Mellor wrote: » Seen that on Reddit, somebody pointed out they missed Pettis. 462 days to his first defense.
The Nal wrote: » He was injured and then busy with UFC during that time though.
Mellor wrote: » Injured, then of TUF. Not sure what difference that makes though, Mir was also injured, severely at that.
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.
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.
McGregor sits on the sidelines uninjured and more than capable of defending "his" title.
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.
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.
Subcomandante Marcos wrote: » Then they would and should be stripped of their UFC title. This isn't rocket science. Defend of vacate.
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!
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.
#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.
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.
pgj2015 wrote: » joe.ie really are a joke, that video is from a few years ago haha
Useful.Idiot wrote: » McGregor put it up this morning and they mention his baby so gonna say no to that one
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.
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. .
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
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.
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?
The Nal wrote: » Poor Khabib has earned the average industrial wage for his entire career.
Effects wrote: » Surely you can argue that if you never defend your belt, for whatever reason, then you aren't a real champion.
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
EagererBeaver wrote: » Ah you're being deliberately disingenuous Mellor. You know "defend the belt" refers to actually competing, rather than competing successfully.
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?
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.
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
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.
