"I just want 2 gold belts, a bjj black belt, HOF plaque, and 25 million" - Conor Mcgregor, 2013

[johncola]

Poirier may have been ranked 5-10...but no way in hell was Siver 10. In either case...he had ONE win against a guy at #5 to "earn" a title shot? If only it worked that way for everyone...

Conor's title shot was justified; as always, you need to compare a potential contender with his or her contemporaries:

Conor McGregor, undefeated UFC record of 5-0, plus on a 13-fight MMA streak, with all but 1 finish; wins over solid to great opponents, including Buchinger, Brimage, Holloway, Brandao, Poirier, Siver

Frankie Edgar, 3-0 streak over Oliveira, Penn, Swanson; already down 0-1 to Aldo

Chad Mendes, coming off the Aldo war. now 0-2 to him

Ricardo Lamas, 2-0 streak over Hacran Dias and Bermudez; already down 0-1 to Aldo

Cub Swanson, WAS on his great 6-0 streak, but lost badly to Frankie Edgar, plus already down 0-1 to Aldo

Korean Zombie, on military leave, already down 0-1 to Aldo

Dustin Poirier, obviously coming off the loss to Conor


Conor at the very least had a very strong claim to a title shot. Swanson was the other obvious candidate, but then he lost to Frankie. Then Frankie became that candidate. I thought Conor made for a better and more interesting matchup with Aldo than both, and I think history has proved me right. At the very least, you'd be bullshitting to call Conor significantly less deserving than Frankie; throw in the obvious financial appeal of Conor to the UFC, and it was a no-brainer to give him the title shot.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Nah, I have now found 3 sources listing Poirier from 6-8 in August 2014 rankings, and one being that of UFC's ranking (where Conor was ranked 13). He did fight TWO top 10 before Aldo, but the second fight only happened cuz Aldo had to pull out. He got the title shot off one top 10 win, but he made the most of it.

1. It's good you can admit you were wrong, because earlier you claim he had "ZERO" top ten wins before challenging for the title. It's a rare trait on the internet, and I salute you.
2. August was after Poirier and McGregor fought, so no doubt he was ranked lower than previously.. Do you mean April? I don't remember his precise rankings, and thought he had bumped into the top five after the Corassani win, but around 6 seems about right.

 

[ixRanGzeNxi]

Im not a fanboy at all, and you are delusional with hate

Sure you're not...

 

[johncola]

I would rather him fight his way to the title by beating top contenders. You know, fight guys like Frankie/Lamas/Mendes (full camp)/Etc. Not every one of them, but like 2 guys out of the top 5. You know? Like Max Holloway did? He (along with less recognizable) beat Lamas, Swanson, Oliveira, and Stephens...who were all in top 5 or 10 before he got his title shot.

Max's run was very special. That's one of the best title contender runs ever. He'd practically cleaned out the division before getting to Aldo. That's very unusual, and you'll find that there are very few (if any) that had contendership runs as good as Max did. Conor's run isn't as good as that Max run, but it's still a very good run, and way better than the average contender's.

Btw, multiple people posted Poirier's #5 ranking and Siver's #10 ranking. Go back and read the thread properly.

 

[ixRanGzeNxi]

1. It's good you can admit you were wrong, because earlier you claim he had "ZERO" top ten wins before challenging for the title. It's a rare trait on the internet, and I salute you.
2. August was after Poirier and McGregor fought, so no doubt he was ranked lower than previously.. Do you mean April? I don't remember his precise rankings, and thought he had bumped into the top five after the Corassani win, but around 6 seems about right.

Nah I saw Poirier/Conor took place in Sept of 2014, but only found rankings from August 24 2014 (I think) to compare rankings with. I have no problems admitting fault, but these fuckheads with no life trying to sit there and act like they went to a 4-year university studying UFC history and condescends to anyone without absolute 100% knowledge are annoying AF.

But hey, thank you for showing not all Sherbros are condescending morons.

 

[ixRanGzeNxi]

Conor's title shot was justified; as always, you need to compare a potential contender with his or her contemporaries:

Conor McGregor, undefeated UFC record of 5-0, plus on a 13-fight MMA streak, with all but 1 finish; wins over solid to great opponents, including Buchinger, Brimage, Holloway, Brandao, Poirier, Siver

Frankie Edgar, 3-0 streak over Oliveira, Penn, Swanson; already down 0-1 to Aldo

Chad Mendes, coming off the Aldo war. now 0-2 to him

Ricardo Lamas, 2-0 streak over Hacran Dias and Bermudez; already down 0-1 to Aldo

Cub Swanson, WAS on his great 6-0 streak, but lost badly to Frankie Edgar, plus already down 0-1 to Aldo

Korean Zombie, on military leave, already down 0-1 to Aldo

Dustin Poirier, obviously coming off the loss to Conor


Conor at the very least had a very strong claim to a title shot. Swanson was the other obvious candidate, but then he lost to Frankie. Then Frankie became that candidate. I thought Conor made for a better and more interesting matchup with Aldo than both, and I think history has proved me right. At the very least, you'd be bullshitting to call Conor significantly less deserving than Frankie; throw in the obvious financial appeal of Conor to the UFC, and it was a no-brainer to give him the title shot.

No, I get that Conor got his shot and it made more sense for the UFC monetarily than anything else they could do...but I'm just saying he didn't really "deserve" the shot with only a win (or "two") against top 10 guys. If he had just had the Mendes fight as the official "title eliminator", no one would have a single word to say against it. Doesn't mean Mendes has to get a shot if he had won, but just that Conor beating Chad would have been sufficient enough to be the undisputed #1 contender (esp. since Chad was ranked #1).

 

[Swoliosis]

In before all the haters with endless hurt in their butts

 

[Rea_ctor]

Any real fan knows that's everything Conor has was just manufactured anyways by the UFC hype machine. The nuthuggers will tell you otherwise though.

The most manufactured MMA path in MMA history.

I love how they manufactured the KO of Aldo and Eddie, scripted to perfection.

 

[CrimsonFan]

Sure you're not...

Would any Conor fan say he lost the second Diaz fight?

Because i believe he did.

 

[ixRanGzeNxi]

Max's run was very special. That's one of the best title contender runs ever. He'd practically cleaned out the division before getting to Aldo. That's very unusual, and you'll find that there are very few (if any) that had contendership runs as good as Max did. Conor's run isn't as good as that Max run, but it's still a very good run, and way better than the average contender's.

Btw, multiple people posted Poirier's #5 ranking and Siver's #10 ranking. Go back and read the thread properly.

Hadn't noticed anyone posting any proof for either, but I already found 3 sources that have Dustin Poirier at #6-8 right before fighting Conor (one being UFC ranking and him being at 6).

Actually, I just googled the same for Siver...and shocker he was indeed #10. <45> I don't remember anyone being hyped about Siver or even praising him to be any kind of top fighter...but okay. I stand corrected. I just personally don't believe he is or ever was top 10...but Siver was "top 10" in the "UFC's ranking". Curious though cuz didn't Nate Diaz went from like #15 to top 10 magically before fighting Conor?

Spoiler

 

[ixRanGzeNxi]

Would any Conor fan say he lost the second Diaz fight?

Because i believe he did.

 

[johncola]

No, I get that Conor got his shot and it made more sense for the UFC monetarily than anything else they could do...but I'm just saying he didn't really "deserve" the shot with only a win (or "two") against top 10 guys. If he had just had the Mendes fight as the official "title eliminator", no one would have a single word to say against it. Doesn't mean Mendes has to get a shot if he had won, but just that Conor beating Chad would have been sufficient enough to be the undisputed #1 contender (esp. since Chad was ranked #1).

So who did "deserve" the shot? Frankie Edgar was on a 3-fight streak, 2 of whom were unranked (Oliveira and Penn), while Swanson was ranked #2. Only 1 top 10 win, which isn't as good as Conor's two top 10 wins.

And for the record, I don't care very much about rankings. I don't like using them as MMA's equivalent of a league table. Doing so doesn't suit the structure of the sport, in that it isn't schedule driven; fighters fight at random, arbitrary times, infrequently, and after irregular intervals. And it has to be that way for health reasons. All rankings are for is to give fans a general idea of who the well regarded fighters of the division are, and how they compare to each other. Fights should be booked based on what the best fights are. And Conor/Jose was the fight to make.

 

[lepsahekim]

As I stated, SHOW ME THE SO-CALLED PROOF that has been so "proven on so many Conor threads". I have linked TWO sources that place Poirier within top 10, but no one has yet shown me any proof of a ranking that shows Siver in the top 10.

There are several posts in this thread with images from the fight showing poorer at #5 and Siver at #10, my apologies for the bad memory thinking he was #7. Look through the thread if you don’t want to believe me

 

[lepsahekim]

Lol. I think the point was pretty clear and as far as getting a life aren't you doing the samething I am right now?

Point was not made at all, just incoherent ramblings of someone who’s triggered for no reason. Why hate on someone just because they are successful, and you don’t personally like how they became successful. That’s not a healthy thing, mentally

 

[johncola]

Hadn't noticed anyone posting any proof for either, but I already found 3 sources that have Dustin Poirier at #6-8 right before fighting Conor (one being UFC ranking and him being at 6).

Actually, I just googled the same for Siver...and shocker he was indeed #10. <45> I don't remember anyone being hyped about Siver or even praising him to be any kind of top fighter...but okay. I stand corrected. I just personally don't believe he is or ever was top 10...but Siver was "top 10" in the "UFC's ranking". Curious though cuz didn't Nate Diaz went from like #15 to top 10 magically before fighting Conor?

Spoiler

View attachment 421175

Here are the links to the two posts of proof:
One
Two

Siver's ranking was sketchy. He was borderline top 10 in that other publications had him ranked slightly lower. I think he was barely worthy of #15, in that he was clearly past his best. Plus, he was a great style matchup for Conor; tailor made for Conor to use as a short, stocky punching bag. Conor even said himself that it was a mismatch. The UFC booked the fight as a showcase for Conor on the post NFL playoff slot on FS1. He clearly got preferential treatment, and you won't find many Conor fans saying otherwise. Despite that, I still think he was the clear best contender for Aldo.

 

[ixRanGzeNxi]

So who did "deserve" the shot? Frankie Edgar was on a 3-fight streak, 2 of whom were unranked (Oliveira and Penn), while Swanson was ranked #2. Only 1 top 10 win, which isn't as good as Conor's two top 10 wins.

And for the record, I don't care very much about rankings. I don't like using them as MMA's equivalent of a league table. Doing so doesn't suit the structure of the sport, in that it isn't schedule driven; fighters fight at random, arbitrary times, infrequently, and after irregular intervals. And it has to be that way for health reasons. All rankings are for is to give fans a general idea of who the well regarded fighters of the division are, and how they compare to each other. Fights should be booked based on what the best fights are. And Conor/Jose was the fight to make.

Assuming you mean Dustin and Poirier for Conor's two top 10 wins (cuz Mendes was a title fight)...

Swanson, before losing to Frankie, actually had BETTER top 10 wins than Conor. IDK if you checked or are just randomly assuming, but BOTH Dustin and Siver were beaten by Cub before Conor did. However, Cub ALSO beat Oliveira and Stephens, who (if I'm not mistaken) were both in top 10 at that time as well. Cub still had to fight Frankie to even put himself in the line of a title shot...while Conor gets one after beating Siver (who was 1-1-1 in last 3 coming into fight, loss being against Cub).

 

[boss429]

Point was not made at all, just incoherent ramblings of someone who’s triggered for no reason. Why hate on someone just because they are successful, and you don’t personally like how they became successful. That’s not a healthy thing, mentally

Wasn't incoherent at all and I'm not triggered. I don't even hate him I just hate what he represents and the current state of society.

I'm not "triggered" by it though, just think if the trend continues our society's future looks pretty bleak. I'm fasinated by phycology and societal trends so I actually enjoy observing and debating on the subject.

 

[johncola]

Assuming you mean Dustin and Poirier for Conor's two top 10 wins (cuz Mendes was a title fight)...

Swanson, before losing to Frankie, actually had BETTER top 10 wins than Conor. IDK if you checked or are just randomly assuming, but BOTH Dustin and Siver were beaten by Cub before Conor did. However, Cub ALSO beat Oliveira and Stephens, who (if I'm not mistaken) were both in top 10 at that time as well. Cub still had to fight Frankie to even put himself in the line of a title shot...while Conor gets one after beating Siver (who was 1-1-1 in last 3 coming into fight, loss being against Cub).

Yes, I meant Dustin Poirier and Dennis Siver as the two top 10 wins.

Swanson had a great record and deserved the shot. And had he beaten Frankie and not gotten the shot, it'd have been unfair to him. And that's probably what woulda happened. But it didn't; Frankie beat him. So I'm asking who you think deserved the shot more than Conor as of late January 2015, when Conor beat Siver.

Going off-topic, had Cub beaten Frankie, I think he woulda been the one to fill in for Aldo after the rib injury. I think Conor woulda beaten him easily. But then the complaints about him not having fought a wrestler would have continued on.

 

[ixRanGzeNxi]

Yes, I meant Dustin Poirier and Dennis Siver as the two top 10 wins.

Swanson had a great record and deserved the shot. And had he beaten Frankie and not gotten the shot, it'd have been unfair to him. And that's probably what woulda happened. But it didn't; Frankie beat him. So I'm asking who you think deserved the shot more than Conor as of late January 2015, when Conor beat Siver.

Going off-topic, had Cub beaten Frankie, I think he woulda been the one to fill in for Aldo after the rib injury. I think Conor woulda beaten him easily. But then the complaints about him not having fought a wrestler would have continued on.

Nobody other than Max. Even having lost to Conor a few years back, he was still on a longer win streak with with TWO top 10 wins in a row (#6 Cub and #7 Oliveira). Conor, on the other hand, was coming off beating Dustin and Siver who were 6 and 10 within the UFC's ranking. I know it says Dustin was #5 on fight night, but I literally posted a UFC Ranking from like a week before the fight where even the UFC had Dustin ranked at 6.

 

[IRENICUS]

He just needs to spend 100 million and to avoid fighting for the title at WW.