Official Conor McGregor thread (part 3) *Updated Warning in 1st Post Re:Boxing match

cloudatlas · 18-12-2016 01:35PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

That's 2 things that room of people just could not compute in a country of ''We'll throw you a parade for coming third in the Olympics".

Conor does it without disparaging the achievements of other athletes and deserved sporting heroes though.

EagererBeaver · 18-12-2016 01:39PM

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

Conors doing a Budweiser ad? Oh no, better think of the kiddies. Now back to rugby sponsored by Guinness and Heineken.

Was there much outrage about this?

Zero-Cool · 18-12-2016 01:41PM

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Was there much outrage about this?

Ireland banned it I believe.

cloudatlas · 18-12-2016 01:45PM

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

I do think it plays a part. It seems that a lot of active sports stars really admire his dedication and achievements, but people in certain positions treat him as a complete outsider. Conors doing a Budweiser ad? Oh no, better think of the kiddies. Now back to rugby sponsored by Guinness and Heineken.

He's treated differently, is all I'm saying. Were CAH-HAL Prendred to have enjoyed similar success I think they would be a lot more welcoming to someone they could relate to.

I haven't seen the award part that people are talking about, so I don't know if people really weren't clapping etc - I'm basing this on past articles and incidents such as the above.

Then again, Conors whole drawing power is that you either love him or hate him, maybe a lot of those in the crowd only tune in hoping he'll have his mouth shut ☺️

He won the award didn't he? I don't know what the reason was for the budweiser advert, Diageo own all those beers. I haven't warmed particularly to Cathal, nothing to do with accent.

EagererBeaver · 18-12-2016 01:49PM

Zero-Cool wrote: »

Ireland banned it I believe.

Never knew that. Daft.

18-12-2016 01:49PM

cloudatlas wrote: »

He won the award didn't he? I don't know what the reason was for the budweiser advert, Diageo own all those beers. I haven't warmed particularly to Cathal, nothing to do with accent.

It was a public vote, I honestly don't know if he had the same chance if some committee was deciding.

Brussels Sprout · 18-12-2016 02:41PM

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

It was a public vote, I honestly don't know if he had the same chance if some committee was deciding.

Not a hope. Perhaps if the actual sports people themselves were voting (judging from twitter a lot of them seem to have great respect for him) but definitely not from the blazers and pundits.

I'd love to see the numbers. Given that it was such a wide field (16 I think) I reckon 30% of the vote would have been enough to win it which would mean that more people would have voted for other people than voted for the winner (the same phenomenon happened in the Republican Party primaries where Trump won out of a a field of 16 people but didn't get the majority of the votes).

I'd say McGregor cleaned up with the under 30's and the fact that it was so easy to vote on-line would have helped with that demographic.

cloudatlas · 18-12-2016 02:55PM

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

It was a public vote, I honestly don't know if he had the same chance if some committee was deciding.

It's a bit of a moot point in that case. It probably just reflects your own personal problems with class issues/feelings.

finglashoop · 18-12-2016 03:00PM

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Not a hope. Perhaps if the actual sports people themselves were voting (judging from twitter a lot of them seem to have great respect for him) but definitely not from the blazers and pundits.

I'd love to see the numbers. Given that it was such a wide field (16 I think) I reckon 30% of the vote would have been enough to win it which would mean that more people would have voted for other people than voted for the winner (the same phenomenon happened in the Republican Party primaries where Trump won out of a a field of 16 people but didn't get the majority of the votes).

I'd say McGregor cleaned up with the under 30's and the fact that it was so easy to vote on-line would have helped with that demographic.

Just on second paragraph. Id be surprised if anyone in a field of sixteen managed to get a majority. Anything north of 10% could win

sonofenoch · 18-12-2016 03:24PM

I didn't see anyone not applauding in that clip posted earlier tbh.....where are they? I didn't see one

darced · 18-12-2016 03:33PM

This post has been deleted.

Wheeliebin30 · 18-12-2016 03:43PM

darced wrote: »

Did Conor use an excuse for losing to Diaz in that clip? I don't use excuses when I lose, I was sick but I wont use that as an excuse .

Never mentioned he was sick??

18-12-2016 03:48PM

cloudatlas wrote: »

It's a bit of a moot point in that case. It probably just reflects your own personal problems with class issues/feelings.

Perhaps, but I'm just going by the evidence at hand ☺️.

darced · 18-12-2016 03:57PM

This post has been deleted.

finglashoop · 18-12-2016 04:16PM

darced wrote: »

Did Conor use an excuse for losing to Diaz in that clip? I don't use excuses when I lose, I was sick but I wont use that as an excuse .

I think what he was saying was that he used no excuse for the loss. Went back and trained and got that one back - usually a fighter throws out excuses straight away. Saying it now so far removed is different. Thats how i picked up on it anyway

darced · 18-12-2016 04:29PM

This post has been deleted.

wonderfullife · 18-12-2016 04:45PM

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I'd love to see the numbers. Given that it was such a wide field (16 I think) I reckon 30% of the vote would have been enough to win it which would mean that more people would have voted for other people than voted for the winner (the same phenomenon happened in the Republican Party primaries where Trump won out of a a field of 16 people but didn't get the majority of the votes).

I'd say McGregor cleaned up with the under 30's and the fact that it was so easy to vote on-line would have helped with that demographic.

Conor has 17.9 million followers across Twitter, Instagram and Facebook and even allowing for cross-platform following, that's a huge (and passionate) fanbase.

I'd be surprised if it wasn't an absolute landslide.

I could easily see Conor polling 85-90%, due to sheer numbers. He has 3 times the population of Ireland following him on social media and the Poll was not geo-blocked.

The UFC pushed behind him on their social media too, linking to the poll. I'd be astonished if he didn't get over 65% of the entire vote and win by a clear 40%.

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Never mentioned he was sick??

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I've mentioned this before but I share the same doctor as his mam and way back in the summer before the rematch she was telling me Conor was in a seriously bad way with an infection before the first fight. Joe Rogan also raised the issue recently.

That's a valid excuse to pull out of a fight and maybe he should have pulled-out because both himself and Sage Northcutt have suffered huge 2nd round energy dumps after battling staph infections in camp.

It's pretty hard to pull out of a $10 million payday, when pulling out also costs the company a fortune, so he soldiered on and lost. Would he have lost anyway, in peak health? I'd say so, yep. He didn't take Nate seriously and unloaded on him with every shot.

It worked out well in the end. It's no coincidence that the Diaz rematch and Alvarez fight showed a lot more emphasis on footwork and counter-striking, as opposed to the Mendes/Diaz 1 fights where he winged haymakers trying to take their heads off with every punch.

darced · 18-12-2016 05:03PM

This post has been deleted.

finglashoop · 18-12-2016 05:32PM

darced wrote: »

Come on he couldn't wait to get it in there, he was using the 'I don't use excuses...........but' routine.

I'm just pointing it out to the excuse haters on this thread

Oh hes using an excuse alright.

kippy · 18-12-2016 09:53PM

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In fairness, you NEED some kind of reason, if only for your own thought processes, to justify losing, whether you make these reasons public or not is your own business.
If you don't then there's literally no point continuing to compete.
That's the same for everyone.

mdwexford · 19-12-2016 01:02AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

Then you've got clowns on social media from the world of Irish horse racing and Irish rowing saying "MMA is not a sport #disgrace".

Oh right. A horse running around a field at 35mph with a lad/girl on it's back, is a sport.... and in that sport you've had how many jockeys paralysed and die in recent years?

Rein it in there before you sound just as ignorant as they are.

wonderfullife · 19-12-2016 03:35AM

mdwexford wrote: »

Rein it in there before you sound just as ignorant as they are.

To clarify:

Horse racing and MMA are both sports entertainment at the highest levels, completely reliant on sponsorship and tv revenues; whereas a 9 year-old sitting on a pony learning to trot or sitting on a mat in a gym learning jiujitsu is the true essence of sport to my mind.

There's very few sights less thrilling in the world of sport than an exciting finish up the Cheltenham Hill and the horsemanship and skill of the likes of Ruby Walsh and Dickie Johnson is exceptional. They make it look easy but it takes some balance, some reflexes and some feel. They're properly skilled athletes.

But both MMA and horse racing are extremely high risk activities at the professional level and you only need to take one look at Kieran Kelly, who didn't live all that far from me, and Joao Carvahlo to know that it's dangerous. It's been years since I've seen the incident that cost Kieran his life but it didn't look a particularly heavy fall. You've got Freddy Tylicki recently paralysed after his horse clipped heels with another and obviously JT McNamara (RIP) and I've known stable lads and work riders to be seriously injured from falls and kicks.

It's a dangerous, violent business. Both of them.

What is and isn't a sport is subjective but if someone from racing wants to argue the reason MMA is not a sport is because it's "barbaric" then they'd want to be ready with a decent reply when it's pointed out their own sport is rife with serious injuries and deaths - to horse and human alike.

I guarantee both Ruby Walsh and Conor McGregor will tell you what they do for a living is dangerous and you need to be slightly mad to do it at a professional level.

gitzy16v · 19-12-2016 03:40AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

To clarify:

It's a dangerous, violent business. Both of them.

Your hard to argue with:D....horse racing is not violent though,cruel maybe,not violent///I agree with everything else you said:D

StringerBell · 19-12-2016 03:41AM

Pun intended?

wonderfullife · 19-12-2016 04:13AM

Any serious, legitimate argument for MMA not being a pure sport needs to start with the sentence: "The ranking systems are decided by journalists sitting in their boxers eating Doritos". Then we know to take the argument seriously and the answer is "You've got a good point"

If it starts (and ends) with "It's dangerous, people can die", then they immediately need to apply that evenly and soon they'll be left with almost nothing classified as a sport working on that one assertion.

Factually, one of the riskiest sports in the world to do at an amateur level on a casual basis is badminton and that's not even a contact sport. The sudden lunges, exertions, explosive movements and stop-start nature of it apparently puts unusual stress on the heart and surrounding cardiac muscles. A Mumbai University study placed it Number 1 in sports-related fatalities.

Anyway, in other news I liked Max Holloways response to Conors interview. Not too flashy or confrontational just a simple "It's about how we match up now". Wouldn't mind seeing that at 155 after Conor fights the winner of Khabib/Tony. That's if he doesn't fight Woodley, Floyd or The Rock in some wrestling comeback storyline first.

19-12-2016 02:16PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

Any serious, legitimate argument for MMA not being a pure sport needs to start with the sentence: "The ranking systems are decided by journalists sitting in their boxers eating Doritos". Then we know to take the argument seriously and the answer is "You've got a good point"

If it starts (and ends) with "It's dangerous, people can die", then they immediately need to apply that evenly and soon they'll be left with almost nothing classified as a sport working on that one assertion.

Factually, one of the riskiest sports in the world to do at an amateur level on a casual basis is badminton and that's not even a contact sport. The sudden lunges, exertions, explosive movements and stop-start nature of it apparently puts unusual stress on the heart and surrounding cardiac muscles. A Mumbai University study placed it Number 1 in sports-related fatalities.

Anyway, in other news I liked Max Holloways response to Conors interview. Not too flashy or confrontational just a simple "It's about how we match up now". Wouldn't mind seeing that at 155 after Conor fights the winner of Khabib/Tony. That's if he doesn't fight Woodley, Floyd or The Rock in some wrestling comeback storyline first.

In fairness people are going to into this "its not a sport" argument.

"an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment." - definition of sport.

By very definition MMA is a sport. It requires physical exertion/skill and it does entertain.

cloudatlas · 19-12-2016 05:28PM

Ye can promote your sport without putting down other sports or sporting achievements.

Tinie · 19-12-2016 05:34PM

Remember when this thread was actually about Conor McGregor?

martyos121 · 19-12-2016 05:42PM

Tinie wrote: »

Remember when this thread was actually about Conor McGregor?

Honestly, no.

paulieeye · 19-12-2016 06:00PM

Tinie wrote: »

Remember when this thread was actually about Conor McGregor?

who the fcuk is da??!?

Official Conor McGregor thread (part 3) *Updated Warning in 1st Post Re:Boxing match

Comments