how I know Conor/Dustin will be for the title

[kflo]

How many times do you have to say "Conor is in the mix" before you get a pat on the head? I thought you would have hit your quota in the first 3 pages of this thread alone... do they put quotas? Or is it just a "whenever you can" type of thing. Do you seriously think your boss will actually count up how many times you said the "Conor is in the mix" bulletpoint and clap for you on Monday?

He's going to be shaking his head at your performance in this thread. Considering Dana was as pissed as he was for Ariel leaking the Brock news, I can't imagine they'd be too thrilled with your sloppy posting highlighting the news that they'll make the Conor fight for the belt.

You started your own thread with conor in the mix for the title. Then you started another thread when you read that I too thought conor was in the mix. That’s how dumb you are. Lol.

 

[Dionysian]

You started your own thread with conor in the mix for the title. Then you started another thread when you read that I too thought conor was in the mix. That’s how dumb you are. Lol.

And chalk up another 2 mentions to the tally lol!

It takes 3 seconds to scroll up and read the thread title and see that phrase isn't there, by the way. Don't try and use MY posts for your bullshit tally. You must be really nervous about Monday to be this damn apparent in trying to use the catch-phrase as much as you are. That shit ain't going to excuse you dropping the ball on this one like you have.

 

[johncola]

I know you're a Conor fan and all and the guy has done great stuff, but no... they aren't the two top fighters. You and I clearly have different metrics.

Yes we do. There's judging fighters' records, which you're doing. And then there's using those records to gauge fighters' skills, which I'm doing. Your metric is superior for sports where there are regular schedules, e.g. football league tables, which are a good thing. Sometimes I think a lower placed team is better than a higher placed team, but ultimately still think that the final league table at the end of the season is the better thing to go by. But MMA isn't and can't be like regular sports. Fighters fight infrequently and irregularly for health reasons, which is the way it has to be. Yet people, like yourself, try to create some sort of structure by which title fights should be awarded. You're fighting a losing battle. Rankings and records can only be useful for giving a general indicator of who the top fighters are. They won't ever be as effective for judging who the best fighter is as regular sports' league tables. Thus we just have to cut through the bullshit and gauge who the best fighter is for ourselves. Records help in doing that. And despite the fact that Conor hasn't fought much, or recently, at lightweight, I still think he's the most skilled. I'd pick him to beat Dustin, Justin, Tony, Chandler, etc. And that's what we should be going by. Maybe your opinion differs on who Conor would and wouldn't beat, and that's fine, and is what discussion is for.

Mine is that you can't keep a rank for ages based on favoritism, no matter how good you looked once upon a time.

Favouritism is another metric entirely, and not one that I use. You bring up a good point, in that the UFC uses neither of our metrics; you use records, and I use skills, while the UFC uses BUSINESS. And until there's some sort of governing body that matchmakes on behalf of the UFC, we can't do much to change that. All we can talk about is which of our metrics is superior. Then within those metrics, which fighter is superior.

Conor might be favored against all of them... but it'd be a crap-shoot because it is based on fantasy versions of Conor, not a Conor that has actually been seen in the cage at LW. The last time we saw a LW Conor win was 2016. You might not think it'd cheapen a belt to have a guy like that get HIS THIRD LW TITLE SHOT IN A ROW... but a segment of fans definitely would. The belt's legitimacy would be lessened. If Conor won twice in my 4-man tournament idea... then that idea would evaporate. Everyone would see the belt as legit and the future hype/PPV numbers would be bumped to correspond to that.

Here's another issue with your metric; you're making up "rules" to follow. You say "fantasy version of Conor". But every current version of any fighter is a "fantasy version". No fighter stays the same. The more that time passes, the less relevant the version we previously saw is. E.g. the Khabib we saw smash Gaethje is very relevant to what we know of what Khabib could do today. The Conor we saw smash Eddie is much less relevant to what we know of what Conor could do today. And that's all fine, and I take that into consideration in my metric when I determine that Conor is the best. But how have you declared that we can only go by a "fantasy version" of Conor, while we have the "real version" of Khabib? What's your cutoff point? Is it arbitrary?

Finally, I know you haven't seen the evidence. Nor have the vast majority of posters. That's specifically why I brought it up on the first page. But whatever, you can think I'm a conspiracy theorist, it is fine. It isn't my goal to convince you nor do I particularly want to delve into details of his 36k posts to try and prove it to you since I'm sure you don't particularly care. I know what corporate posters are supposed to do and he does it overkill... 36k posts about nothing but PR topics. Pretty obvious, but only if you pay attention to that sort of thing. Which obviously you (and most others) don't. Guess all I can do is bump this when they announce it'll be for the title.

Whether kenflo is a "UFC shill" or not, your should be focusing on the arguments, not the arguer. If he's right then he's right. If he's wrong then he's wrong. Discuss the point to determine what the case is. I don't pay attention to the arguer.

 

[kflo]

And chalk up another 2 mentions to the tally lol!

It takes 3 seconds to scroll up and read the thread title and see that phrase isn't there, by the way. Don't try and use MY posts for your bullshit tally. You must be really nervous about Monday to be this damn apparent in trying to use the catch-phrase as much as you are. That shit ain't going to excuse you dropping the ball on this one like you have.

You didn’t start a thread about 4 guys to fight for the title including conor? What do you call that?

You simply lie all the time that you just move on as if it didn’t happen.

 

[linch]

Dana has just revealed that conor IS NOT fighting for the belt as khabib is still considered the champion. No vacant belt or interim belt.
I guess that piece of info should clear the air around here.

 

[phatron]

Dana has just revealed that conor IS NOT fighting for the belt as khabib is still considered the champion. No vacant belt or interim belt.
I guess that piece of info should clear the air around here.

cause dana alwyas tells the truth

 

[Kryptt]

Dana says it wasn't signed yet nut fekk it I'm in! McGregor gets the "favoritism" path no matter what fans clamor for and if he makes 155 and defeats The Dimond why not. Division is hollowed like LHW anyhow with a champ of the undisputed ilk vacating (well if true)...

 

[fzoid4454]

I said matchups. Stylistically they have fought guys who fight to their strengths. Like conor. I understand frequency and recency matters.

Ah. I didn't think Conor was being touted as unworthy because of style or skill as much as not putting the work in. Fair enough.

 

[fzoid4454]

How do you say it’s legitimate when all sanctioning bodies have completely different rankings for the same fighters with zero transparency as to how or why. Look back at how many title shots Mosley got after he lost and started to fade.

I’m only pointing out there has never been a really good system. Never.

And the reality is in combat sports the top draws always have more opportunities because fans want big fights.

Rankings, by nature, are entirely subjective assessment, so I'm not sure what you'd want in terms of transparency as to how or why. Even the computerized college ones have a huge, opaque subjective component to them.

The fact that no systems meet your criteria for "good" isn't the same as saying they are all equally bad. The UFC "method" is pretty much Dana's whims and who can trash-talk their way into being hot on social media, so boxing not being perfect doesn't mean it stoops to the level of how the UFC does it.

 

[kflo]

Rankings, by nature, are entirely subjective assessment, so I'm not sure what you'd want in terms of transparency as to how or why. Even the computerized college ones have a huge, opaque subjective component to them.

The fact that no systems meet your criteria for "good" isn't the same as saying they are all equally bad. The UFC "method" is pretty much Dana's whims and who can trash-talk their way into being hot on social media, so boxing not being perfect doesn't mean it stoops to the level of how the UFC does it.

I’m not sure how to judge “stooping”. Terrence Crawford hasn’t defended his wbo title in a year. He’s facing kell brook in November. Brook is ranked 5th by the wbo, and seems unranked by everyone else. Crawford hasn’t fought most of the top fighters in the division.

Spence hasn’t fought in a year and gets to defend his IBF title against a Danny Garcia who is unranked by the IBF (he’s ranked 2nd by WBC, which Spence is also defending). So I’m not sure what you mean by “stoops” to the level.

Mikey Garcia is 1-1 at ww and is ranked top 3 in 3 of the 4 major sanctioning bodies.

Most of the ufc title fights are just as justifiable and many times moreso than boxing matchups. Top p4p bantomweight Inoue just defended his WBA and IBF title against the #2 and #4 respectively ranked fighter. Estrada just defended against the #3 contender.

Obviously it goes on and on. I honestly cannot say boxing is objectively better.

Obviously all of them can and should do better.

 

[fzoid4454]

I’m not sure how to judge “stooping”. Terrence Crawford hasn’t defended his wbo title in a year. He’s facing kell brook in November. Brook is ranked 5th by the wbo, and seems unranked by everyone else. Crawford hasn’t fought most of the top fighters in the division.

Spence hasn’t fought in a year and gets to defend his IBF title against a Danny Garcia who is unranked by the IBF (he’s ranked 2nd by WBC, which Spence is also defending). So I’m not sure what you mean by “stoops” to the level.

Mikey Garcia is 1-1 at ww and is ranked top 3 in 3 of the 4 major sanctioning bodies.

Most of the ufc title fights are just as justifiable and many times moreso than boxing matchups. Top p4p bantomweight Inoue just defended his WBA and IBF title against the #2 and #4 respectively ranked fighter. Estrada just defended against the #3 contender.

Obviously it goes on and on. I honestly cannot say boxing is objectively better.

Obviously all of them can and should do better.

Chael Sonnen, coming off of consecutive losses as a MW gets a LHW title shot against Bones Jones by virtue of saying stupid shit.

Khabib, arguably the UFC's best fighter, starts his title reign fighting the #11 ranked LW fighter who, if he upsets Khabib, can't claim the title.

The UFC uses footage of McGregor's criminal (literally) rampage to hype the fight with Khabib, then acts shocked when a pissed off Khabib takes it outside the ring.

Dana feeds Priscila Cachoeira to Valentina in Priscila's freaking UFC debut, then bitches about Yamasaki for the ensuing slaughter and bloodbath in the cage.

"Stoops."

 

[kflo]

Chael Sonnen, coming off of consecutive losses as a MW gets a LHW title shot against Bones Jones by virtue of saying stupid shit.

Khabib, arguably the UFC's best fighter, starts his title reign fighting the #11 ranked LW fighter who, if he upsets Khabib, can't claim the title.

The UFC uses footage of McGregor's criminal (literally) rampage to hype the fight with Khabib, then acts shocked when a pissed off Khabib takes it outside the ring.

Dana feeds Priscila Cachoeira to Valentina in Priscila's freaking UFC debut, then bitches about Yamasaki for the ensuing slaughter and bloodbath in the cage.

"Stoops."

Mosely had 5 title shots for a major title coming off of a loss (one was coming off a NC after a loss). Some were in the weight class above.

look, hopefully we can agree that both have title shots that aren’t deserved or earned. Boxing has had lots of in ring melees as you know as well. Combat sports is part spectacle and business and both do things that aren’t fully consistent with purity. I just can’t agree that boxing is somehow above the ufc in these regards.

 

[fzoid4454]

Mosely had 5 title shots for a major title coming off of a loss (one was coming off a NC after a loss). Some were in the weight class above.

look, hopefully we can agree that both have title shots that aren’t deserved or earned. Boxing has had lots of in ring melees as you know as well. Combat sports is part spectacle and business and both do things that aren’t fully consistent with purity. I just can’t agree that boxing is somehow above the ufc in these regards.

That's not correct. You need to actually know something about the sport if you're going to criticize it or use it as an example -

2 of those were rematches after he lost the belt (Vernon Forrest, Winky Wright). That's a pretty standard clause for champs - they get a rematch if they lose. It's contractually mandated and the new champion already agreed to it - that's not about the sanctioning bodies.

He moved up a weight class fought Mayorga after losing his welterweight title, but it was for the WBA "Inter-Continental" title, which is not the world title.

He moved up and fought for Canelo Alvarez' WBO title, I'm not sure if we consider WBO to be a legitimate world title, but that was after a "superfight" loss against Paquiao, and the Alvarez fight would also be considered a "superfight."

So, out of your claimed five title shots off of losses, there was one shot at a world title that wasn't a precondition to the loss (the precondition existing because he was the champion), and that was coming off of one superfight to another superfight in another weight class.

Really, your comparison and example of a fighter getting gifts and unearned title shots falls horribly short.

 

[Murder_KickHC]

Hopefully Conor moves up to WW right after getting LW belt to try to become double champ again.

 

[kflo]

That's not correct. You need to actually know something about the sport if you're going to criticize it or use it as an example -

2 of those were rematches after he lost the belt (Vernon Forrest, Winky Wright). That's a pretty standard clause for champs - they get a rematch if they lose. It's contractually mandated and the new champion already agreed to it - that's not about the sanctioning bodies.

He moved up a weight class fought Mayorga after losing his welterweight title, but it was for the WBA "Inter-Continental" title, which is not the world title.

He moved up and fought for Canelo Alvarez' WBO title, I'm not sure if we consider WBO to be a legitimate world title, but that was after a "superfight" loss against Paquiao, and the Alvarez fight would also be considered a "superfight."

So, out of your claimed five title shots off of losses, there was one shot at a world title that wasn't a precondition to the loss (the precondition existing because he was the champion), and that was coming off of one superfight to another superfight in another weight class.

Really, your comparison and example of a fighter getting gifts and unearned title shots falls horribly short.

He fought Forrest coming off a loss. There was no rematch clause. He fought Oscar after 2 losses and a NC. He fought winky after a loss (rematch clause). Fought Manny coming off a loss and a draw. Canelo after a losing to manny (so coming of a loss, draw, loss). I didn’t count mayorga. That boxing has some institutionalized rematches doesn’t make it better. Are we really having a debate about whether boxers earn title shots in a systematic way? (And Mosley was my favorite fighter from that era).

I acknowledge that the ufc doesn’t have a pure system, but I won’t acknowledge that boxing’s system is better.

 

[fzoid4454]

He fought Forrest coming off a loss. There was no rematch clause. He fought Oscar after 2 losses and a NC. He fought winky after a loss (rematch clause). Fought Manny coming off a loss and a draw. Canelo after a losing to manny (so coming of a loss, draw, loss). I didn’t count mayorga. That boxing has some institutionalized rematches doesn’t make it better. Are we really having a debate about whether boxers earn title shots in a systematic way? (And Mosley was my favorite fighter from that era).

I acknowledge that the ufc doesn’t have a pure system, but I won’t acknowledge that boxing’s system is better.

Your claim was "was given five title shots coming off of losses" -

I'll give you Forrest, though there was some controversy of the effects of the 2nd round headbutt, and you had two fighters who were a combined 68-0 going into that first bout.

So, two times. You claimed five, for the sake of hyperbole.

Oscar he fought after a NC. Not a loss. He fought Manny coming off a draw, not a loss.

And he put the first legitimate, no-question loss on De La Hoya's record, previously, so that one was, again, in the category of "superfight." Same with Manny. Almost all of the fights you mentioned were either immediate rematches from him losing the belt, or considered a "superfight."

I don't fault the UFC for giving GSP a title fight in his return, he's a legend and that's a superfight. Again, using Mosely as an example is a poor choice.

 

[kflo]

Your claim was "was given five title shots coming off of losses" -

I'll give you Forrest, though there was some controversy of the effects of the 2nd round headbutt, and you had two fighters who were a combined 68-0 going into that first bout.

So, two times. You claimed five, for the sake of hyperbole.

Oscar he fought after a NC. Not a loss. He fought Manny coming off a draw, not a loss.

And he put the first legitimate, no-question loss on De La Hoya's record, previously, so that one was, again, in the category of "superfight." Same with Manny. Almost all of the fights you mentioned were either immediate rematches from him losing the belt, or considered a "superfight."

I don't fault the UFC for giving GSP a title fight in his return, he's a legend and that's a superfight. Again, using Mosely as an example is a poor choice.

5 times he was fighting for a title without a win after a loss. that's a fact. rematches, superfights, etc are just rationalizations for the same thing you are trying to be critical of the ufc for. i also wouldn't call those superfights. it was just a marketable fighter getting a title fight against another marketable fighter without really earning it other than being able to sell (sound familiar?). the fact that he won one of them doesn't mean he earned the fight from a pure sport standpoint. which is what we are discussing.

i have no problem with those fights, btw. but i don't see how you can justify all of those while at the same time suggesting the ufc is less pure. and again, he's just one example. i already listed other current examples that aren't supportable from a pure rankings standpoint.

you're free to believe what you want about the purity of boxing compared to the ufc. i just don't see it.

 

[Regal Boy]

Poirier is literally a grade C level fighter. He has 26 wins in 33 fights. That's a 78% which is a C grade. Poirier is a top lightweight and he has a C grade. Just goes to show LW is a bum division and this weird notion that it's the deepest division is only held by retards (yes, fighters are mostly retards as well, taking their opinion on shit is retarded). Ferguson has been knocked down in every fight he's ever been in and got TKO'd by Justin the goofy Gaethje. Conor made a career out of killing himself cutting weight to fight undersized competition. Gaethje got slept by C-Level Poirier and Eddie "manlet" Alvarez.

BW, FW, WW, are all deeper divisions than 155. LW is the bitch division.