Depp wrote: » Love how a few weeks ago diaz was the best thing since sliced bread now hes only ''average''
Depp wrote: » agree completely there, just funny how certain people on here ''word'' things when mcgregor is involved. id rank eddie as a better fighter than diaz but diaz' main advantages over mcgregor were reach and his chin, neither of which alvarez has
StringerBell wrote: » Who said this? Who are these certain people? At least have the balls to back up what you are claiming and name them instead of hiding behind generalisations. In fact, who said Diaz was the best thing since sliced bread! He was, and is a bad match up for Conor, that doesn't change his entire career to that point. He is not a top 5 LW in my eyes, but it doesn't mean he is average either. He is a top 10 LW quite easily. He is a worse match up then Alvarez for sure, and though you will get people who are going to pick the other guy no matter who McGregor is fighting plenty are capable of objective analysis. The bias cuts both ways, I get labelled a "hater" even though I have given credit to McGregor and would make him a strong favorite against Alvarez. Tarring people with the same brush and deciding you are either column A or column B and nothing in between is not clever and unlikely to foster good discussion, I thought Conor would win the first Diaz fight given the lack of prep time Diaz had, plus Conor being a superior fighter overall. I was wrong, I didn't think he would be able to fight the kind of fight he fought in the second Diaz fight and get the win, I was wrong again. He was excellent and redeemed himself, I don't think Eddie makes it out of round 1 v Conor. Going on my past Eddie will obviously win but I would be astounded, he simply ships too many punches and Conor is too accurate for him, he does not have Diaz chin and not too many will be able to take flush punches from McGregor at 155. His experience and scrappy nature could come in to play, he might be able to turn it into a wrestling match of sorts to avoid the stand up but I make Conor a heavy favourite. I wandered off point here, but its been that kind of day sorry.
newbbieb wrote: » Its justs a bit concerning that in his last fight with Diaz he said he weighed 167 in the cage and he still gassed at that weight,nearly all the LWs,definitely the top ones will weigh considerably more than 167 in the cage and they won't gas.
Its well documented that the cuts he makes to 45 are tough, it seems a 150 pound division would be ideal for him.
Mellor wrote: » We don't know if that is true tbh. It requires the assumption that he didn't cut any weight. Which I'm still not convinced of. For a start, it contradicts the fact that; It was always presented that he cuts to 145 from 165. And rehydrates back to that ball park. People always talk about his size advantage at FW. But there's no way he put on only two pounds between 194 and 202. He was visibly bigger and in his own words had lost his abs. I'm obvious not his nutritionist, so i've no idea what he actually weighed. But I'd be pretty sure that one of the above two claims is false. It could be either tbf, but due to the circumstances and the evidence for each. My gut tells me that his FW weight is the correct one.
wonderfullife wrote: » A lot of Conors detractors like to say he cuts a boat-load of weight as the reason he's the FW champion. It's something they like to say to belittle his achievements. Is it true that he cuts a lot of weight? Yes! But i've seen some fighters and critics say he cuts from as high as 180lbs which is ridiculous!!
1. Most FW's cut from over 160lbs. 2. I'd be deeply suspicious of anybody claiming Conor walks around at 175+.
There isn't a hope in hell Conor rehydrated to over 170lbs in the Aldo title fight. He was at best between 160-165lbs and i personally feel he was high 150's.
Mellor wrote: » He cuts what he can. Just like most other fighters. The guys fighting undersized (Frankie, Gunni) in their respective division are the acceptations. Anyone whose with an educated opinion understand that I'd guess. "Walks around" is a vague term. To most it refers to their pre-cut, "normal" weight. Which is a indication of their cage weight. The weight they balloon up to a la Hatton or Hendricks is meaningless in terms of cage weight. Who said anything about 170 in cage? That's a bit much imo. On the other hand, high 150s contradicts the idea of a tough cut. 12-13 lbs isn't a tough cut. Something in the 160s makes infinitely more sense than either of those options. The issue is, there are very few facts, only lots of unreliable statements. JK mentioned in the past about turned 145 into 165 post weighin. Conor mentioned he was 170-72 (walkaround) to the mayor of Vegas during the world tour. Conor said that he was 167 in cage for the fight with Nate. It's would need a very odd set of circumstances for all three of those statements to be true.
wonderfullife wrote: » There's a simple solution to the whole weight-debate. When they are Octagon-side getting the vaseline applied and gloves checked, they should be on a weighing scale. I'd say the reason the UFC don't want to do this is that it takes away the mystique for the casual MMA fan who doesn't have a notion about cutting weight.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » For many years I was on that diet myself for health reasons and found it beneficial in many ways but I also found my energy went through the floor after a month . Was out of breath much faster than normal etc but as I was still researching everything I could about the paleo diet I began to find a few cases where athletes were discussing their experiences with paleo and almost without fail their stories were the same, that initially they found it great for muscle definition etc but their cardio and energy really dipped.
If someone is avoiding carbs well that means they have to get their calories from fat, and interestingly, when Miesha was on with Rogan before 200 she was going on about how she was on a 'High fat diet' which is really just another way of saying the Plaeo diet, as Paleo has to be high fat, just like the Ketogenic diet (no carbs means you have to get your calories from fat).
Mr. Manager wrote: » Just out of curiosity, where do people think Conor goes if he gets knocked out inside the first minute by Alvarez? Go back to defend the belt once and move up permanently? Go back to defend the belt and remain at 145? Something else??
Mellor wrote: » We don't know if that is true tbh. It requires the assumption that he didn't cut any weight. Which I'm still not convinced of. For a start, it contradicts the fact that; It was always presented that he cuts to 145 from 165. And rehydrates back to that ball park. People always talk about his size advantage at FW. But there's no way he put on only two pounds between 194 and 202. He was visibly bigger and in his own words had lost his abs. I'm obviously not his nutritionist, so i've no idea what he actually weighed. But I'd be pretty sure that one of the above two claims is false. It could be either tbf, but due to the circumstances and the evidence for each. My gut tells me that his FW weight is the correct one.
Mellor wrote: » Back to 145 for the foreseeable future imo. If he forgets about 155 for a bit, and loses a little to make the 145 cut repeatable then there is some great matches.Aldo rematch, Max Holloway rematch, Pettis Frankie Edgar Cruz superfight New 2018 contender/Rematch with one of the above
wonderfullife wrote: » Mellor wrote: » He cuts what he can. Just like most other fighters. The guys fighting undersized (Frankie, Gunni) in their respective division are the acceptations. Anyone whose with an educated opinion understand that I'd guess. "Walks around" is a vague term. To most it refers to their pre-cut, "normal" weight. Which is a indication of their cage weight. The weight they balloon up to a la Hatton or Hendricks is meaningless in terms of cage weight. Who said anything about 170 in cage? That's a bit much imo. On the other hand, high 150s contradicts the idea of a tough cut. 12-13 lbs isn't a tough cut. Something in the 160s makes infinitely more sense than either of those options. The issue is, there are very few facts, only lots of unreliable statements. JK mentioned in the past about turned 145 into 165 post weighin. Conor mentioned he was 170-72 (walkaround) to the mayor of Vegas during the world tour. Conor said that he was 167 in cage for the fight with Nate. It's would need a very odd set of circumstances for all three of those statements to be true. There's a simple solution to the whole weight-debate. When they are Octagon-side getting the vaseline applied and gloves checked, they should be on a weighing scale. So we'd have the official fight weight known (155lbs in this case) and then what weight Conor & Eddie are actually fighting at. I'd say the reason the UFC don't want to do this is that it takes away the mystique for the casual MMA fan who doesn't have a notion about cutting weight. There's a fair 80% of casual MMA fans who believe Conor went from 145 flat to 170 flat to take on Nate. Whereas the reality is he just added a few pounds of muscle and was an under-sized welterweight. A side-by-side of Conor and Gunni shows how under-sized Conor is for Welterweight, given Gunni himself is one of the smallest in the division and he's got a big size advantage on Conor.
Awesomeness wrote: » It doesn't happen because it would be incredibly dangerous. Fighters would still cut and then be getting in to the cage dehydrated which would lead to much worse brain trauma and injuries. They have recently moved weigh ins forward to earlier in the day to give fighters MORE time to re hydrate to lessen the chances of this
finglashoop wrote: » Does the earlier weigh in benefit the fighter making the lesser cut? Or would it benefit the fighter killing himself to make weight? I would presume its the former but can see it from both sides.
newbbieb wrote: » Benefits the fighter making the bigger cut because he has more time to rehydrate,i don't know how it could benefit the fighter making the lesser cut,its safer all around for the fighters but it just encourages even bigger weight cuts imo.
finglashoop wrote: » I would have thought the fighter making the lesser cut just recovers better but can see a bigger cut with more time is also beneficial, depending how hard the cut is would they fully recover? Edit: I agree the longer time is better/ safer for all but will result in bigger cuts so is that putting them back to square one?
newbbieb wrote: » I know Conor likes to embellish and i'm sure he is prone to some lies here and there in the name of selling the fights etc. but he was pretty relaxed in the post fight presser and he said he weighed himself before he left the house for the fight and he was 167. To believe he was lying here i think you have to believe in an altogether different level of deception from Conor,which i find hard to believe,but like you say its not fact but you have to be willing to believe Conor is going above and beyond to deceive about his weight to be talking like this post fight.
markc91 wrote: » Would tickets really start at $200? Would there be any chance of getting them?
Mellor wrote: » I don't really considering there to be anything wrong with that deception tbh. He benefits him to downplay his weight. Same way Diaz's camp where talking about 200lbs+. It benefits them to exaggerate them. It's fair game imo. Here's what I was talking about;https://twitter.com/john_kavanagh/status/556573889464401921 That was after the weigh-in with Siver. JK say he'd be 165lbs. It's hard to believe he was 165 vrs Siver, and only 167 vrs Nate.When Sonnen claimed Connor was 172lbs 8 days out. Conor said he walks around at 172 lbs but not 8 days out.When he met the Mayor of Vegas. He said he was about 170lbs. After 202. He said he tried and wasn't able to get his weight past 168, even though he had put on a a bit of a fat belly. As I said, I'm not his nutritionist, it's all speculation. I just find it hard to believe that all the above claims were accurate.
