Ending the myth that Khabib beat Conor in the stand up game!

[Gladiator24]

I’m ending this myth once and for all because I’m sick and tired of people saying Khabib beat Conor standing up. This is simply not true and the stats back this up. I keep hearing it be said on here so I went and did some digging.

Conor landed 51 out of 81 significant strikes, compared to khabibs 70 out of 119. So that’s a 62% conversion for Conor compared to only 58% for Khabib.

Furthermore, Conor landed 98 out of 126 total strikes, compared to Khabib who landed 104 out of 167. So thats a 78% conversion for Conor compared to just 61% for Khabib.

Conor won standing up.

 

[Deleted member 546119]

 

[ScarfaceJr]

 

[Frank McEdgar]

So you're one of the side accounts that sets threads up for the Conor haters?

 

[essie]

 

[Travis Alexander]

Nate did.

 

[Mammothman]

A picture is worth a thousand words

 

[accolyte1022]

Welcome to the lighweights.

Actually TS is quite familiar with this forum.

 

[mikesparrow]

I’m ending this myth once and for all because I’m sick and tired of people saying Khabib beat Conor standing up. This is simply not true and the stats back this up. I keep hearing it be said on here so I went and did some digging.

Conor landed 51 out of 81 significant strikes, compared to khabibs 70 out of 119. So that’s a 62% conversion for Conor compared to only 58% for Khabib.

Furthermore, Conor landed 98 out of 126 total strikes, compared to Khabib who landed 104 out of 167. So thats a 78% conversion for Conor compared to just 61% for Khabib.

Conor won standing up.

So you go by percentage? You can't be that stupid, can you really? So by your logic if one fighter throw just 1 punch and the punch landed (achieving 100%) across all the rounds while the other throws 100 but lands only 99 (achieving only 99%), the first fighter should be the winner? Wow! Well we all knew how fucking dumb the Conor's nuthuggers are, but you guys can sure take it to the new level everytime. Thanks for the laugh again..

 

[The-AxeMurderer]

Nah he didnt.

 

[Adrian34]

TS, would you rather be hit significantly 51 times or 70 times? Would some arbitrary percentages affect your answer?

/Thread

 

[SpoonDogg]

Liverpool still haven't won a premier league.

 

[15089371]

Everybody knows McGregor is definitely in terms of pure striking. That being said Khabib won it with that knockdown.

 

[BossRootin]

I’m ending this myth once and for all because I’m sick and tired of people saying Khabib beat Conor standing up. This is simply not true and the stats back this up. I keep hearing it be said on here so I went and did some digging.

Conor landed 51 out of 81 significant strikes, compared to khabibs 70 out of 119. So that’s a 62% conversion for Conor compared to only 58% for Khabib.

Furthermore, Conor landed 98 out of 126 total strikes, compared to Khabib who landed 104 out of 167. So thats a 78% conversion for Conor compared to just 61% for Khabib.

Conor won standing up.

Not only are numbers mostly irrelevent, I have a difficult time believing their accuracy as well.

Khabib only landed 6 more strikes than connor?

The stats for Diaz-McGreggor round 1 were 36-23 in favor of Connor.

Maybe the most lopsided round in UFC history, possible 10-7 with Diaz being rocked multiple times, and yet the striking numbers are 23-36?

Not accurate at all IMO.

 

[Strijfy]

I’m ending this myth once and for all because I’m sick and tired of people saying Khabib beat Conor standing up. This is simply not true and the stats back this up. I keep hearing it be said on here so I went and did some digging.

Conor landed 51 out of 81 significant strikes, compared to khabibs 70 out of 119. So that’s a 62% conversion for Conor compared to only 58% for Khabib.

Furthermore, Conor landed 98 out of 126 total strikes, compared to Khabib who landed 104 out of 167. So thats a 78% conversion for Conor compared to just 61% for Khabib.

Conor won standing up.

he also had a 100% tap rate over Khabib.
YAY he won
...no wait.....