Conor has 1 title defense.

Defending a title implies having a title belt that can be won by your opponenet if he or she beats you. An interim belt is not passed on to the actual champion should that champion beat the interim title holder, the belt simply goes away. They're place holder token belts meant mainly to promote fights.

So no, McG has certainly never defended a title and likely never will.

It is won, what do you think unifying the belts mean? Going from being a disputed champion to an undisputed one. It's simple really. I know all of you like to have your narrative to pretend Conor has never defended a belt, but he has so stick to something actually factually true like he hasn't defend this LW belt.
 
Only because he's too stupid to spell Conor's last name properly.


Which just goes to show you the level of intelligence possessed by Conor fans.
Yeah it shoes they are pretty intelligent considering it took this long for somebody to make that mistake.
 
Tony and Kevin are fighting for a true interim belt, just like the one Holloway holds. If Kevin was replacing Conor it would be for the real belt. Conor won the title against Chad, defended against Aldo.


4ee.gif
 
So the interim champ unifying the titles counts as a title defense now?
 
Well according to all of the people that this interim title fight is for the real belt. You would be correct TS
 
So the interim champ unifying the titles counts as a title defense now?
It's funny, because I have never once ever seen someone argue that GSP actually has 10 title defenses.

Conor fans are the only ones inventing this narrative.
 
It is won, what do you think unifying the belts mean? Going from being a disputed champion to an undisputed one. It's simple really. I know all of you like to have your narrative to pretend Conor has never defended a belt, but he has so stick to something actually factually true like he hasn't defend this LW belt.

He's never defended a belt, get over it.
 
Aldo dissolved the belt when he didn't face McGregor. McGregor won a different one from Mendes, the one he defended. If a title is only defendable when you maintain it against an opponent then how is Max supposed to defend when he didn't beat Conor?
A title is only dissolved if it is vacated, stripped, lost, or unified. Aldo had his title, don't be a child about this. Conor was IC, he unified the belt. That is not what a title defense is.

When Max fought Conor, neither had a belt(or were ranked for that matter). The fight is irrelevant to this discussion. Max beat the acting champion (Aldo) and won the belt. That's how it works. Beating Conor would mean nothing as Conor had already been stripped of the title at that point.

You become champ by beating the acting champ, not the guy who used to be champ. You defend titles against challengers who are capable of taking the belt. This is how this has always worked. I don't get the confusion.
 
Another example of why there should be a waiting period before white belts can create threads...
or why there should be a way to keep someone from making multiple accounts. I'm hoping this is a troll account.
 
Tony and Kevin are fighting for a true interim belt, just like the one Holloway holds. If Kevin was replacing Conor it would be for the real belt. Conor won the title against Chad, defended against Aldo.

Stop Breathing air.
 
Tony and Kevin are fighting for a true interim belt, just like the one Holloway holds. If Kevin was replacing Conor it would be for the real belt. Conor won the title against Chad, defended against Aldo.
I didn't know Aldo was going to become interim champ if he won because he was already undisputed champ.
 
Back
Top