MrStuffins wrote: » I never said he was untouchable either.
MrStuffins wrote: » There's nobody in the division to touch the man.
sonofenoch wrote: » Sounds a bit nasaly in his latest interview ....cold ...covid....**** off with that
Mellor wrote: » Two posts ago. Are you really arguing that the above doesn't imply untouchable?
MrStuffins wrote: » I'm not the one nitpicking.Nobody in the division can touch him, this does not mean he is untouchable. It also does not mean he is unbeatable. Give it up man! You tried to claim I said he was unbeatable when I clearly didn't. I even went through the trouble of explaining myself in detail in a subsequent post. Now you're nitpicking, but accusing me of it. If it means that much to you to be right in the internet, there's nothing I can do.
Dave0301 wrote: » Nobody in that division can touch him... Is that not the very definition of him being untouchable in the lightweight division Maybe there is a level of nuance and detail that is beyond me here :pac:
MrStuffins wrote: » I'm not the one nitpicking. Nobody in the division can touch him, this does not mean he is untouchable. It also does not mean he is unbeatable. Give it up man! You tried to claim I said he was unbeatable when I clearly didn't. I even went through the trouble of explaining myself in detail in a subsequent post. Now you're nitpicking, but accusing me of it. If it means that much to you to be right in the internet, there's nothing I can do.
rusty cole wrote: » I think you mean he's untouchable by those within the ranks as they are and you are correct. This is the same way Aldo went for many years, until a newbie climbed the ranks and figured him out. Yes I agree with you, that's what it will/would take because nobody in the present class have it for him, best shot though would be a rematch with mcgregor if he blitz's poirier on the assumption that is Conor mcgregor didnt give him his best in there where as Khabib did and it still went to 4 rounds...
MrStuffins wrote: » Nobody in the division can touch him, this does not mean he is untouchable. It also does not mean he is unbeatable. Give it up man! You tried to claim I said he was unbeatable when I clearly didn't.
Mellor wrote: » Two posts ago. Are you really arguing that the above doesn't imply untouchable? Or just pointing out it's not the exactly phrase you used, which seems a bit nitpicky. So, there's nobody to touch the man, nobody will trouble him. But you are NOT implying he is unbeatable. Honestly, I think that's a contradiction. You obviously don't somehow. Happy to leave it there, as it's going off topic.
Whelo79 wrote: » Insert confused face here! I can't believe a person actually typed this out and thinks it makes any sense!
MrStuffins wrote: » Correction: Khabib is miles ahead of the rest of that division. And nobody will trouble him. Conor might be second, but their fight showed you that it's not close.
Mellor wrote: » You are watching far too long to think anyone is unbeatable. People though Ronda ws unbeatable at one point. :rolleyes:
MrStuffins wrote: » I don't care to be honest. I originally said: to which Mellor said Where one came from the other, only Mellor can tell you. I've explained myself on the thread. If you can't keep up with it, that's on you.
LollipopJimmy wrote: » I see you're taking the opportunity to apologise to absolutely nobody. To be fair it hadn't been articulated well in the first post.
Whelo79 wrote: » Edit: I see your explanation but you can't expect people to interpret 'what you type' to be the same as 'what you mean in your head'.
walshb wrote: » If Khabib grew some balls and moved up to really challenge himself then he could be very touchable..
MrStuffins wrote: » That's the thing. Saying Khabib beats everyone at 155 doesn't mean he doesn't get killed by Usman or someone else not currently in the division. Not sure how many times or ways I need to explain it.
Whelo79 wrote: » Like has been said already, your original post lacked clarity, and is (and was) easily misconstrued. I don't know why you got so salty about it.
MrStuffins wrote: » I didn't think the Conor McGregor thread could be as bad aa the old days....... I was wrong :pac:
rusty cole wrote: » No mcgregor on embedded 2. He is giving others the light id say.
moneyman wrote: » It's been a while since I ventured into the MMA forum on boards, glad to see the usual suspects are all still here winding each other up over nothing! Just need a subtle dig at Conor from Walshb now and we're all set.
walshb wrote: » At least we know where you stand...stirring it nicely
moneyman wrote: » Sorry Walshy, couldn't resist! Maybe you've changed :pac: