Conor haters are keeping him relevent

[pv3Hpv3p]

There is a saying. I don't have quoted correctly word for word but you'll get the gist.

It goes something like this:

"It is hard to win an argument against an intelligent person. It is impossible to win an argument against a complete dumbass."

Stop wasting your time and energy.

I'm bored sitting at my sister's house making Sunday gravy (on a Monday)... Don't mind taking the piss out of the kid to eat up some time.

 

[Dionysian]

Us getting laughs from Hitto posting gifs <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< the importance of tens of millions of casuals not talking about Conor in real life

Have to see outside the Sherdog bubble... nothing of what we do here matters at all.

 

[johncola]

You're doing a fine job of demonstrating your knuckleheadedness on your own. I don't think you need my help

Maybe I'm a knucklehead, maybe I'm not. My point was that no one had attempted to demonstrate it via rebutting my posts. That's until you made the post about the scoring, that I'll get to in a second...

I'm bored sitting at my sister's house making Sunday gravy (on a Monday)... Don't mind taking the piss out of the kid to eat up some time.

Your current opinion is that you're right on this issue, and that I'm wrong AND I'm a knucklehead and a "complete dumbass", or just a troll. That's your current opinion and thus your current reality. I'm asking you to make sure you're open to your opinion and thus your reality being changed, to either one of the following:
1. You're right, and I'm wrong, but you can see why I think what I think, and that I don't have to necessarily be either a knucklehead or a complete dumbass or a troll. That you were exaggerating and overzealous about me.
2. You're wrong, and I'm right. Thus, you were clearly exaggerating and overzealous in thinking I'm a knucklehead or a complete dumbass or a troll.

Hopefully you're at that point now. You're flexible enough to allow your opinion and your reality to change...

It's very easy to

Rebuttle:

Rd1: Conor was outstruck, and controlled in the ground...

Rd2: Conor was outstruck and controlled on the ground...

Rd3: Conor won this round, stuffed a few TDs and landed more strikes.

Rd4: Conor was outstruck, controlled on the ground & strangled into submission.

All the judges had it 2 rounds to 1 for Khabib on the official score cards going into the 4th.

Conor won 1 round of the fight and it wasn't very convincing. There is no other way to look at it.

There are three subjects that have come into discussion here:
1. That Conor defended most takedowns attempted by Khabib
2. That Khabib won most completed rounds on the official scorecards
3. That Khabib deserved to win most completed rounds on the official scorecards.

You haven't attempted to rebut point #1. Do we agree that I'm right on that point? I only need to link the official stats to show how I'm right. On point #2, we've never disagreed, as I never stated that the judges awarded Conor McGregor round 1. So we agree that I'm right on that point too? For point #3, we agree that Khabib won round 2, I score it 10-8 for Khabib. We agree that Conor won round 3. So, all that remains is the scoring of round 1...

Here's the scoring criteria.

Effective Striking/Grappling shall be considered the first priority of roundassessments. Effective Aggressiveness is a ‘Plan B’ and should not be considered unless the judge does not see ANY advantage in the Effective Striking/Grappling realm. Cage/Ring Control (‘Plan C’) should only be needed when ALL other criteria are 100% even for both competitors. This will be an extremely rare occurrence.

So, let's start by judging 'Plan A' -- effective striking/grappling. Here's how we judge in that particular area:

Effective Striking/Grappling

“Legal blows that have immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute towards the end of the match with the IMMEDIATE weighing in more heavily than the cumulative impact.Successful execution of takedowns, submission attempts, reversals and the achievement of advantageous positions that produce immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute to the end of the match, with the IMMEDIATE weighing more heavily than the cumulative impact.” It shall be noted that a successful takedown is not merely a changing of position, but the establishment of an attack from the use of the takedown.

Top and bottom position fighters are assessed more on the impactful/effective result of their actions, more so than their position.This criterion will be the deciding factor in a high majority of decisions when scoring a round. The next two criteria must be treated as a backupand used ONLY when Effective Striking/Grappling is 100% equal for the round.

Summary: It's all about strikes and sub attempts, as it should be. Successful takedowns and changes of position are only scored in this category if they lead to the establishment of an attack. And that's things that could lead to the end of the fight. That's strikes and sub attempts. If we can agree that one fighter wins in this category, then aggression and control are both irrelevant.

There were no sub attempts in round. Conor outstruck Khabib 39-18. That's a significant difference. However, that's total strikes, not significant strikes. In significant strikes, it was 7-6 to Khabib. Let's take a closer look at the strikes. Only one strike was landed at distance -- a Conor left hand. Conor landed some good elbows, during Khabib's takedown attempts. In my opinion, they were the best strikes of the round. Khabib landed some GNP shots, mostly towards the end of the round. Overall, Conor landed the only shot at distance, the best shots of the round in the elbows, and numerically landed FAR more than Khabib. For that reason, I think Conor won the round. Now be honest with yourself: is that so crazy? If you think Khabib won the round based on landing better strikes, I don't agree with you, but I don't think you're crazy. I think there was a clear edge for Conor, and that's why he won the round. But let's say the striking was even, and thus move on to the next criterion:

Effective Aggressiveness

“Aggressively makingattempts to finish the fight. The key termis ‘effective’. Chasing after an opponent with no effective result or impact should not render in the judges’ assessments.”

Effective Aggressiveness is only to be assessedif Effective Striking/Grappling is 100% equal for both competitors.

There's absolutely no way you can score for Khabib in this area. His entire gameplan was to hold Conor down to avoid taking damage, hopefully also tiring him out. He was successful in tiring Conor out, which helped earn him a 10-8 in round 2. You obviously don't credit Khabib in round 1 for things he did in round 2. This is about attempts to finish the fight. On the feet, Conor was trying to knock Khabib out, while Khabib was trying to take Conor down. On the ground, Conor was trying to get up so he could knock Khabib out, and Khabib was trying to just hold on. The only fighter you could score this category for is Conor. You could make an argument that while Conor was more aggressive, he wasn't "effectively" aggressive, in that he wasn't able to get close to a finish. But I think that's a silly way for scoring to work, as if he was able to get close to a finish, he woulda won on criterion #1 (effective striking), and we wouldn't even be here. So, I think Conor wins in this regard too. But for the sake of argument, let's say this criterion was a tie as well, moving us onto the final criterion:

Fighting Area Control

“Fighting area control is assessed by determining who is dictating the pace,place and position of the match.”

Fighting Area Control shallonly to be assessed if Effective Striking/Grappling and Effective Aggressiveness is 100% equal for both competitors. This will be assessed very rarely.

Khabib clearly won in this regard. No argument from me. However, look at the text: "this will be assessed very rarely"; the intent of the scoring was for us to reward one fighter for landing the better shots, or failing that, reward Conor for at least trying to finish the fight.

The reason you fans, media, and the judges, almost unanimously score round 1 for Khabib is because Khabib clearly won on criterion #3 (control), while Conor only slightly won on criteria #1 (effective striking) and #2 (aggression). Thus, you score the clear edge that your eyes can see. But that ISN'T, and shouldn't be, how scoring works. Also, while scoring, fans, media, and judges have an awareness of how others are likely scoring the round. I scored the round for Conor live, but I knew that others would score it for Khabib based on control. I don't care about going against the majority opinion, but others do. They wanna fall in line with the majority. And that further contributes to people scoring the round for Khabib.


Finally let's go back to what I said above. Maybe you now agree with me that Conor deserved to win round 1, and thus that he deserved to win most completed rounds. Or maybe you don't, but you have to admit that I'm not "omgz crazy troll dont respond to him!!". I'd appreciate you taking the time to read and respond to this admittedly very long post. EDIT: I just made a new thread with this content. Feel free to respond there instead.