- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Messages
- 12,836
- Reaction score
- 3,587
When it was Max who you thought had two ufc fights it was proof of his inexperience but when in actuality it was Conor what does that mean to you?Why so angry young man? Holloway being 6 fights deep into the UFC hardly made him the steely vet. "But it is what it is" they were both freshies to the UFC at the time and far different fighters now. Growth wise I say Holloway as shown far more growth in his mma than McGregor at this stage of the game who's yet to develop a real mma toolbox.
The truth of the matter is that is was basically a 22 year old vs a 25 year old.
One had 15 fights and one had 9.
It was hardly some great miss match like the bullshit narrative you are trying to create.
If you look at conors past opponents prior to the hollaway fight, out of 15 literally only two of them even had wiki pages. Brimage and Duffy.you could easily make the claim that in fact it was Max that had fought tbe stiffer competition and could be considered more experienced.
Is Max Better now than he was now? Without a doubt but that is not the definitive proof he would win
Last edited: