Who would turn down the opportunities Conor had and instead defend a title?

I'm not mad about Conor, and I'm not a Conor hater. I'm simply pointing out objective observations. But it looks like you're not interested in reasonable discussion, so I'll move along.
again your objective information presumes that conor had it easier than everyone else and that's not remotely the case. it contradicts your point.
 
So many people complain that Conor hasn't defended yet. Although I agree he should defend now against Tony, I find any complaint about him not having defended already to be quite nonsensical.

His goals have always been to win 2 belts and get super rich. Those were his goals. And before the Floyd fight, he had no reason to defend because he was pursuing his goals.

So for the people who complain about this, I'd like you to answer what your decisions would've been when you had the same opportunities.

Conor had an opportunity to go for the second belt, so are you saying you would put your "two belts" goal on hold so that you can defend a title?

Conor had an opportunity to fight floyd, so are you saying you would put your 100m dollars to the side and instead defend a title?

You all complain, but I guarantee you you would all make the same decisions. Otherwise you'd be insane for turning down those opportunities.

So, who here is insane enough to say they'd have defended instead of going after the bigger goals?

im a pussy id keep beating manlets. rematch frankie,aldo. whoever small.
 
Those guys with crippling brain damage and $5 in their bank account
 
History won't be kind to Conor McGregor.
 
Last edited:
Broke bums. All them haters.

giphy.gif
 
Back
Top