Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Official Conor McGregor thread (part 5) *Read Mod Note in Post 1*

Options
1…1011131516…315

Comments

  • Options
    #362
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,633 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Mellor wrote: »
    Seen that on Reddit, somebody pointed out they missed Pettis. 462 days to his first defense.

    He was injured and then busy with UFC during that time though.


  • Options
    #363
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,168 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    The Nal wrote: »
    He was injured and then busy with UFC during that time though.
    Injured, then of TUF. Not sure what difference that makes though, Mir was also injured, severely at that.


  • Options
    #364
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,465 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    What's great about those title undefended stats is they waffle on about Frank Mirs injury but don't seem to mention Conor fought the greatest ever boxer in a boxing match in that time period.


  • Options
    #365
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,633 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Mellor wrote: »
    Injured, then of TUF. Not sure what difference that makes though, Mir was also injured, severely at that.

    Well it means he was at least working with the UFC and towards a fight through TUF. He wasn't speeding around the place and throwing digs at people in bars.


  • Options
    #366
    EagererBeaver
    Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭EagererBeaver


    Ush1 wrote: »
    What's great about those title undefended stats is they waffle on about Frank Mirs injury but don't seem to mention Conor fought the greatest ever boxer in a boxing match in that time period.
    Think you've spectacularly missed the point.

    Mir was injured and physically incapable of competing.

    McGregor was physically capable of competing to the extent he participated in a boxing match. The fact he competed in said boxing match doesn't alter the fact that he's been away from the Octagon for so long.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #367
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,465 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    Think you've spectacularly missed the point.

    Mir was injured and physically incapable of competing.

    McGregor was physically capable of competing to the extent he participated in a boxing match. The fact he competed in said boxing match doesn't alter the fact that he's been away from the Octagon for so long.

    No I haven't missed the point at all:
    McGregor sits on the sidelines uninjured and more than capable of defending "his" title.

    Very clearly disingenuous. The fact is that he has fought during that time, not sat on the side-lines. He also fought in a fight any fighter on the UFC would give their left testicle to be able to fight in, never mind leaving defending a title to one side for a while.


  • Options
    #368
    Effects
    Registered Users Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭Effects


    Ush1 wrote: »
    He also fought in a fight any fighter on the UFC would give their left testicle to be able to fight in, never mind leaving defending a title to one side for a while.

    Why would other MMA fighters want to get punched around for very little money? Conor's the only reason there was that much money in the fight for him. Punters aren't interested in a useless exhibition match with anyone else.


  • Options
    #369
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,465 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Effects wrote: »
    Why would other MMA fighters want to get punched around for very little money? Conor's the only reason there was that much money in the fight for him. Punters aren't interested in a useless exhibition match with anyone else.

    That's exactly it, if they were in Conors position, knowing the money involved, they would instantly take that fight. Defending their UFC title would not be at the forefront of their mind.


  • Options
    #370
    Subcomandante Marcos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,683 ✭✭✭Subcomandante Marcos


    Then they would and should be stripped of their UFC title. This isn't rocket science.
    Defend of vacate.


  • Options
    #371
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,633 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »
    Then they would and should be stripped of their UFC title. This isn't rocket science.
    Defend of vacate.

    Yep. And a good competitive division too. An unbeaten guy and an interim champ on a 10 fight winning streak. Both being held up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #372
    MarkJD
    Registered Users Posts: 802 ✭✭✭MarkJD


    Lads you would swear the UFC were also not on the hook for this. They pretty much allowed this to happen, they also allow the fact that he is still Champion and has not been stripped because he did the Floyd fight. They made more money from their cut of that deal than they did with any other champion this year!

    Granted im sure all parties expected him to be back by now and have defended his title but realistically the whole LW division is only potentially delayed or on hold only a few months now if you accept the Floyd fight for what it was! **** all over McGregor you want and he is as much to blame as any but the UFC are also on the hook just as much for the shape of the UFC LW picture right now.

    Sitting back and comparing him to Mir or Pettis or any other inactive champion is just pointless and not fair! I am disappointed as any McGregor fan given all his recent behavior, not seeing him inside the Octagon or having a fight booked at present but watching the narrative unfold in the last few months you would swear he is curled up in a ball hiding away from the world scared to fight Tony, Khabib, Lose his title, lose in general.... all a bit silly really!


  • Options
    #373
    ASOT
    Registered Users Posts: 7,733 ✭✭✭ASOT


    MarkJD wrote: »
    Lads you would swear the UFC were also not on the hook for this. They pretty much allowed this to happen, they also allow the fact that he is still Champion and has not been stripped because he did the Floyd fight. They made more money from their cut of that deal than they did with any other champion this year!

    Granted im sure all parties expected him to be back by now and have defended his title but realistically the whole LW division is only potentially delayed or on hold only a few months now if you accept the Floyd fight for what it was! **** all over McGregor you want and he is as much to blame as any but the UFC are also on the hook just as much for the shape of the UFC LW picture right now.

    Sitting back and comparing him to Mir or Pettis or any other inactive champion is just pointless and not fair! I am disappointed as any McGregor fan given all his recent behavior, not seeing him inside the Octagon or having a fight booked at present but watching the narrative unfold in the last few months you would swear he is curled up in a ball hiding away from the world scared to fight Tony, Khabib, Lose his title, lose in general.... all a bit silly really!

    The most sense thats been talked in a while.


  • Options
    #374
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Gintonious wrote: »
    Saw this the other day, January 5th to be exact.
    #FunFact

    Today Conor McGregor breaks the record for longest period spent without defending a title in UFC history w/ 419 days & counting while not even having had a title defense booked.

    He officially passes Frank Mir.

    Mir had to get into a motorcycle accident, break his femur, and tear every ligament in his knee to make that record happen. McGregor sits on the sidelines uninjured and more than capable of defending "his" title.

    This is true. However, nobody in UFC history has ever held two titles simultaneously which accounted for a large chunk of that time, and you can't fault the guy for taking time off to have a kid either.

    To be perfectly honest, the f*ck up was a loooong time ago - March of 2016, to be precise. When he lost to Diaz, they should have asked him to defend his belt first, then rematch Diaz - or at the very least, defend his belt that November instead of fighting Alvarez. I can't fault him for his most recent absence since he had the kid and fought Mayweather - this should have been sorted out far, far earlier than any of that, and it's not on Conor but the UFC for not enforcing this. So IMO, bashing Conor himself for not defending is a little unreasonable - at the end of the day, the UFC calls the shots and they made a mistake in scheduling other UFC fights before a title defence, specifically after the RDA thing fell apart and he lost to Diaz instead.


  • Options
    #375
    pgj2015
    Registered Users Posts: 9,024 ✭✭✭pgj2015


    https://www.joe.ie/sport/conor-mcgregor-mclaren-supercar-612036


    joe.ie really are a joke, that video is from a few years ago haha


  • Options
    #376
    sonofenoch
    Registered Users Posts: 2,162 ✭✭✭sonofenoch


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    This is true. However, nobody in UFC history has ever held two titles simultaneously which accounted for a large chunk of that time, and you can't fault the guy for taking time off to have a kid either.

    To be perfectly honest, the f*ck up was a loooong time ago - March of 2016, to be precise. When he lost to Diaz, they should have asked him to defend his belt first, then rematch Diaz - or at the very least, defend his belt that November instead of fighting Alvarez. I can't fault him for his most recent absence since he had the kid and fought Mayweather - this should have been sorted out far, far earlier than any of that, and it's not on Conor but the UFC for not enforcing this. So IMO, bashing Conor himself for not defending is a little unreasonable - at the end of the day, the UFC calls the shots and they made a mistake in scheduling other UFC fights before a title defence, specifically after the RDA thing fell apart and he lost to Diaz instead.

    I don't reckon he was ever fighting at 145 again so he was never defending that belt .......who knows he might never fight at 155 so he'll give up that and can always say he's the real champ which you can't really argue against if no one beats him for it ........his only goal might be winning a belt, taking it off someone else and doesn't think anyone else worthy the opportunity of taking a belt off him........that of course can be argued against


  • Options
    #377
    Useful.Idiot
    Registered Users Posts: 1,833 ✭✭✭Useful.Idiot


    pgj2015 wrote: »
    joe.ie really are a joke, that video is from a few years ago haha

    McGregor put it up this morning and they mention his baby so gonna say no to that one


  • Options
    #378
    pgj2015
    Registered Users Posts: 9,024 ✭✭✭pgj2015


    Useful.Idiot wrote: »
    McGregor put it up this morning and they mention his baby so gonna say no to that one



    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=conor+mcgregor+mclaren


    uploaded 11 months ago, i remember watching it ages ago.


  • Options
    #379
    EagererBeaver
    Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭EagererBeaver


    pgj2015 wrote: »
    Useful.Idiot wrote: »
    McGregor put it up this morning and they mention his baby so gonna say no to that one



    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=conor+mcgregor+mclaren


    uploaded 11 months ago, i remember watching it ages ago.

    Ooooff, that's a bad burn right there.

    Joe really are an embarrassment.


  • Options
    #380
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,168 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    This is true. However, nobody in UFC history has ever held two titles simultaneously which accounted for a large chunk of that time, and you can't fault the guy for taking time off to have a kid either.
    .
    He only held both titles for about a week. The above only counts his LW title reign. Second longest now.


    I honestly think taking a year off for a baby, or other personal reasons. Beyond that, defend or vacate (or at least book)


  • Options
    #381
    Effects
    Registered Users Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭Effects


    sonofenoch wrote: »
    who knows he might never fight at 155 so he'll give up that and can always say he's the real champ which you can't really argue against if no one beats him for it

    So your logic is as long as you never defend your belt you're always the champion?
    Surely you can argue that if you never defend your belt, for whatever reason, then you aren't a real champion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #382
    cletus
    Registered Users Posts: 7,927 ✭✭✭cletus


    Effects wrote: »
    So your logic is as long as you never defend your belt you're always the champion?
    Surely you can argue that if you never defend your belt, for whatever reason, then you aren't a real champion.

    I think that Mcgregor's next fight should be a title defense, but the idea that you're not the champ till you defend was something I first heard from Matt Hughes. I thought it was silly then, and I think it's silly now. If you are not the champion when you first win the belt, then who is?


  • Options
    #383
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,633 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    cletus wrote: »
    I think that Mcgregor's next fight should be a title defense, but the idea that you're not the champ till you defend was something I first heard from Matt Hughes. I thought it was silly then, and I think it's silly now. If you are not the champion when you first win the belt, then who is?

    Yes its very silly. Of course hes the champ. Although hes only fought once in that division. Technically hes been the reigning champ for 14 months!!

    Would love to see him fight again soon but I'm just as interested in seeing Khabib/Ferguson for the belt at this stage.

    Poor Khabib has earned the average industrial wage for his entire career.


  • Options
    #384
    Useful.Idiot
    Registered Users Posts: 1,833 ✭✭✭Useful.Idiot


    The Nal wrote: »
    Poor Khabib has earned the average industrial wage for his entire career.

    Joking? Khabib is one of the only fighters on the roster who doesn't care about money, he is literally fighting only for the glory. Money-wise Khabib has nothing to worry about what with his connects with Russian billionaires and Kadyrov.


  • Options
    #385
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,168 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Effects wrote: »
    Surely you can argue that if you never defend your belt, for whatever reason, then you aren't a real champion.
    Bad Rutten, Frank Mir, Fabrico Werdum, Vitor, Forrest Griffen, Rashad Evans, Shogun Rua, Luke Rockhold, Robert Whitaker, Carlos Newton, Matt Serra, Carlos Condit, Johnny Hendricks, Eddie Alvarez, Tony Ferguson, Cody Garbradt, and Conor McGregor.


    Guess what hey all have in common?
    All champions who didn't (or are yet to) defended their belts


  • Options
    #386
    EagererBeaver
    Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭EagererBeaver


    Ah you're being deliberately disingenuous Mellor. You know "defend the belt" refers to actually competing, rather than competing successfully.

    Rockhold, Garbrandt, Eddie, Holly Holm isn't on your list all defended their belts. Just not successfully.


  • Options
    #387
    dulux99
    Registered Users Posts: 2,795 ✭✭✭dulux99


    Mellor wrote: »
    Effects wrote: »
    Surely you can argue that if you never defend your belt, for whatever reason, then you aren't a real champion.
    Bad Rutten, Frank Mir, Fabrico Werdum, Vitor, Forrest Griffen, Rashad Evans, Shogun Rua, Luke Rockhold, Robert Whitaker, Carlos Newton, Matt Serra, Carlos Condit, Johnny Hendricks, Eddie Alvarez, Tony Ferguson, Cody Garbradt, and Conor McGregor.


    Guess what hey all have in common?
    All champions who didn't (or are yet to) defended their belts
    Most, if not all of those fighters listed actually attempted to defend their title in fairness.


    Ultimately, I reckon, in the UFC’s eyes it’s not as if he’s been sat on the sideline for a year and a half refusing to fight. He had the two blockbuster fights with Diaz in March and August, went straight into a 155 fight vs Alvarez in November, and then made the UFC a sh*t tonne of money again the following August, albeit in a boxing fight rather than MMA. That’s 4 huge paydays for the UFC between March 2016 and August 2017. GSP and Silva in their prime usually only fought once every 10 months or so.
     
    Don’t get me wrong, he needs to come back and he needs to get the “defend” monkey off his back. But I’m just not so sure the UFC are as worried about the lack of defences as Dana lets on.


  • Options
    #388
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,168 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    Ah you're being deliberately disingenuous Mellor. You know "defend the belt" refers to actually competing, rather than competing successfully.
    How am I being disingenuous?
    The idea that you aren't a champion until you defend you belt, refered to a successful defense, not a attempted one (or else what's the point?). It was an idea popularised by Matt Hughes a decade ago. It get me wrong, it's utter bollox. But it was aimed fighters like all of those I listed. I brought them up to highlight how ridiculous it is.

    If Conor is stripped/retires, he'd cease being champion. But anyone seriously suggesting he was never the champion would need their head examined.


  • Options
    #389
    Effects
    Registered Users Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭Effects


    cletus wrote: »
    The idea that you're not the champ till you defend was something I first heard from Matt Hughes. If you are not the champion when you first win the belt, then who is?

    I don't see him as not being the Champion. Just reiterating a point held by a lot of others.
    I want to see him defend his belt but I recognise his unique position. The UFC don't care about Conor, only the money he can make for them. He's being smart even if it pisses off the fans.
    Holly Holm could have waited for a rematch with Rousey and it would have been the wise move for her, from an earnings point of view. She probably would have easily beaten her second time around and increase her profile and wallet. But she didn't wait, put her belt on the line, and she's been sliding ever since.


  • Options
    #390
    Effects
    Registered Users Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭Effects


    Mellor wrote: »
    If Conor is stripped/retires, he'd cease being champion. But anyone seriously suggesting he was never the champion would need their head examined.

    I was originally replying to the guy who said if Conor is stripped then he's still the champion. Which is never the case. Unbeaten as champion, yes.
    sonofenoch wrote: »
    ....who knows he might never fight at 155 so he'll give up that and can always say he's the real champ which you can't really argue against if no one beats him for it


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #391
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,168 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Effects wrote: »
    I was originally replying to the guy who said if Conor is stripped then he's still the champion. Which is never the case. Unbeaten as champion, yes.
    The idea "you aren't champion until you defend" is around a long time. I'm just saying that idea is absolute nonsense.
    I'm not saying that's exactly what you were implying though.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement