UFC 196: McGregor v Diaz

JJayoo · 06-03-2016 02:03PM

Hard to know what McGs immediate future holds. Of course he still holds the FW belt but the prospect of dieting down to a stick figure must be very daunting both physically and mentally.

His shot at RDA and the belt is surely gone, and while 155 should be his home, it will hards for him to slot into that division after losing to Nate who, IMO, isn't a top 5 guy.

Surprised he lost but happy it was to Diaz and that Diaz made a good chunk of cash

shrapnel222 · 06-03-2016 02:05PM

eagle eye wrote: »

Anybody know what the actual weight of the fighters were last night, do they weight them before the bout? I had a feeling this might happen when I seen them get into the octagon. Conor looked very lean like he didn't add weight since the weigh-in. Diaz look a little chunkier. I wouldn't be surprised if Diaz had a big weight advantage.

unfortunately they don't. The fact that McG weighed in at 168 and Nate at 169 seems to indicate they hardly cut at all. wouldn't be surprised if they fought at 173 and 175 respectively (pure speculation though, but they hardly looked any different on fight night than they did at the weigh ins).

John_D80 · 06-03-2016 02:05PM

Gamebred wrote: »

I dunno man I watched it back thinking Conor dominated that first rd,he didnt on reflection he was hunting Diaz for sure but Nate was moving out range.

#

I'll have another look later.

A loss like this just really smarts for me as a fan though, so maybe I'm not seeing it clearly. There is no shame in losing to a fighter like Nate Diaz but its indisputable that, as an MMA fighter, McGregor is on a different level to Nate.

His own ego and over confidence in his power is what beat him. He needs to start approaching fights with a discernable gameplan in future.

sonic85 · 06-03-2016 02:06PM

I think people need to relax on this reach thing. It was two inches. Two. Jon jones had a 12 inch advantage over cormier. 2 is hardly insurmountable. It's a weak excuse

The Sparrow · 06-03-2016 02:08PM

John_D80 wrote: »

#

I'll have another look later.

A loss like this just really smarts for me as a fan though, so maybe I'm not seeing it clearly. There is no shame in losing to a fighter like Nate Diaz but its indisputable that, as an MMA fighter, McGregor is on a different level to Nate.

His own ego and over confidence in his power is what beat him. He needs to start approaching fights with a discernable gameplan in future.

Wow. :eek:

LaGlisse · 06-03-2016 02:09PM

JJayoo wrote: »

Hard to know what McGs immediate future holds. Of course he still holds the FW belt but the prospect of dieting down to a stick figure must be very daunting both physically and mentally.

His shot at RDA and the belt is surely gone, and while 155 should be his home, it will hards for him to slot into that division after losing to Nate who, IMO, isn't a top 5 guy.

Surprised he lost but happy it was to Diaz and that Diaz made a good chunk of cash

He's gonna have lost quite a bit of leverage with MMA top brass,won't be running any games for a while.
He thought he was out of FW but he's been pulled back in now. He's a fight or 2 away from a LW title shot too.
Diaz fight was all downside in fairness, he was never getting credit if he won,but this loss is going to cost him financially and reputation wise

John_D80 · 06-03-2016 02:09PM

The Sparrow wrote: »

Wow. :eek:

Nothing besides wow and a silly face or would ya like to talk about it?

price690 · 06-03-2016 02:10PM

floorpie wrote: »

I've tried to find a good discussion on this fight across the internet. I've tried Reddit, Sherdog, Misc etc, but there's nothing but fanboys on either side bickering. I thought I'd find some good discussion here seeing as some of you are involved in Irish MMA, but...well.

Conor lost because he couldn't cope with Nate's range throughout each round. It seems that he had had no prep for fighting a rangey boxer and assumed he'd figure it out on the fly. Funny thing is, Nate did exactly what he always does, and it was still successful. It didn't come down to ground game, or down to one punch, or whatever: he was just consistently out of striking range and was getting countered over and over. His usual game of cutting off angles with roundhouses didn't apply because Nate just stood his ground and worked the range advantage.

I've been despairing all morning at the analysis of his ground game though, and of his training partners. He didn't lose because of poor ground game - he has excellent BJJ - he lost because he was half unconscious due to Nate's cross before the takedown. JK and the SBG guys are high level, and took Conor to where he is, so the criticisms of them are ridiculous.

Having said that, it was just epic cringe seeing Ido in his corner. Maybe some of you know the team and know whether Ido is well integrated, but ffs, when the fight had been changed to a completely different body type he shouldn't have had a flippin exercise scam artist taking up so much of his time. It's Conor's choice, but it looks to me like he lost simply due to technical preparation.

You will see plenty attempts at similar debate on here amongst all of the bickering. I agree with you wholeheartedly. His reach is his wealth at FW but when its negated we will see how good a fighter McGregor is.

You say Kavanagh & Co. are high level, it takes something special to take a guy to those heights in UFC. But surely there must be questions asked about strategy and corner advice last night?

Steering the lad away from his search for a highlight reel KO. Does Kavanagh have alot of influence on McGregors prep or is he a hired hand along for the ride? I think its a fair question to ask. Looks like McGregor needs a strong voice in his ear when he starts deviating from effective strategy.

You said it yourself, the blueprint to beat Diaz is there for all to see.

Gamebred · 06-03-2016 02:13PM

You'd wonder if he sparred any lanky southpaws for this camp? Anyone know? Cant think of anyone in SBG of the top of my head.

floorpie · 06-03-2016 02:13PM

sonic85 wrote: »

I think people need to relax on this reach thing. It was two inches. Two. Jon jones had a 12 inch advantage over cormier. 2 is hardly insurmountable. It's a weak excuse

?

Reach was the reason Nate won, whether it was 2 inches or not. And just to be clear, that doesn't mean "Nate won because he had a natural advantage" - it's not an "excuse" for Nate winning - it just means that Conor wasn't able to deal with his reach. He couldn't get into striking range and was getting countered on exchanges due to his positioning.

06-03-2016 02:14PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5wXXb1IaBY

Looking back at this shameful abuse by McGregor against Diaz just a couple of days ago I'm delighted for Diaz.
There's bravado and confidence but what McGregor displayed there was just pure crass.

Lukker- · 06-03-2016 02:15PM

I think the defeat will be good for him at the end of the day.

When he eventually does move up, it shows that he cannot fight the same way.

Hopefully it will humble him too, whatever about the majority of his trash talk, people are sick of hearing about him talking about money. This should take him back to planet earth.

price690 · 06-03-2016 02:16PM

sonic85 wrote: »

I think people need to relax on this reach thing. It was two inches. Two. Jon jones had a 12 inch advantage over cormier. 2 is hardly insurmountable. It's a weak excuse

When he has relied on it in his past fights to such a significant extent then of course its relevant.

Its not being used as an excuse, a great fighter will overcome obviously. But it does point to the fact that Conor probably enjoyed this significant advantage in his previous bouts.

He has enjoyed a significant reach advantage at FW. When its neutralised then maybe he needs to add more to his game. Reach is the key attribute for a fighter like McGregor who relies on his striking so much.

McGregor has admitted himself thats hes not in possession of huge power, rather its his precision. Timing and precision beats wayward power. And when you have greater reach it allows you to tee off alot easier. You are not as susceptible to eating shots when you try to land your own.

Its pretty simple.

Gamebred · 06-03-2016 02:16PM

glasso wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5wXXb1IaBY

Looking back at this shameful abuse by McGregor against Diaz just a couple of days ago I'm delighted for Diaz.
There's bravado and confidence but what McGregor displayed there was just pure crass.

Perfectly entitled to that opinion,one thing you fail to realise is that Nate is no angel himself,

Why are you offended by that interview? its set up to create promotional fireworks Nate and Conor were paid fortunes between them to conduct this media circus in order to sell ppvs,I really cant get over people taking them one liner Jabs from the wwe phrase book as offensive as a reason to wish ill will on either of them.

The Sparrow · 06-03-2016 02:16PM

John_D80 wrote: »

Nothing besides wow and a silly face or would ya like to talk about it?

After last night, I have no comprehension of how anyone can say that it is indisputable that Conor McGregor is a better MMA fighter than Nate Diaz.

Diaz disputed it by destroying Conor about 8 hours ago.

sonic85 · 06-03-2016 02:19PM

Gamebred wrote: »

Watched it again,first rd was closer than I thought tbh Conor couldnt find his range at all 2 or 3 nice left hands but didnt budge Nate,

The stupid Capoeira kicks complete waste of time your not going to highlight reel somebody with one them at this level sorry,

Conor was swinging wildly missing horribly,start of the 2nd round he didnt look to have much energy Diaz stiff jab caused serious trouble,fighting on instinct then when he got rocked,

I think the main problem here was the reach and height difference,he had no answer to it,it was a good stand up fight but it was like Diaz let him gas himself known all he had to do was avoid a big shot and finish strong.

I agree with most of this except for the reach bit.

I thought conor was over extending himself quite a bit in that first round. He landed some nice shots that didn't really hurt Diaz but got over confident and paid for it in the second.

The kicks are a total waste of time and energy but it's part of the package with mcgregor. I'd much rather see him throw more orthodox stuff and hurt fighters than throw wild stuff that'll only come off once in 5 tries. He really should've been attacking Diazs leg last night

newballsplease · 06-03-2016 02:20PM

Sky sports don't report on UFC at all ?

floorpie · 06-03-2016 02:20PM

price690 wrote: »

You will see plenty attempts at similar debate on here amongst all of the bickering. I agree with you wholeheartedly. His reach is his wealth at FW but when its negated we will see how good a fighter McGregor is.

You say Kavanagh & Co. are high level, it takes something special to take a guy to those heights in UFC. But surely there must be questions asked about strategy and corner advice last night?

Steering the lad away from his search for a highlight reel KO. Does Kavanagh have alot of influence on McGregors prep or is he a hired hand along for the ride? I think its a fair question to ask. Looks like McGregor needs a strong voice in his ear when he starts deviating from effective strategy.

You said it yourself, the blueprint to beat Diaz is there for all to see.

I don't think he was going for a highlight reel KO as people are saying at all. I think he couldn't get into comfortable striking range throughout, and realised it very quickly. It completely stuffed his usual roundhouse/teep game. So it might look like he was biding his time, but I think it was more a case of "what the hell do I do now".

Conor is only where he is because of the SBG guys, there's nothing 'hired hand' about it. Ido is a hired hand obviously.

As far as I'm aware, Conor didn't have all of his guys in Vegas for some of the time and was training with Ido. When the opponent was changed to Nate, if he didn't train for that body-type with his SBG camp and spent time walking ropes with Ido then I'm not surprised that he lost. It looks to me like a lack of prep for Nate's style combined with a freak-out due to this in round 1.

John_D80 · 06-03-2016 02:21PM

The Sparrow wrote: »

After last night, I have no comprehension of how anyone can say that it is indisputable that Conor McGregor is a better MMA fighter than Nate Diaz.

Diaz disputed it by destroying Conor about 8 hours ago.

McGregor was the architect of his own demise in fairness.

If he had aproached that fight with a gameplan, less ego, and more respect for such a dangerous opponent, he would have won a very decisive victory.

Diaz is a very one dimensional striker who has big holes in his style. RDA, a far less dynamic striker than McGregor literally disected Diaz with relative ease.

I would most definitely say McGregor is a more complete and better MMA fighter than Diaz and history will surely support that IMO.

sonic85 · 06-03-2016 02:24PM

price690 wrote: »

When he has relied on it in his past fights to such a significant extent then of course its relevant.

Its not being used as an excuse, a great fighter will overcome obviously. But it does point to the fact that Conor probably enjoyed this significant advantage in his previous bouts.

He has enjoyed a significant reach advantage at FW. When its neutralised then maybe he needs to add more to his game. Reach is the key attribute for a fighter like McGregor who relies on his striking so much.

McGregor has admitted himself thats hes not in possession of huge power, rather its his precision. Timing and precision beats wayward power. And when you have greater reach it allows you to tee off alot easier. You are not as susceptible to eating shots when you try to land your own.

Its pretty simple.

Plenty of fighters have little or no issue with a reach disadvantage. If conor is supposedly an elite fighter - two inches is nothing yet people are coming in here claiming it was some massive issue last night that he couldn't get over. He landed plenty of shots on Diaz - it wasnt reach that did in conor last night.

Tom lawlor is a journey man fighter and had a 5 inch reach disadvantage last night and got robbed. He didn't have huge issues with those 5 inches

Paully D · 06-03-2016 02:25PM

newballsplease wrote: »

Sky sports don't report on UFC at all ?

They don't have the rights, therefore it doesn't exist. You can't switch Sky Sports News on without hearing about Champions League football for years, but as soon as they lost the rights to BT Sport that was the end of it. :pac:

I think they'll make a big play for the UFC rights next time around and if they get it you won't be able to move without hearing about UFC on Sky Sports.

StringerBell · 06-03-2016 02:26PM

What is the theory behind Conor being a better mma fighter? He has shown his left hand, so his striking is top class, his accuracy and that power in the lower weight classes especialy is lethal. What else has he shown though? Would it not also be fair to say McGregor is a very one dimensional striker with big holes in his style?

Conor is an elite striker, not convinced by any other aspect of his game though as he has not had to use it in fairness, and when he did need to come up with something different, a different approach was needed against Diaz other then just loading up and trying to get a KO with each punch he came up short.

The Sparrow · 06-03-2016 02:26PM

John_D80 wrote: »

McGregor was the architect of his own demise in fairness.

If he had aproached that fight with a gameplan, less ego, and more respect for such a dangerous opponent, he would have won a very decisive victory.

Diaz is a very one dimensional striker who has big holes in his style. RDA, a far less dynamic striker than McGregor literally disected Diaz with relative ease.

I would most definitely say McGregor is a more complete and better MMA fighter than Diaz and history will surely support that IMO.

Not at 170. I hate to agree with Nate Diaz but all Conor has proven so far is that he is extremely good at cutting weight and fighting guys that are much smaller than him.

This was our first opportunity to see him against a more evenly matched opponent and look what happened. And as you correctly say, Diaz isn't even really a top competitor.

StringerBell · 06-03-2016 02:28PM

stephenl15 wrote: »

Yeah sure all he did was beat the p4p no.1 who was unbeaten in 10 years and was fighting the no.6 LW which is Conors natural division, the thinking being it was a LW fight at WW. Crazy to think that:rolleyes:

He had never had a fight at LW in the UFC though, so to say it is his natural division is ok, but we don't know where he falls in that division right now. A loss to Diaz doesn't look great on his cv but its not the end of the world either.

He is a natural LW, but him beating the FW champ meant nothing when taking on an experienced LW contender in all honesty, and that is coming from someone who expected Conor to win.

JustTheOne · 06-03-2016 02:30PM

StringerBell wrote: »

What is the theory behind Conor being a better mma fighter? He has shown his left hand, so his striking is top class, his accuracy and that power in the lower weight classes especialy is lethal. What else has he shown though? Would it not also be fair to say McGregor is a very one dimensional striker with big holes in his style?

Conor is an elite striker, not convinced by any other aspect of his game though as he has not had to use it in fairness, and when he did need to come up with something different, a different approach was needed against Diaz other then just loading up and trying to get a KO with each punch he came up short.

His ground work against mende's and Holloway.

You should check out those fights for the first time.

06-03-2016 02:31PM

Gamebred wrote: »

Perfectly entitled to that opinion,one thing you fail to realise is that Nate is no angel himself,

Why are you offended by that interview? its set up to create promotional fireworks Nate and Conor were paid fortunes between them to conduct this media circus in order to sell ppvs,I really cant get over people taking them one liner Jabs from the wwe phrase book as offensive as a reason to wish ill will on either of them.

McLoser lording it over him with his monetary prowess is repugnant. What if a rich dude from D4 drove up to crumlin 5 years ago, pulled up to the McBeard and said - "I pay your dole man, you can thank me for that". How would that go down - what's so different here?

On top of that Diaz is obviously not the sharpest tool in the box intellectually and beard again hitting him on that. Diaz walked out of this interview. But beat him where it counts.

price690 · 06-03-2016 02:31PM

floorpie wrote: »

I don't think he was going for a highlight reel KO as people are saying at all. I think he couldn't get into comfortable striking range throughout, and realised it very quickly. It completely stuffed his usual roundhouse/teep game. So it might look like he was biding his time, but I think it was more a case of "what the hell do I do now".

Conor is only where he is because of the SBG guys, there's nothing 'hired hand' about it. Ido is a hired hand obviously.

As far as I'm aware, Conor didn't have all of his guys in Vegas for some of the time and was training with Ido. When the opponent was changed to Nate, if he didn't train for that body-type with his SBG camp and spent time walking ropes with Ido then I'm not surprised that he lost. It looks to me like a lack of prep for Nate's style combined with a freak-out due to this in round 1.

He threw countless uppercuts that missed, and whilst he was over reaching in his jab and power shots he did have some joy in round 1 in fairness. I think he was rattled a small bit for 2 reasons 1) the fact he couldn't find his range with the ease that he usually can. 2) The fact his power shots that did land resulted in Nate still pouring forward and showing excellent punch resistance.

My point is that none of this stuff is a mystery. Everyone knew Diaz is a durable bloke. Its also obvious that his physical dimensions would provide Conor with issues he may not have dealth with in some time.

Preparation preparation preparation. Why the hell is he spending more time working with Ido Portal? Where were the SBG guys in the build up to the fight? The RDA withdrawl threw the playbook out the window sure, but surely a coach is with his fighter 7-10 days out from an important fight?

Is McGregor calling his own shots in this case? Maybe a little bif of a presumption that Kavanagh's input isn't as critical as it should be?

Spending his time in vegas rolling around with Ido Portal instead of his SBG coaches just screams stupidity.

Gamebred · 06-03-2016 02:32PM

glasso wrote: »

McLoser lording it over him with his monetary prowess is repugnant. What if a rich dude from D4 drove up to crumlin 5 years ago, pulled up to the McBeard and said - "I pay your dole man, you can thank me for that". How would that go down - what's so different here?

On top of that Diaz is obviously not the sharpest tool in the box intellectually and beard again hitting him on that. Diaz walked out of this interview. But beat him where it counts.

He is not being serious you know this right?

Lady lou · 06-03-2016 02:32PM

All of you that support Conor have a look on after hours!! A thread about showing support for Conor And tell me what you would think!
I can't post Link as I don't have enough posts yet!

JustTheOne · 06-03-2016 02:33PM

Lady lou wrote: »

All of you that support Conor have a look on after hours!! A thread about showing support for Conor And tell me what you would think!
I can't post Link as I don't have enough posts yet!

Great idea why not.

The people that want to support him will.

It's no big deal.

UFC 196: McGregor v Diaz

Comments