotten it already, but again, in that case you just mostly have a lot of people saying that they should have gotten it already rather than the explanation by which any person, no matter how early they got it, would have needed to get it, which is often confused with explaining it many times, which is something different. Again, it may not be black and white in that an explanation has occasionally been given, but it seems like this kind of approach of scoffing at explaining one's views rather than simply explaining one's views can take otherwise salvageable, slightly late cases of getting it and making it closer to hopeless unnecessarily.
People deserve to be here equally, and one should also monitor the words that are often used only about m*n even though the words often refer to despicable things that don't pertain to gender. M*n are often the only real-life humans who are called monsters (I have had much trouble googling counterexamples in the past, but it would be great news if you could supply me with many of them); a monster makes us think of horror movies, and you can have fictional monsters of either gender, but very rarely do people want to give a real-life human w**an the disservice of being compared to something as vile as a monster, even sometimes when they've committed terrible crimes, whereas it's not especially rare for m*n to receive this comparison. There are many words/phrases similar to "monster" to which this disparity still applies, with one of them being along the lines of "a piece of filth," but "monster" makes for the clearest and most vivid example of this phenomenon, and I would say that the way "monster" is used towards m*n is more offensive than, say, "d**k," even though that's gender-specific and "monster" is not, which just goes to show that the way in which the word is used is sometimes more telling than merely seeing how gender-specific the term is in itself/by definition.
@SamuraiTX90: I don't know, there's something about wanting to tell someone that if they want an explanation for something, they should already be banned, rather than just giving the explanation that seems a bit unreflective. Oftentimes the very thing that got public opinion to change over the past centuries was the need of explanations for things that people thought should be taken for granted. When we noticed that certain traditions actually didn't give much in terms of explanations and instead just shamed you for wanting one, we reformed society by abandoning those traditions. Explaining a position isn't a burden, because it's expressing things that are dear to you; that's more expressive than demanding that people should already know something; if you feel like you are part of a large number of people who do that, then for all you know, the people who "don't get it yet" maybe don't get it because instead of 50 explanations they got 50 cases of "I don't need to give you an explanation and how dare you ask me to do so" from various people.
Most likely, though, sometimes, at least, people may have received explanations, but they have also heard different viewpoints, from people who seem to hold them equally strongly, and they might want a means by which they can sift through the actually good principles from the strong assertions and that's not going to be an insistence that they accept the assertion or earlier instances of that assertion. There's also a case to be made for defining one's terms. After all, people do put labels on things in different ways, and often with different motivations in mind, and defining terms can only help alleviate this issue. I guess you can use this lack of clarity as some kind of way to filter out people who "just don't get it," but that can be the kind of thing that keeps people like that from learning. We want some way for people to come to know something, and if they get stuck in a catch-22 in which them not "getting it" earlier makes people progressively less willing to explain it to them, you can have cases of a person who would have been only slightly late in getting it be very late in getting it because at each step of the chain people contributed to the lack of explanation based on the justification that they should have gotten it already, but again, in that case you just mostly have a lot of people saying that they should have gotten it already rather than the explanation by which any person, no matter how early they got it, would have needed to get it, which is often confused with explaining it many times, which is something different. Again, it may not be black and white in that an explanation has occasionally been given, but it seems like this kind of approach of scoffing at explaining one's views rather than simply explaining one's views can take otherwise salvageable, slightly late cases of getting it and making it closer to hopeless unnecessarily.
People deserve to be here equally, and one should also monitor the words that are often used only about m*n even though the words often refer to despicable things that don't pertain to that kind of identity. M*n are often the only real-life humans who are called monsters (I have had much trouble googling counterexamples in the past, but it would be great news if you could supply me with many of them); a monster makes us think of horror movies, and you can have fictional monsters of any identity, but very rarely do people want to give a real-life human w**an the disservice of being compared to something as vile as a monster, even sometimes when they've committed terrible crimes, whereas it's not especially rare for m*n to receive this comparison. There are many words/phrases similar to "monster" to which this disparity still applies, with one of them being along the lines of "a piece of filth," but "monster" makes for the clearest and most vivid example of this phenomenon, and I would say that the way "monster" is used towards m*n is more offensive than, say, "d*ck," even though that's identity-specific and "monster" is not, which just goes to show that the way in which the word is used is sometimes more telling than merely seeing how identity-specific the term is in itself/by definition.
"This is the part where you World Record"
They got CAGED😂😂! Love your videos man!
Tenka, my man, you're ON FIRE 🔥
The king of speed run fighting game is back !!!
Congratulations Tenka, you played very well.
The game tried to steal it from you at the end but you managed to recover, hahaha!
Dude nice plays
Me gustan tus videos, Saludos desde Chile :)
Holy shit! Congrats again!
I'm going to go try this speed run on my original MKII cabinet now.
Nice dude! Let me know if u need any help reproducing the strats .. the procs against Jax/ Raiden can be a little confusing to understand
Another one! 🎩 CONGRATS 🎊
Te sigo desde argentina. 🇦🇷 esos tiempos son una Brutality!
"Let's dance" - Linden Ashby
Tenka playing like Elevenka
Need battle Speed vs Tenka
GG
Incredible!
Good game Tenka
Вот это охренеть, вои это сейв по времени. Поздравляю!
sure, world records are great, but look at that damn posture. insane.
Dude, you are a fuckin' world record machine!
Ah shit, here we go again.
Holy crap save some records for next time.
LMAO!!
What even was that you did to Shao, looked like you spanked into submission there in the corner :P
Tenka, a question if you don't mind. When you groin punch them, the usual follow up is an uppercut. I'm assuming you don't uppercut because doing so would send them flying too far away?
@@alanarcher yes, the uppercut has way too slow a recovery. It also does less damage than doing PPPP Shadow Kick. Nut punch into standing HK does less damage than an uppercut but lets them recover quickly so you can re-initiate, then nut punch PPPP shadow kick to kill. The uppercut is pretty much useless here
Congratulations, today Speed live we already know what character is 😅
rip MK nuts
After the high kick can't you combo a second shadow kick after that?
@@illuminatidad no. There is too much recovery from a standing high kick. You don't want to anyway, you need them to approach again as soon as possible so you can nut punch again quicker.
GGs! Johnny Cage is an annoying one.
Top 👍👍👍👍
WHAT?! You can't "speedrun" Mortal Kombat 2! The cheating A.I. make it impossi--
DONE!
.....God damn it 😑
yesterday a chilean youtuber gamer ParallaxMK did a new record for Johnny Cage, almost 10 seconds less than yours
@@ignaciogodoy7095 lmao bro parallax doesn't need an introduction. Its cool to see him running mk2 again! Excited to see more! GG!
So under 7:30 is perfectly achievable
See the video I uploaded last night 😂
sorry, which are the records?
@@juampimlb1745 this one and the sub-zero one. I got sub-zero at the start of the stream and johnny cage about midway
lol alto virgo jajjjajajjajaaj
Que grande querido, te veo todas las noches. Saludos desde la tierra campeona del mundo.