If Nate's size was an excuse for Conor, most of his opponents can also use that excuse

Fuzzybread said:
The people who give Jones shit for having long arms are idiots. You make weight, it's your weight class.

Long arms are an advantage, but there are so many variables in MMA, that it's silly as hell to say it's unfair to have longer arms than your opponent.

I give Conor no grief for beating up FWs when he was one. I also don't give him praise for jumping up two weight classes, when he fought a guy who was only weight class up, but didn't have time to cut weight.
Click to expand...
I understand your point and agree with you.

But Conor himself brings Nate's size into discussion and acts as if size ALONE was the reason he lost.

Not Nate's BJJ, not him shooting a double leg in desperation and having to deal with a great BJJ black belt on the ground, not Nate's boxing that gave him trouble on feet in the second round, he puts it all in the "size" sack and ignores his own flaws and mistakes.

He blamed : the weight cut, not pacing himself, Nate's chin, Nate's size, but NEVER credited Nate's skills.

The double standards begin where he doesn't consider size the sole reason he beats anybody, when he's bigger, his opponents clearly can't deal with his skills, has nothing to do with his size, according to him, most of the media and fans.
 
dontlaugh said:
The way he puts it is like "he only beat me because he he's bigger", as if size is the only thing that can beat him, yet he beats all of his opponents and size is never the reason.
Click to expand...
When did he say "size is never the reason"?

In fact, him specifically saying that his opponents need "attributes" suggests that his size advantage is important.


There's no hypocrisy here. And there's no crying.
 
Because there is a "cause" to argue that Conor is a GOAT, so they exaggerate Nate's size and so on.

None of this is so linear: how come RDA beat these bigger LWs like Nate and Cowboy? Would he have done well against Conor? These small size differences enter almost the realm of MMAth, and it's tricky to evaluate.
 
alvarez fought the bigger man. i would say conor weighed around 200 lbs on fight night
 
SuperiorHands said:
You need to not take pre / post fight hype so literally bruh.
Click to expand...
McGregor 100% believes he beat a giant in nate diaz, it's not hype.

But mcgregor makes good use of his reach which is a skill, see struve/browne for how to not use it.
 
johncola said:
When did he say "size is never the reason"?

In fact, him specifically saying that his opponents need "attributes" suggests that his size advantage is important.


There's no hypocrisy here. And there's no crying.
Click to expand...
Is not in this perspective that i mean his size matters.

Nate Diaz is a tough fighter, NOT all time great material or anything like that. Decent LW and never really showed signs of having a future at WW. And yet he beat Conor once and lost a "Majority Decision" in the second.

Conor acts as if his loss to Nate was mainly due to things that have nothing to do with Nate's SKILLS.

He mentioned having to eat up to 170, not pacing himself and " not being efficient with his energy", Nate being bigger than him, Nate's chin.. everything BUT Nate's skills.

Why he gets away with that ? Why his opponents can't do the same and say "I only lost to Conor because i ate too much, i didn't pace myself correctly and he's bigger than me" ?

Why when Conor beats someone it all goes to his skills account ?
 
Fuzzybread said:
The people who give Jones shit for having long arms are idiots. You make weight, it's your weight class.

Long arms are an advantage, but there are so many variables in MMA, that it's silly as hell to say it's unfair to have longer arms than your opponent.

I give Conor no grief for beating up FWs when he was one. I also don't give him praise for jumping up two weight classes, when he fought a guy who was only weight class up, but didn't have time to cut weight.
Click to expand...
The only valid point to the Jones argument is when people think he's a great boxer, but it's not his boxing skill that troubles opponent on the feet, it's his tremendous reach advantage
 
Thaijitsu612 said:
The only valid point to the Jones argument is when people think he's a great boxer, but it's not his boxing skill that troubles opponent on the feet, it's his tremendous reach advantage
Click to expand...
EXACTLY

That's what i am saying, is like, according to Conor HIMSELF, Nate being a decent Boxer (Great Boxer for MMA standards) means nothing and the ONLY reason Conor has trouble with Nate it's his SIZE.

Conor uses from THAT SAME argument when he talks about Diaz.

BUT when he wins, his size doesn't matter anymore, is pure skill, according to him, the media and fans.

That's where the double standards are for me.
 
dontlaugh said:
McGregor is 5ft9 with 74 reach, he's BIG when he fights at Featherweight. Nate is 6ft and has 76 reach, lanky, doesn't carry much muscle, fights at 155 yet his size was such a big factor in both fights ?

Then why we can't use the same argument against Conor vs his opponents at FW ?

Siver - 5ft7 (70 reach)
Aldo - 5ft7 (70 reach)
Mendes - 5ft6 (66 reach)
Brandao - 5ft7 (69 reach)
Brimage - 5ft4 (71 reach < wtf)
Holloway - 5ft11 BUT has 69.5 reach
Alvarez - 5ft9 (69 reach)
Poirier - 5ft9 (70 reach)

Only Nate and Holloway were bigger than Conor, only Nate had reach advantage on him.

He basically admits he has problems with fighters that are bigger than him when he says "To beat me you got to have size" in that video before the rematch with Nate. The only guy he fought with that is basically his size at LW is Joseph Duffy AND he lost.

So, Jon Jones got shit for having a giant wingspan and abusing the fuck out of it to win fights and many of his haters say he should be at HW.

Why McGregor doesn't get shit for doing the same ? Why can't McGregor opponents cry about how big he was at FW ? So he really wants smaller opponents and really has problems against anybody with almost the same reach or bigger ?
Click to expand...


Half the guys on the list are big or bigger than Conor...LOL...How fooking stupid are you?

And the difference is Nate can't cut to FW, and most of these guys outside Brimage and maybe Mendes can't cut to BW.

Conor made the weight. Conor went up a weight class and fought bigger fighters, period, end of story.

And that wasn't the sole reason he had so much difficulty with Nate either. A underestimation of Nate's skill level and the stylistic challenges he poses to Conor is.
 
Last edited:
NotoriousMillions said:
Half the guys on the list are big or bigger than Conor...LOL...How fooking stupid are you?

And the difference is Nate can't cut to FW, and most of these guys outside Brimage and maybe Mendes can cut to BW.

Conor made the weight. Conor went up a weight class and fought bigger fighters, period, end of story.

And that wasn't the sole reason he had so much difficulty with Nate either. A underestimation of Nate's skill level and the stylistic challenges he poses to Conor is.
Click to expand...
"Half the guys on the list are big or bigger than conor"

With your first sentence, you ignored that most his opponents are smaller than him in reach AND height and Ignored that reach and height matter in fighting.

Then you proceeded to mention that the only difference is Nate is too big because he can't cut to FW, meanwhile all other fighter are big too but can cut to FW.

Is like your criteria of being big is not being able to cut down to Featherweight therefore Conor isn't big because he can meanwhile his opponents at FW are bigger than him somehow...can you contradict yourself more ?

And then people on sherdog say "Haters are worst than fans" when we go off on people like you.
 
Still waiting for the UFC to show "in cage weights" like HBO boxing does with it's "in ring weight".
 
dontlaugh said:
McGregor is 5ft9 with 74 reach, he's BIG when he fights at Featherweight. Nate is 6ft and has 76 reach, lanky, doesn't carry much muscle, fights at 155 yet his size was such a big factor in both fights ?

Then why we can't use the same argument against Conor vs his opponents at FW ?

Siver - 5ft7 (70 reach)
Aldo - 5ft7 (70 reach)
Mendes - 5ft6 (66 reach)
Brandao - 5ft7 (69 reach)
Brimage - 5ft4 (71 reach < wtf)
Holloway - 5ft11 BUT has 69.5 reach
Alvarez - 5ft9 (69 reach)
Poirier - 5ft9 (70 reach)

Only Nate and Holloway were bigger than Conor, only Nate had reach advantage on him.

He basically admits he has problems with fighters that are bigger than him when he says "To beat me you got to have size" in that video before the rematch with Nate. The only guy he fought with that is basically his size at LW is Joseph Duffy AND he lost.

So, Jon Jones got shit for having a giant wingspan and abusing the fuck out of it to win fights and many of his haters say he should be at HW.

Why McGregor doesn't get shit for doing the same ? Why can't McGregor opponents cry about how big he was at FW ? So he really wants smaller opponents and really has problems against anybody with almost the same reach or bigger ?
Click to expand...


Are you retarded?

Literally all his haters said he should of been at lw,and yes size did play a factor when your used to being the bigger fight and suddenly that weapon is taken away from you,your accuracy and ability to hit and not be hit suffers.

Ive never seen conor miss so many shots as i did in the first nate fight
 
Yes i agree TS all conors wins should be overturned cuz he was fighting the smaller opponent. Its just not fair.
 
Nate Diaz was 20lb heavier than Mcgregor

Mcgregor has never been 20lb heavier than his opponent.
 
ZuffaExecutive said:
Are you retarded?

Literally all his haters said he should of been at lw,and yes size did play a factor when your used to being the bigger fight and suddenly that weapon is taken away from you,your accuracy and ability to hit and not be hit suffers.

Ive never seen conor miss so many shots as i did in the first nate fight
Click to expand...
Yet he doesn't acknowledge that and says his loss to nate was because of Nate's size only.

Despite everytime he wins, IS PURE SKILL, WOAH HE'S THE BEST STRIKER EVER. despite having SIZE and REACH advantage on most his opponents.

Is like you guys distort the context because you don't have arguments. Conor himself started the double standards, you're already siding with the biased side.
 
At least Conor busted Nate up for a round and a half when he lost and took the W back, all of the guys you mentioned (bar Chad) got handled from bell-to-bell.

They can use whatever excuse they want it won't change anything tho.
 
dontlaugh said:
"Half the guys on the list are big or bigger than conor"

With your first sentence, you ignored that most his opponents are smaller than him in reach AND height and Ignored that reach and height matter in fighting.

Then you proceeded to mention that the only difference is Nate is too big because he can't cut to FW, meanwhile all other fighter are big too but can cut to FW.

Is like your criteria of being big is not being able to cut down to Featherweight therefore Conor isn't big because he can meanwhile his opponents at FW are bigger than him somehow...can you contradict yourself more ?

And then people on sherdog say "Haters are worst than fans" when we go off on people like you.
Click to expand...

Poirer same size, Holloway bigger, Edward same size, Nate bigger. That's 5/9 of his opponents in the UFC, so no dipshit, they aren't all mostly bigger.

Reach doesn't indicate whether you are bigger than someone you dysfunctional eijit. It's an advantage sure, but if somebody is 6 inches, 50 lbs bigger than me and I still have a longer reach than them...I'm not bigger than them. I have longer arms. That's it. Period. End of story.

10/10 psychologists would diagnose you as a dumb ass for this irrationality.

Conor has longer arms. That's it.

Nate didn't give Conor problems solely because he has longer arms.
 
Nate's size has little to nothing to do with why he won, and the size difference between he and Conor isn't even that big of a deal anyway. Conor should steal Floyd's nickname TBE as well (The Best Excuses.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,703
Messages
55,435,988
Members
174,774
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top