Compare Conor and Siver ...Do you see poverty..

Siver has struggled with big punchers with better range (cowboy, cub). Connor is nothing if not those 2 things. However Connor is much more flashy and open to counters than those guys.

Siver also hasn't finished anyone since 2010 and has lost when facing the top 10 or top 5 guys.

The odds of Siver winning are poor, the odds of him catching his first stoppage in nearly 5 years is abysmal.

So now the level headed people come out. Solid argument my friend. I cannot argue against this...well I could but solid argument. If people spoke rational stuff like this, more would think Conor isn't just simply hype.

With that said.

Conor still shows off in the ring, still prances with his hands down and is open to getting caught. So is Siver since he stands square in a fighters range and doesn't have good movement. 50/50

Conor is untested and unknown really on the ground for both tkd and on the ground. We all know Siver has improved leaps and bounds on take downs, and on the ground. Since it is safe to assume Conor has been training ground game and take down defense, I would be ok to say, 50/50

Striking is a funny thing and so is clinch. I am not worried about either in the clinch. Neither have shown any propensity there. In striking we have very different styles that I could go on in depth about. I won't but to say that at the end of the day, one hits staggers the other it is close but lets call it a draw.

So we really have a 50/50 match. In some time from now if Conor really is what the hype says we can look back at this and laugh but for now he is just too much of an unknown. Solid 50/50 in this match.

I go with Siver since I go with experience
 
Holy shit, no. First of all, even Conor would say that this is just fucking retarded. Anderson has knocked guys out with an elbow, knees, kicks, and punches. And to say that Anderson doesn't even know how to lead is just idiotic. It's pretty obvious you haven't watched much of Anderson's career and it seems like you've drawn this 'evidence' of Anderson's lack of ability to lead from only the Weidman fights.

He can lead but prefers to counter, which he used to amass the most UFC title defenses ever.

Conor once said that he wants to be on Anderson Silva's level. So don't act as if Anderson is below Conor as a fighter.

Anderson is spectacular at countering and pretty abysmal at leading, this is a well known fact. It isn't just the Weidman fights that show this either. His striking diversity/variety and shot selection has always been there but in terms of versatility at leading and countering, he's not as versatile as Conor has shown to be. Every analyst that has studied AS has come to the very same conclusion and they make a living doing their breakdowns so there's nothing idiotic whatsoever about that.

As for McGregor wanting to be like Anderson, he said that in several years (can't remember how many he said) he'll be seen/viewed in the same light as Silva for his greatness. So obviously Conor does look up to Anderson. Who doesn't? Weidman looks up to Anderson too and he's said it a dozen times, before and after fighting him. It doesn't change the fact that he was never very well balanced at countering and leading and if you've ever seen Anderson train you'll see that the majority of it is counter-striking.
 
His striking diversity/variety and shot selection has always been there but in terms of versatility at leading and countering, he's not as versatile as Conor has shown to be. Every analyst that has studied AS has come to the very same conclusion and they make a living doing their breakdowns so there's nothing idiotic whatsoever about that.

Got any sources to back that claim up? Anderson used to be the definition of versatility in MMA.
 
You mean a poor man's Anderson Silva vs Wanderlei Silva?
The difference in level between Siver and Wandy is way bigger than between Anderson and Conor.

You really think Siver is that much better than Wandy? Bold statement round these parts.
 
Back
Top