Conor will destroy Alvarez.

[Warfist]

See Randleman vs Crocop 1.

Thats my prediction.

Conor contantly looking to defend the shoot, but instead gets caught from the shot heard round the world.

Alvarez by ko

You heard it here first, ladies.

 

[Conor McTap]

dont pick on eddie the undercard alvarez. he will soon have his red pantie night then its back to the undercards.

 

[98bird]

There are two people on Sherdog at the moment. Those who would gladly fondle McGregor nuts as he takes a piss.

Wouldn't this just make it more difficult for him to pee, you ass?

 

[daemusvladornu]

Wouldn't this just make it more difficult for him to pee, you ass?

 

[JustOnce]

Yes. Not sure why that doesn't make sense to you. It means you have witnessed empirically patterns of behavior in both fighters such that you feel confident in making a prediction about the outcome. Do you even know what empirical means?

In hindsight, I guess It sounded so absurd, but at the same time, I couldn't exactly point out why, so maybe I came off little defensive, so my bad, because I hate it when I feel like it's pretty obvious what is what but can't explain it and I am not really a big fan of people, and there are lots of them, who brings up logic and all that when they don't apply at all, maybe in this case it does or maybe not, we agree to disagree, and it still feels mightily ridiculous to make a statement in saying that " I have an empirical evidence to suggest that the outcome of the match will be this and that". The definition of the empirical evidence that can be looked up online seems not the one that I am familiar with, but I guess I can see what you meant, but that's exactly what I've done anyways, but I guess I can see what you were trying to say.

It still feels ridiculous, but maybe I'm wrong, cheers

 

[JustOnce]

Conor might do just what TS has said, but there is no way in hell he has any empirical evidence to make such a bold claim. But that is how the game is played here. If Conor does destroy Alvarez, TS gets to make the victory 'bump' the day after.

I know why this was stupid as fuck. I just read MY own comment in reply to this comment, but I still couldnt quite figure out why this was so retarded. But this must be why. There cannot BE an empirical evidence in first place to any prediction in sporting events. You can make a prediction on your own appraisal of skillsets of a fighter, but it is not impossible to have an empirical evidence in the first place. Its like saying, lets say you murdered someone. But you left no DNA. Lets say that you claim in your own defense, YOU HAVE NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TO CONVICT ME! NO DNA!
But you might have no alibi, but a motive, a possible weapon, eyewitness testimony and so on, all of which could be but circumstantial but enough to convict you. So the question becomes, how can one be so stupid to be talking about EMPIRICAL evidence when talking about predicting sports events in first place? How legitimate is to cry about the absence of the empirical evidence to critique a prediction when it cannot possible exist to begin with? Stupid gonna stupid.

 

[Morning Star]

Conor has a punchers chance, that's it. Eddie will trade just enough to keep Conor honest. Let's not forget Eddie is a very potent kicker and already has a leg kick TKO to injury victory and a head kick KO on his resume. Conors stance begs for leg kicks

r/agedlikemilk

 

[lsa]

I know why this was stupid as fuck. I just read MY own comment in reply to this comment, but I still couldnt quite figure out why this was so retarded. But this must be why. There cannot BE an empirical evidence in first place to any prediction in sporting events. You can make a prediction on your own appraisal of skillsets of a fighter, but it is not impossible to have an empirical evidence in the first place. Its like saying, lets say you murdered someone. But you left no DNA. Lets say that you claim in your own defense, YOU HAVE NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TO CONVICT ME! NO DNA!
But you might have no alibi, but a motive, a possible weapon, eyewitness testimony and so on, all of which could be but circumstantial but enough to convict you. So the question becomes, how can one be so stupid to be talking about EMPIRICAL evidence when talking about predicting sports events in first place? How legitimate is to cry about the absence of the empirical evidence to critique a prediction when it cannot possible exist to begin with? Stupid gonna stupid.

you had to bump your own thread from 2016 to respond?

 

[JustOnce]

you had to bump your own thread from 2016 to respond?

 

[CrimsonFan]

It's funny because I never got invested,

But all these Conor haters used to ride his nuts. Mma fans are so fickle