No, I dont remember him saying that he's a dirty weight missing cheat, and he could have. thats the point im making. he blamed a foul, but he didn't blame or accost his opponent.
You're right, he didn't blame the one foul before the fight (except he
did criticize Fig for missing weight and saying he lacked discipline and that he lost respect for him, and that proved he didn't have enough conviction to become champ), he just blamed the other foul during the fight (which is the more apt comparison that we'll ignore for some reason). And he didn't attack Fig personally (kinda did: above) because Fig wasn't an egregious weight misser at the time, whereas Gane is an egregious cheater. A guy who deserves blame gets blamed and we're supposed to throw up our hands in frustration at the blame, not the cause?
gane was winning the fight and things were trajecting well for him, he had no incentive to poke the eye. So to call him a cheater in a fight he didn't win, is just baby shit.
Not at all. I've been over this 100 times in other threads, but it's either cheating on purpose or not caring about cheating through negligence to change it. We're thinking of the risk of an NC because it happened, but when the ratio of eye pokes that occur in MMA (all of them giving you an advantage throughout the rest of the fight, so whether you're doing well or not, it's better early) vs the times it causes a fight to end (a paltry amount) then it's not really a question of "Why would someone winning risk it?" It's more a question of, "If you're okay with cheating, why would you not?"
also, Tai Tuivasa got fouled by gane, but look they were training together. he wasn't a fucking baby about it.
Not all fouls are equal, and no one is obligated to continue. This logic is a pet peeve of mine, frankly, because think about it: Fighters who continue at a disadvantage should be lauded for it, right? I'd say so. But if you then flip the coin and say that anyone who doesn't continue should be criticized, then you DON'T think fighters who continue should be lauded, because what you are conditioning is: continuing is the
expected standard. You're not applauding one guy for doing something he didn't need to if you're using him as the example of what people need to do. Especially when, as should be obvious, not all situations are equal, and trying to compare them is, like I said before, a whataboutism of completely different context.