Conor McGregor

Karl Stein

Mellor wrote: »

This is the 200th MMA hour so they've pull out the big guns.

Urijah Faber, Chael Sonnen, Dan Hardy, Chris Weidman, Conor McGregor, "Stone Cold" Steve Austin, Anderson Silva, Georges St-Pierre, Greg Jackson, "Big" John McCarthy.

pablohoney87

Dtp1979 wrote: »

Mark hominic was very technical too. Look where that got him against Aldo

Mark hominic is by no means one of the most technical strikers out there.just because Joe Rogan says something doesn't make it true

Dtp1979

pablohoney87 wrote: »

Mark hominic is by no means one of the most technical strikers out there.just because Joe Rogan says something doesn't make it true

Looked pretty good against George roop

pablohoney87

Dtp1979 wrote: »

Looked pretty good against George roop

Looked even better against kz.

He's a good striker. But he's hardly the most technical. And certainly not the quality of McGregor.

darced

This post has been deleted.

Morph the Cat

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Why are you confused? You don't know the origins of MMA? Pancrase? UWFI? Rings? Inoki/Ali? Worked shoots in Pride? The fact that Pride started for the sole reason of making Takada seem like a legit fighter so he could be more over as a pro wrestler? Or the fact that Brock Lesnar was UFCs biggest PPV draw ever? Or the fact that a lot of the top MMA stars have either done pro wrestling or are fans of it?

I'll have to assume you just heard of MMA last week, and weren't aware of any of its history.

Clive

It's perfectly reasonable to be confused. All the others mentioned are high profile fighters, coaches or referees. Steve Austin is a celebrity fan, so his name looks out of place.

You seem to think that the origins of MMA lie in Japanese pro wrestling. I won't be so rude as to assume when you just heard of MMA, but you're certainly missing quite the chunk of history.

Morph the Cat

Clive wrote: »

It's perfectly reasonable to be confused. All the others mentioned are high profile fighters, coaches or referees. Steve Austin is a celebrity fan, so his name looks out of place.

You seem to think that the origins of MMA lie in Japanese pro wrestling. I won't be so rude as to assume when you just heard of MMA, but you're certainly missing quite the chunk of history.

Wrong - I never said all of it did. I merely listed the main connections, most of which happened to be Japanese and a lot of which also predate UFC. I'm fully aware of the early vale tudo fights & the Gracie challenge, etc.
My point was that even knowing a small bit about MMA history, you should know that there is and always has been a significant crossover with pro wrestling, irrelevant of whether people like it or not.
And I don't think Charlie Rock was genuinely confused - I think it was a little faux naif dig. Well, either that or he is just a complete noob, and if that's the case he can be forgiven.

pablohoney87

Morph the Cat wrote: »

The fact that Pride started for the sole reason of making Takada seem like a legit fighter so he could be more over as a pro wrestler?

Not really.

One of the Main matchmakers in pride back then said if Takada had beat Rickson there probably wouldnt have been a Pride 2. Like the first UFC the point of that match was to display the gracie's dominance over the combat world at that point.

Morph the Cat

pablohoney87 wrote: »

Not really.

One of the Main matchmakers in pride back then said if Takada had beat Rickson there probably wouldnt have been a Pride 2. Like the first UFC the point of that match was to display the gracie's dominance over the combat world at that point.

You said "not really" but then didn't contradict my reason; you just said what would have happened if he'd won.
The reason Pride started was to match Takada against Rickson, so if Takada won he'd be more over in Japan for beating the top Gracie. Takada lost, so they did a rematch at Pride 2.

You just said "not really", then proceeded to expand on my story, as opposed to dispute it. Weird.

pablohoney87

Morph the Cat wrote: »

You said "not really" but then didn't contradict my reason; you just said what would have happened if he'd won.
The reason Pride started was to match Takada against Rickson, so if Takada won he'd be more over in Japan for beating the top Gracie. Takada lost, so they did a rematch at Pride 2.

You just said "not really", then proceeded to expand on my story, as opposed to dispute it. Weird.

No I stated that the whole reason for the match was to push the gracies further. Match him against a "great japanese champion" instead of the europeans and americans and relatively unknown japanese guys he was destroying in Vale Tudo and he still destroyed him. The rematch at Pride 4 was merely a money spinner. No way did any promoter think he could beat rickson.

Morph the Cat

pablohoney87 wrote: »

No I stated that the whole reason for the match was to push the gracies further. Match him against a "great japanese champion" instead of the europeans and americans and relatively unknown japanese guys he was destroying in Vale Tudo and he still destroyed him. The rematch at Pride 4 was merely a money spinner. No way did any promoter think he could beat rickson.

Listen to this then; from probably the most knowledgeable person in both the MMA and Pro Wrestling industries:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dbt93objmsmv35i/Dave%20Meltzer%20-%20Brief%20History%20of%20PRIDE.wav

It's a great listen, either way.

pablohoney87

Morph the Cat wrote: »

Listen to this then; from probably the most knowledgeable person in both the MMA and Pro Wrestling industries:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dbt93objmsmv35i/Dave%20Meltzer%20-%20Brief%20History%20of%20PRIDE.wav

It's a great listen, either way.

Will do later. no headphones in work :P

Clive

Morph the Cat wrote: »

Wrong - I never said all of it did. I merely listed the main connections, most of which happened to be Japanese and a lot of which also predate UFC. I'm fully aware of the early vale tudo fights & the Gracie challenge, etc.
My point was that even knowing a small bit about MMA history, you should know that there is and always has been a significant crossover with pro wrestling, irrelevant of whether people like it or not.
And I don't think Charlie Rock was genuinely confused - I think it was a little faux naif dig. Well, either that or he is just a complete noob, and if that's the case he can be forgiven.

To deny the intertwined history of MMA and pro wrestling in Japan is impossible. Similarly to deny the demographic and marketing similarities to pro wrestling in the US is impossible.

However to jump on someone and start calling them a "noob" and launching into a unrelated tirade about how the history of MMA in a completely different country and even throwing in a Brock Lesnar reference for good measure is bizarre behaviour that smacks of insecurity about the status of pro wrestling.

Charlie Rock's reasonable point ( succintly put with a confused face) was that Steve Austin was out of place alongside the other names mentioned.
A reasonable reply would be that the MMA hour want to try and pull in some pro wrestling fans who might watch the occasional UFC but not follow the media side too closely. Added to that Steve Austin has been in the press recently talking about his respect for MMA.

Of course that's if you wanted to have a discussion on the subject.

El Guapo!

Clive wrote: »

Charlie Rock's reasonable point ( succintly put with a confused face) was that Steve Austin was out of place alongside the other names mentioned.
A reasonable reply would be that the MMA hour want to try and pull in some pro wrestling fans who might watch the occasional UFC but not follow the media side too closely. Added to that Steve Austin has been in the press recently talking about his respect for MMA.

Of course that's if you wanted to have a discussion on the subject.

^
This.
Well put.

Morph the Cat

Clive wrote: »

To deny the intertwined history of MMA and pro wrestling in Japan is impossible. Similarly to deny the demographic and marketing similarities to pro wrestling in the US is impossible.

However to jump on someone and start calling them a "noob" and launching into a unrelated tirade about how the history of MMA in a completely different country and even throwing in a Brock Lesnar reference for good measure is bizarre behaviour that smacks of insecurity about the status of pro wrestling.

Charlie Rock's reasonable point ( succintly put with a confused face) was that Steve Austin was out of place alongside the other names mentioned.
A reasonable reply would be that the MMA hour want to try and pull in some pro wrestling fans who might watch the occasional UFC but not follow the media side too closely. Added to that Steve Austin has been in the press recently talking about his respect for MMA.

Of course that's if you wanted to have a discussion on the subject.

You're basing all of that on the assumption that Charlie genuinely was naive as to the history of MMA - my comments were based on the assumption he was being faux naif and a smartarse.

But if he is actually a noob, I did say twice that it's okay if that was indeed the case.

So what's your point then? If Charlie's not a noob, then he was being a smartarse about the relevance of a pro wrestler on an MMA show (likely because he doesn't like it) and my comment stands.
And if he is actually a noob to MMA, I already said twice that that's okay.

I'll have to assume you just heard of MMA last week, and weren't aware of any of its history.

or he is just a complete noob, and if that's the case he can be forgiven.

pablohoney87

Moderator Hat on

Right guys thats about enough for the debate on the links/lack of links between Pro wrestling and MMA. The thread is titled Connor McGregor and is getting off topic

weemcd

Morph the Cat wrote: »

Why are you confused? You don't know the origins of MMA? Pancrase? UWFI? Rings? Inoki/Ali? Worked shoots in Pride? The fact that Pride started for the sole reason of making Takada seem like a legit fighter so he could be more over as a pro wrestler? Or the fact that Brock Lesnar was UFCs biggest PPV draw ever? Or the fact that a lot of the top MMA stars have either done pro wrestling or are fans of it?

I'll have to assume you just heard of MMA last week, and weren't aware of any of its history.

Soon as you use a weak argument like this, you have lost the argument.

I know more about MMA than you you noob HURRR. etc etc Get off the fúcking high horse.

El Guapo!

weemcd wrote: »

Soon as you use a weak argument like this, you have lost the argument.

I know more about MMA than you you noob HURRR. etc etc Get off the fúcking high horse.

The conversation has moved on. Knock it off now please lads. Last warning.

DrPhilG

Anyone else see Conor on Ultimate Insider?

Subtitles for the Dub, lol.

Gumbi

DrPhilG wrote: »

Anyone else see Conor on Ultimate Insider?

Subtitles for the Dub, lol.

Link?

SevereMMA

If you're in North America or have ProxTube (or any other proxy) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=A4Bl6ZL0Mxc

Otherwise

http://severemma.com/2013/08/video-ufc-ultimate-insider-conor-mcgregor/

DrPhilG

Gumbi wrote: »

Link?

Sorry, I just saw it on BT Sports during the week.

califano

SevereMMA wrote: »

If you're in North America or have ProxTube (or any other proxy) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=A4Bl6ZL0Mxc

Otherwise

http://severemma.com/2013/08/video-ufc-ultimate-insider-conor-mcgregor/

Very good feature. By the way always good to have the severemma embedded video option as youtube is blocked in work.

SevereMMA

All of our exclusive Conor McGregor videos to date

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWDyaV7KhUE&list=PLQiKLaJyxe-RvZkT0Qf6oBeoVFr6er6z4

9 videos - 43 minutes

dave1982

Living the dream!!

dave1982

Great pic no touching rule don't apply to Connor he can pick um up and take them home!:D

Mellor

Was Conor on the Joe Rogan podcast this week?

Masked Man

No, why do you think that?

SevereMMA

He is going to be on apparently

Joe tweeted saying he was working on it, and conor replied saying he was looking forward to it

https://twitter.com/TheNotoriousMMA/statuses/387497352870641664