joshrogan wrote: » I'm not sure why the UFC would want him to fight Aldo first it's a lot more risky than Alvarez.
StringerBell wrote: » Where has Alvarez v Aldo come from? The UFC appear to want him defend his belt in the division he holds the title, for the first time, following two fights outside the division where he holds the title.
wonderfullife wrote: » Conor does hold a lot of the Aces but he'd be wise not to underestimate Ari Emmanuel (new co-owner). I'm sure most of you are familiar with Jeremy Pivens portrayal in Entourage based on the real guy. But he's far more ruthless in real life. And, to be fair, Lorenzo Fertitta proved himself pretty cut-throat too. Conor is far and away the biggest draw in the sport but his leverage is reduced for milestone events. UFC 200 and UFC 205 are milestone events that the UFC probably feels does 1 million PPV buys irrespective of Conor headlining - purely by virtue of the historic element of the cards. The real question is do the UFC want a landmark 2 million+ PPV event at MSG. I think it's very possible if they stack the card roughly like this: Conor v Eddie (Champion v Champion match - Conor retains FW belt) Joanna v Karolina Lawler v Cerrone Weidman v Romero Rockhold v Jacare That, to me, is about the best they can do with the available, fit talent. You could re-jig that order somewhat, but with those fights i'd definitely want Conor headlining and the all-Polish title fight co-headlining, for a number of reasons. A chance to further enhance womens MMA on a global stage and the fact that NY has a simply massive Polish population. That would be the highest selling PPV of all time and come very close to pushing through that 2 million barrier. DC v Rumble wouldn't look out of place on that card either or Cruz v Cody but it's doubtful. The Middleweight tournament with Weidman, Rockhold, Romero, Jacare would be pretty epic and then have a fun fan fight with Cowboy and Robbie, leading into the 2 title shots at the top of the card.
TimRiggins wrote: » The UFC want Weidman against Jacare and Rochhold against Romero. Rockhold and Jacare have already have a 5 round main event would not feel right to see them compete over 3 now.
wonderfullife wrote: » A source known to be well connected has today revealed the following: Conor v Eddie hold-up in announcing fight is Conor refusal to vacate FW belt, and has told UFC he will defend it early 2017. Money and bout agreed. and Conor turned down movie role to fight at MSG.
wonderfullife wrote: » well according to sources, Weidman v Romero is very close to a Bout Agreement and Rockhold was offered Jacare and has turned it down over not being offered enough money. If the UFC come back with a better offer, then it'll be on. That's the most reliable info coming out of the usual reliable connected journos. The fact Conor hasn't defended the belt yet depends how you look at the situation: Jose Aldo twice went over 12 months between defending - twice. Injuries and questionable pull outs. Cain Velasquez went 18 months between his 2nd and 3rd defence. It's not even 10 months since Conor won the belt. Now, the difference CLEARLY is that Conor fought twice since winning the belt and Cain/Jose were inactive. There's very few credible contenders at Light Heavy once you look past Jon Jones. You've got Alex coming back from a lay-off, Rumble (who DC has already beat), Bader (lost to Rumble and Glover)..... let's imagine DC takes a couple of money fights at Heavyweight.... i wouldn't want him stripped, on the basis there are no credible contenders in his own division. Credible contenders need to be present. The 2 most credible contenders at FW are Aldo and Holloway - both of whom Conor has defeated. Let them fight each other and have a true number one contender. If Conor fights Eddie in November he'll most likely be fit to go again by March latest - which will be 13 months since winning the belt. Same as Aldo has done twice in the past. This idea that the division is "being held up" is a nonsense. It implies a stack of contenders sitting around waiting. That's not the case. There's 2 credible contenders and Anthony Pettis who is an arguable case.
Saipanne wrote: » Who is the source?
wonderfullife wrote: » Conor v Eddie hold-up in announcing fight is Conor refusal to vacate FW belt, and has told UFC he will defend it early 2017. Money and bout agreed.
wonderfullife wrote: » @TalkMMA on twitter. Not sure his real name.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » If this guy is legit... Boy oh boy.https://twitter.com/TalkMMA/status/773534765307793409https://twitter.com/TalkMMA/status/773542123882835968
StringerBell wrote: » Pulling out of what? Easy to throw mud on twitter, not even being specific like. Reeks of ITK click-bait bollix I see, he means title defences in general. Aldo was one of the most active champs in the UFC right up until he had a bad run of injuries dropping his average FPY. Dunno why we need to knock one to build another up
hatrickpatrick wrote: » I hope he's full of sh!t on this one tbh. Unsubstantiated rumours of shenanigans get old very fast in any sport, and I certainly don't want to see a fighter like Aldo's image getting destroyed. Seems to me that ever since Lance Armstrong's fall from grace a few years ago, everything from scraps in school playgrounds to choosing the next pope is mired by doping allegations. :pac:
hatrickpatrick wrote: » If this guy is legit... Boy oh boy. l]
hatrickpatrick wrote: » So this is another case of a McGregor vs UFC showdown over process? I don't like the sound of that to be honest. If last time is anything to go by, the UFC simply don't back down regardless of how much money is on the line. Of course, it's been said many times that under the new ownership, they might be far more commercial-minded and that Dana White may have less influence than before - but is this actually the case? There's no real evidence that the new owners would side with Conor over Dana other than assumptions and wishful thinking What would people think if Conor were to vacate the belt, beat Alvarez at LW, and then fight to reclaim the FW belt in early 2017 while holding on to the LW belt? Would that hold the same appeal as if he were to keep the FW belt for now and win a LW belt at 205? At the end of the day, he'd still be holding two belts - and as we've seen, a delay in McGregor's career isn't necessarily a bad thing. I've heard many people say that he could easily have lost to Diaz if he'd made it to UFC 200, without that extra few weeks of training.
JJayoo wrote: » About as legit as reading through YouTube comments, why post this rubbish?
wonderfullife wrote: » you can't compare Youtube comment section "nate won 1,2,3,4,5 conor McTapper ran the whole fight" and "Lord Conor McGoat sees stiffness" to a guy on twitter who CORRECTLY scooped big fight announcements before the mainstream MMA media. It's incomparable. The fact he gets cited by the Mainstream MMA media shows he's at least somewhat credible. Doesn't mean everything he says is gospel but it's not a comparable thing to Youtube comments.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » StringerBell wrote: » Pulling out of what? Easy to throw mud on twitter, not even being specific like. Reeks of ITK click-bait bollix I see, he means title defences in general. Aldo was one of the most active champs in the UFC right up until he had a bad run of injuries dropping his average FPY. Dunno why we need to knock one to build another up I hope he's full of sh!t on this one tbh. Unsubstantiated rumours of shenanigans get old very fast in any sport, and I certainly don't want to see a fighter like Aldo's image getting destroyed. Seems to me that ever since Lance Armstrong's fall from grace a few years ago, everything from scraps in school playgrounds to choosing the next pope is mired by doping allegations. :pac:
joshrogan wrote: » Just meant that a potential 145/155 superfight is off the cards if McGregor loses to Aldo, PPV #s wise no one will buy it whereas if McGregor fights Alvarez first he's guaranteed 2 massive pay days for himself and the UFC.