"I just want 2 gold belts, a bjj black belt, HOF plaque, and 25 million" - Conor Mcgregor, 2013

[Sjb1888]

Here are the links to the two posts of proof:
One
Two

Siver's ranking was sketchy. He was borderline top 10 in that other publications had him ranked slightly lower. I think he was barely worthy of #15, in that he was clearly past his best. Plus, he was a great style matchup for Conor; tailor made for Conor to use as a short, stocky punching bag. Conor even said himself that it was a mismatch. The UFC booked the fight as a showcase for Conor on the post NFL playoff slot on FS1. He clearly got preferential treatment, and you won't find many Conor fans saying otherwise. Despite that, I still think he was the clear best contender for Aldo.

The reason for the Siver fight was that Conor refused to wait for his title shot, he wanted to keep making money, he knew Aldo and Chad would likely do some damage to each other and that he'd have to sit out a long time until getting the title shot he won after beating Dustin.

Conor asked for Cub and other better fighters but the UFC were trying to make sure they didn't lose the big fight so they picked a safer bet in Siver.

 

[johncola]

Nobody other than Max. Even having lost to Conor a few years back, he was still on a longer win streak with with TWO top 10 wins in a row (#6 Cub and #7 Oliveira). Conor, on the other hand, was coming off beating Dustin and Siver who were 6 and 10 within the UFC's ranking. I know it says Dustin was #5 on fight night, but I literally posted a UFC Ranking from like a week before the fight where even the UFC had Dustin ranked at 6.

What are you saying about Max? That he deserved the title shot more? He was on a 4-fight streak over Chope, Fili, Collard, Corassani. If you're just reaffirming that Max's win streak is great, as we spoke about in our other discussion, then yes, I agree. But I'm asking who shoulda been given the shot at Aldo instead of Conor in early 2015.

Whether Poirier was #5 or #6 is unimportant to anything we've talked about. But for the record, I think he was #5, as this source documented, and as the Conor/Dustin fight graphics indicated. What's the source of your image?

 

[johncola]

The reason for the Siver fight was that Conor refused to wait for his title shot, he wanted to keep making money, he knew Aldo and Chad would likely do some damage to each other and that he'd have to sit out a long time until getting the title shot he won after beating Dustin.

Conor asked for Cub and other better fighters but the UFC were trying to make sure they didn't lose the big fight so they picked a safer bet in Siver.

I agree with all that. And fighting Siver is for sure better than sitting out, which is what most fighters would do. But what you're describing is the preferential treatment I'm talking about. The UFC gave Conor a short/stocky striker instead of a wrestler or lengthy striker/grappler. They wanted Conor to win so they gave him an easy matchup instead of making a more competitive matchup.

 

[Sjb1888]

I agree with all that. And fighting Siver is for sure better than sitting out, which is what most fighters would do. But what you're describing is the preferential treatment I'm talking about. The UFC gave Conor a short/stocky striker instead of a wrestler or lengthy striker/grappler. They wanted Conor to win so they gave him an easy matchup instead of making a more competitive matchup.

That's not preferential treatment, they were looking out for thier own bottom line, it wasn't a favour to Conor.

At that stage they obviously weren't sure how far Conor could go, but Conor wasn't lacking that confidence, he wanted the bigger fights.

 

[ixRanGzeNxi]

What are you saying about Max? That he deserved the title shot more? He was on a 4-fight streak over Chope, Fili, Collard, Corassani. If you're just reaffirming that Max's win streak is great, as we spoke about in our other discussion, then yes, I agree. But I'm asking who shoulda been given the shot at Aldo instead of Conor in early 2015.

Whether Poirier was #5 or #6 is unimportant to anything we've talked about. But for the record, I think he was #5, as this source documented, and as the Conor/Dustin fight graphics indicated. What's the source of your image?

You asked who else deserved a title shot other than Conor or something along those lines, and I said other than MAX...there really isn't anyone else. And even though Conor just beat Max a couple years before that, Max was on a 6 fight win streak within the time frame of Conor fighting Chad (Conor had 5). If we go with when he fought Aldo, Max was on a 6 fight win streak and Conor on 5. Of course by the time Aldo and Conor actually fought...Max is out of the question because Conor had just beaten the #1 ranked contender in Chad. I never said Max deserved it "more", but just that he was also on a good streak with good wins. Business-wise, Conor is obviously the better pick without a doubt for a challenger. Only thing I wish for in the end of it all is that Conor and Aldo had a rematch just to clear the air about fluke win or if Conor's fights would end up like Max's against Aldo to really prove superiority.

Nevertheless 4/5 wins in the UFC being by way of T/KO and unbeaten inside the Octagon are good reasons for a title shot, but when BASICALLY only one of them really were top 10 makes me iffy on the idea. Doesn't matter who it is, whether we're talking Conor or Cody Garbrandt. Interestingly enough, Cody was also unbeaten and on a 5-fight win streak with 4 wins by way of T/KO...and like 2 top 10 quality wins similar to Conor (Mizugaki ~ Poirier and Almeida ~ Siver similarly ranking-wise, but I could be wrong). They both beat their respective Champs, but I just don't think they necessarily "earned" their shot. There could literally be no one else to challenge for the belt, but the feeling or opinion that they didn't earn the shot would remain the same.





PS: My image was found on the same site. Just didn't see any for Sept when I searched but instead showed me for August. Funny how Poirier went up a rank without fighting from Aug to Sept...like how Nate went from like 15 to like 7 or something magically before fighting Conor.

 

[johncola]

That's not preferential treatment, they were looking out for thier own bottom line, it wasn't a favour to Conor.

At that stage they obviously weren't sure how far Conor could go, but Conor wasn't lacking that confidence, he wanted the bigger fights.

"Preferential treatment" in that they intentionally gave Conor an advantage in how they matched him up, to increase his chance of winning. You agree that they did this, but you just aren't calling it "preferential treatment". What you call it isn't important; what it is is what matters. But for the record, it meets the dictionary definition of "preferential treatment". Whether they did it for Conor's feelings or they did it so they could make money off him has nothing to do with it; that's just the motive for the preferential treatment.

 

[Sjb1888]

"Preferential treatment" in that they intentionally gave Conor an advantage in how they matched him up, to increase his chance of winning. You agree that they did this, but you just aren't calling it "preferential treatment". What you call it isn't important; what it is is what matters. But for the record, it meets the dictionary definition of "preferential treatment". Whether they did it for Conor's feelings or they did it so they could make money off him has nothing to do with it; that's just the motive for the preferential treatment.

We agree that they gave him a fight they were sure he would win to protect thier interests, but for it to be classed as preferential treatment it would have to be Conor's preferred option, which by all account it was not...

Words matter Bro.

 

[johncola]

You asked who else deserved a title shot other than Conor or something along those lines, and I said other than MAX...there really isn't anyone else. And even though Conor just beat Max a couple years before that, Max was on a 6 fight win streak within the time frame of Conor fighting Chad (Conor had 5). If we go with when he fought Aldo, Max was on a 6 fight win streak and Conor on 5. Of course by the time Aldo and Conor actually fought...Max is out of the question because Conor had just beaten the #1 ranked contender in Chad. I never said Max deserved it "more", but just that he was also on a good streak with good wins. Business-wise, Conor is obviously the better pick without a doubt for a challenger. Only thing I wish for in the end of it all is that Conor and Aldo had a rematch just to clear the air about fluke win or if Conor's fights would end up like Max's against Aldo to really prove superiority.

The comparison of Conor's and Max's win streaks has no relevance to what we've been talking about. The subject is whether or not in January 2015, after Conor beat Siver, he deserved the title shot more than any other candidate. I think Frankie is the only other one you could argue. Max had only beaten the four names I mentioned, and wasn't in contention whatsoever. Business-wise, we both agree that Conor was the right move for the UFC. But I'm also arguing that competitively, Conor was the best choice. You appear to agree with me now? The post of yours that I originally quoted made the implication that Conor was the recipient of an undeserved title shot, and that most other UFC title contenders are significantly more deserving. A reminder:

Poirier may have been ranked 5-10...but no way in hell was Siver 10. In either case...he had ONE win against a guy at #5 to "earn" a title shot? If only it worked that way for everyone...

I almost forgot to respond to the bit about the Aldo rematch. In an ideal world, the rematch woulda happened. Alas, it didn't, because Conor had other options he preferred. However, with how both of their respective fights have played out since, I'm confident that wasn't a fluke, and that Conor wins comfortably most of the time. It'd be very unlikely to happen ever again in 13 seconds, but I'd have 85%+ confidence in picking Conor in a rematch.

Nevertheless 4/5 wins in the UFC being by way of T/KO and unbeaten inside the Octagon are good reasons for a title shot, but when BASICALLY only one of them really were top 10 makes me iffy on the idea. Doesn't matter who it is, whether we're talking Conor or Cody Garbrandt. Interestingly enough, Cody was also unbeaten and on a 5-fight win streak with 4 wins by way of T/KO...and like 2 top 10 quality wins similar to Conor (Mizugaki ~ Poirier and Almeida ~ Siver similarly ranking-wise, but I could be wrong). They both beat their respective Champs, but I just don't think they necessarily "earned" their shot. There could literally be no one else to challenge for the belt, but the feeling or opinion that they didn't earn the shot would remain the same.

Okay, so you're saying that you're fine that Conor got the title shot, but just that he didn't "earn" it?

I disagree with that latter part, and think that if Conor didn't "earn" his title shot, then very few in UFC history have.

PS: My image was found on the same site. Just didn't see any for Sept when I searched but instead showed me for August. Funny how Poirier went up a rank without fighting from Aug to Sept...like how Nate went from like 15 to like 7 or something magically before fighting Conor.

The only reason Poirier went up in the rankings is because Korean Zombie had been out a year, and would be out for the forseeable future on military service, so was removed from the rankings.

 

[Kid Killashaw]

The hate is real.

Conor was next in line after stiffening Dustin largely because Aldo had already beaten Frankie twice, mendes twice, cub, and lamas. Conor was the next logical fight. Conor even took the Siver fight to stay active which is literally something fighters never do. Even Ortega didn't want to risk his title shot. It was risky as Siver ruined George Sot's title shot opportunity at 155. The narrative that Conor was gifted a shot of was awarded a shot after beating Siver is completely untrue.

 

[johncola]

We agree that they gave him a fight they were sure he would win to protect thier interests, but for it to be classed as preferential treatment it would have to be Conor's preferred option, which by all account it was not...

Words matter Bro.

Sure, words matter, but not nearly as much as the meaning they're being used to convey. If I send you a laptop in the post, but package it in a box intended for bananas, with a picture of a banana on it, don't try and eat the laptop. Respond to the product, not the packaging. Not that I'm saying you've done that here; I'm just saying it's how everyone should conduct themselves.

"classed" as preferential treatment? Not sure what that means, and seems like you just don't want to attach the "preferential treatment" label to Conor. If you're saying that Conor didn't receive preferential treatment, by the dictionary definition, then I disagree. Preferential treatment has nothing to do with the receipient's interests; it's simply about showing partiality or bias. Here are some different dictionary definitions:

Oxford: "Of or involving preference or partiality; constituting a favour or privilege."
Cambridge: "used to say that something you are given that is better than what other people receive"
Webster: "showing preference"
Collins: "If you get preferential treatment, you are treated better than other people and therefore have an advantage over them."
Dictionary.com: "showing or giving preference"

You can also consult the thesaurus for synonyms of "preferential treatment": bias, discrimination, inequity, partisanship.

Just accept it. It doesn't mean Conor isn't GOAT.

 

[johncola]

PS: My image was found on the same site. Just didn't see any for Sept when I searched but instead showed me for August. Funny how Poirier went up a rank without fighting from Aug to Sept...like how Nate went from like 15 to like 7 or something magically before fighting Conor.

Sorry to quote you again but I have something to add. Nate went up from #6 to #5, and it's because Cowboy Cerrone took a fight at WW so some media members stopped ranking him at Lightweight. That's it.

So to clarify:

You're wrong if you're in any way implying there's shadiness to Poirier going up from #6 to #5. Korean Zombie's military service is the reason.
You're wrong about the severity of the change in Diaz's ranking.
You're wrong if you're in any way implying there's shadiness to Diaz going up from #6 to #5. Cowboy's weight class change is the reason.

 

[chinarice]

I have addressed the Poirier rank. Also, you fanboys assuming everyone who disagrees with you is showing "blind hatred" is hilarious. Just cuz you fucks are blindly chugging his jizz, doesn't mean the non-fanboys are also blind.

Lol look at how mad you get with McGregor as the subject.

You can't be impartial because you go into full triggered mode as soon as conor is mentioned.

Come at you with facts and you just cry more because facts mean more than your bullshit you make up in your head to suit your agenda. Sad lol

 

[ixRanGzeNxi]

Lol look at how mad you get with McGregor as the subject.

You can't be impartial because you go into full triggered mode as soon as conor is mentioned.

Come at you with facts and you just cry more because facts mean more than your bullshit you make up in your head to suit your agenda. Sad lol

Oh how cute. Another fanboy jerking off to the success of their man crush. Since you fucks are clearly unable to see anything beyond Conor's nutsack, look at the FEW people that responded to me with ACTUAL FACTS and DATA to back up their points. My "agenda"? Even though 80% of you morons replying to me come with no sources or anything to back up your shit, and here I came with pics and all that to show where and how I came to draw my opinions.


Now, go back to your mommy and tell them a bad person was swearing online and that makes him very angry.

 

[Sjb1888]

Sure, words matter, but not nearly as much as the meaning they're being used to convey. If I send you a laptop in the post, but package it in a box intended for bananas, with a picture of a banana on it, don't try and eat the laptop. Respond to the product, not the packaging. Not that I'm saying you've done that here; I'm just saying it's how everyone should conduct themselves.

"classed" as preferential treatment? Not sure what that means, and seems like you just don't want to attach the "preferential treatment" label to Conor. If you're saying that Conor didn't receive preferential treatment, by the dictionary definition, then I disagree. Preferential treatment has nothing to do with the receipient's interests; it's simply about showing partiality or bias. Here are some different dictionary definitions:

Oxford: "Of or involving preference or partiality; constituting a favour or privilege."
Cambridge: "used to say that something you are given that is better than what other people receive"
Webster: "showing preference"
Collins: "If you get preferential treatment, you are treated better than other people and therefore have an advantage over them."
Dictionary.com: "showing or giving preference"

You can also consult the thesaurus for synonyms of "preferential treatment": bias, discrimination, inequity, partisanship.

Just accept it. It doesn't mean Conor isn't GOAT.

 

[chinarice]

Oh how cute. Another fanboy jerking off to the success of their man crush. Since you fucks are clearly unable to see anything beyond Conor's nutsack, look at the FEW people that responded to me with ACTUAL FACTS and DATA to back up their points. My "agenda"? Even though 80% of you morons replying to me come with no sources or anything to back up your shit, and here I came with pics and all that to show where and how I came to draw my opinions.


Now, go back to your mommy and tell them a bad person was swearing online and that makes him very angry.

FACT: You don't know what facts are.

I linked you a stillframe image of Conor's UFC fight with Poirier. That factually happened dummy. Continue being a dumbass, embarrassing yourself. I await another response implying I'm a homo, since you know, that's the go-to for closet homos.

 

[Stormtrooper85]

Who has he beaten other than RDA?

Gaethje? He's a fookin bum too.

Apparently, you think his career started when he made his UFC debut. How sad and completely misinformed you are.

 

[lepsahekim]

Wasn't incoherent at all and I'm not triggered. I don't even hate him I just hate what he represents and the current state of society.

I'm not "triggered" by it though, just think if the trend continues our society's future looks pretty bleak. I'm fasinated by phycology and societal trends so I actually enjoy observing and debating on the subject.

^^White Knight for humanity right here^^

Relax and don’t worry, every generation thinks what you are thinking as they get older. That’s been happening for centuries and possibly Millenia, and Humanity is doing quite fine. Society as well, worlds never been more prosperous or peaceful. You’ll give yourself Health issues worrying about how everyone else is behaving.