Who would turn down the opportunities Conor had and instead defend a title?

SherdogJoe

Banned
Banned
Joined
Aug 5, 2013
Messages
7,122
Reaction score
0
So many people complain that Conor hasn't defended yet. Although I agree he should defend now against Tony, I find any complaint about him not having defended already to be quite nonsensical.

His goals have always been to win 2 belts and get super rich. Those were his goals. And before the Floyd fight, he had no reason to defend because he was pursuing his goals.

So for the people who complain about this, I'd like you to answer what your decisions would've been when you had the same opportunities.

Conor had an opportunity to go for the second belt, so are you saying you would put your "two belts" goal on hold so that you can defend a title?

Conor had an opportunity to fight floyd, so are you saying you would put your 100m dollars to the side and instead defend a title?

You all complain, but I guarantee you you would all make the same decisions. Otherwise you'd be insane for turning down those opportunities.

So, who here is insane enough to say they'd have defended instead of going after the bigger goals?
 
No one should blame Conor, as an individual, for doing what is best for himself...especially in an unforgiving sport like MMA, and where fighters tend to be grossly underpaid.

We still be upset that the UFC gifted Conor a path to two belts that he hasn't been required to defend, for allowing multiple weight divisions to be hijacked during his forays to WW and to boxing, and for fomenting the status quo of everyone now calling for 'money fights', which has diluted the value of the belts and rankings (the Bisping situation is relevant there too).
 
Careful bro, they're Bushido. They'd live in Greg Jackson's basement, eat fish heads and fight for 50/50 for the "honor" of it. Quite simply, they'd die before reducing themselves to fighting for 50 mil against a 40 yr old boxer.
 
The fact is Conor created other opportunities vs defending not accepted opportunities offered.

That said, Conor has done well, I’ve enjoyed all the fights and it doesn’t effect me negatively if he continues not to defend.
 
He's made no secret it's about "get in, get money, get out", nobody can get upset with that, he's looking after himself and those he loves.
He's a brilliant fighter and a very saleable personality so he's capitalising and nobody here would be any different.
Why the fuck would you fight longer than you have to? Why the fuck wouldn't you make as much fucking money as you can in the shortest time possible so you can retire at a young age and enjoy your life with no physical repercussions?
The love of the game? Nah, he walked in, took two belts, fought the greatest boxer ever, made more money in four years than any other fighter did in his entire career and will be retired before he's 30 so he can spend time with his wife and watch his son grow.
Thats the dream, he got it, can't knock him.
 
Can't blame him for chasing the money.

It sucks for MMA fans of course.
 
mHzXKu3.gif
Deja vu all over again I've seen this topic beaten to death.
 
TS, do you know what pride means?
 
anyone with a brain would take the same path Conor did instead of defending a $300 belt.
 
Corey Beastin' 25/8 Anderson once he becomes the undisputed LHW Champion!
 
No one blames him for taking the opportunities but you lose the right to be called the champ or the best fighter in the UFC when you actively choose not to defend.
 
I'm so glad i'm not one of these pathetic fans that gets obsessed about one fighter.
 
TS, do you know what pride means?

HTTP2ltYWdlczYuZmFucG9wLmNvbS9pbWFnZS9waG90b3MvMzUzMDAwMDAvLUdva3UtZHJhZ29uLWJhbGwtei0zNTM2ODQ5NC01MDAtMjgzLmdpZgloglog.gif


Perfect Username + Quote.

Would like it twice if I could.
 
So many people complain that Conor hasn't defended yet. Although I agree he should defend now against Tony, I find any complaint about him not having defended already to be quite nonsensical.

His goals have always been to win 2 belts and get super rich. Those were his goals. And before the Floyd fight, he had no reason to defend because he was pursuing his goals.

So for the people who complain about this, I'd like you to answer what your decisions would've been when you had the same opportunities.

Conor had an opportunity to go for the second belt, so are you saying you would put your "two belts" goal on hold so that you can defend a title?

Conor had an opportunity to fight floyd, so are you saying you would put your 100m dollars to the side and instead defend a title?

You all complain, but I guarantee you you would all make the same decisions. Otherwise you'd be insane for turning down those opportunities.

So, who here is insane enough to say they'd have defended instead of going after the bigger goals?

I'm not a Conor fan. And I knew that a fight with Floyd wouldn't be competitive in the least.

BUT I've always said exactly this. No one should blame Conor or Floyd for doing that fight. Only an idiot would have taken another task.

Of course, we also need to remain consistent. A lot of Conor fans like to talk about how fearless or brave Conor was for stepping into the ring with an all time great. I mean, credit to the guy for getting the fight, and all... but as you said, you'd need to be an idiot not to take that fight for that money. Courage doesn't enter into it.
 
Back
Top