Remember when McGregor said he would defend both belts and fight four times a year?

1413006617521.jpg
 
Bobby Boulders said:
Yes.

What I was saying is that if I knew I could generate the kind of buys Conor does, I wouldnt fight for chump change either.

Conor does what's best for Conor, as he should.
Click to expand...
The point is that he didn't defend when he was making chump change in independent organizations either.
 
Frank McEdgar said:
Yep. He had a title, and if he lost that fight. He would lose his title.

Great explanation though..
Click to expand...

he would have lost the interim whether he won or lost... if he lost he wouldnt be interim champ and if he won he would be actual champ.

he got the real belt and lost the interim. he didnt defend shit.

he wasnt then the FW CHAMP and INTERIM FW CHAMP
 
Frank McEdgar said:
He got a second belt.
Click to expand...

Stop it. He never defended an undisputed title in his life. He HAD to "defend" the "interim belt" in any case in order to get the actual belt. Otherwise there would have been no point in him winning that belt in the first place. If he never "defended" that belt then he would never have the leverage he has now. There is no merit in that in terms of title defenses.
 
Frank McEdgar said:
Technically he defended a title against Aldo. But I know what you are saying.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard that argument a lot but there is no disputing that the interim belt is worth less than the real belt and is merely a placeholder for a shot. A lesser belt going against the real belt cannot be considered a defense. That interim belt is supposed to be a guaranteed title shot. Unfortunately, it doesn’t even guarantee a shot anymore.
 
Frank McEdgar said:
{<jordan}

You boys are great.
Click to expand...
Frank McEdgar said:
I just said, technically it was. Which technically it was. Go ahead and say it technically wasn't? Because technically he got paid the championship wages and percentages and had a belt.

So bitch and act smart playing on words all you want.

A title unification is a defence on both sides. Deal with it.
Click to expand...
You said that "technically" it was a title defense. What's your source for that? Who lists it as a title defense? ESPN, UFC, Sherdog, and even Wikipedia don't. I assume you're not just making shit up...
 
Frank McEdgar said:
I just said, technically it was. Which technically it was. Go ahead and say it technically wasn't? Because technically he got paid the championship wages and percentages and had a belt.

So bitch and act smart playing on words all you want.

A title unification is a defence on both sides. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

I don't deal with bullshit.
 
Frank McEdgar said:
Yep. He had a title, and if he lost that fight. He would lose his title.

Great explanation though..
Click to expand...
That's not how it works. A title defense means you get to keep the title if you win. Conman was going to lose his title whether he wins or loses so he didn't defend anything.

You technically can defend an interim title, just not against the undisputed champion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,415
Messages
55,418,717
Members
174,765
Latest member
durbanik916

Share this page

Back
Top