One made me happy...the other just pissed me off.Both were such crazy moments in MMA history.
Silly argument because Conor is good at MMA. Ronda and everyone she faced isn't. Ronda wasn't just shit at one aspect of MMA. She was shit at MMA period.Sure, and Conor's boxing "sucks" in comparison to even low level amateur boxers. Not a single day goes by without people pointing that out.
Sometimes I wonder if people actually get the point of "MMA" or even like it to begin with, or if they're just here to point out that certain aspects of the fighter's game isn't elite level.
Fact is that Ronda was and is elite level in WMMA. You think WMMA sucks? Cool.
Silly argument because Conor is good at MMA. Ronda and everyone she faced isn't. Ronda wasn't just shit at one aspect of MMA. She was shit at MMA period.
You don't get credit for being the best 'bad' fighter. They all made a lot of money. Good on them, but they don't deserve the accolades that come with being good at something when they aren't.She was "shit at mma", and yet no one was better. Or is, in fact. The ones she lost against has a worse record than she does.
Which brings us back to the old argument: wmma sucks. Which is your point, and it's valid. It's not a valid point, however, to say that Ronda sucks at wmma. She was the best at that, and to this date no one holds a legitimate claim to be better.
No, she made it last long enough so nobody could say it was a fluke, but she didn't make it a fight. She was outstruck the entire fight, got countered the entire fight, had her takedowns stuffed the majority of the fight, one takedown she did get, Holm got up immediately. There was no successful offensive or defensive output from Ronda that would constitute her "making it a fight." She survived a beating for about 7 minutes is about the best that I can say for it.
You don't get credit for being the best 'bad' fighter. They all made a lot of money. Good on them, but they don't deserve the accolades that come with being good at something when they aren't.