I get that I am attempting to compare the weight of a rock against the length of a string, but which fighter's respective discipline is better: Conor's Striking or Khabib's Grappling?
Is Khabib's grappling a 9/10, 10/10? What about Conor's striking?
Also, does this matchup emulate the dream fight that we never got: Prime Anderson v. Prime GSP? Where an all-time great striker faces an all-time great wrestler.
Last question, what's a better base to start off with in MMA: Boxing or Wrestling?
Fight starts standing Conor wins
Is that right? If Conor didn't panic wrestle and kept it on the feet he sure would have been knocked out. If this was a real fight, he would have died either way as Nate would just beat him to death. So, your definition of a better striker is the guy he would loose by strikes. Aldo was very easoly outboxing Max in the first round. Sure he could strike harder and faster (for about 30-40 seconds), but would only means he would run out of gas faster. The figths are not scheduled for a few minutes but for a set time of 3 or 5 rounds. If the fighter is not able to defend the atttack or can no longer strike effectivelly, he is not the better striker.Conor is a much better striker then Nate, Nate is just tough and wears people out. His striking then seems better then it is because the opponent is worn out.
Conor met his match in the stand-up against Nate.
Khabib met his match in wrestling against Tibau.