I will admit to a lot of flaws, but being a revisionist historian is something I adamantly deny. I am constantly standing up for fighters regardless of my personal opinion on them because some Sherdogger with short-term memory throws out an insult casually without considering any historic or contextual evidence. The most common of which is the revisionist's favorite... "xxxx champ was never that good and only fought cans". I actually think I am quite impartial in my arguments and base my opinions on accurate historical references.
So, RDA dropped out and didn't get injured right? It was all a sham despite the evidence substantiating the injury? And when did Nick Diaz and Conor fight and how the fuck did the entire world miss that fight???
The reason the RDA fight was cancelled has no relevance to my point. Ok apologies, RDA didn't drop out he was injured. That doesn't really have anything to do with my point which was more related to Conor's actions following the fight's cancellation.
Oh Nick Diaz, Nate Diaz come on man there are 8 year old kids less pedantic than you, you know what I meant.
Of all the people who offered to step up, Conor calls out the guy on vacation partying out of the country less than two weeks out from the fight, who (coincedentally) is stylistically is the most favorable matchup. He risked absolutely nothing taking a fight with Diaz. No title on the line and it came with a built in excuse. If he lost it was to a bigger man, although no one realized how ridiculously unfair it was to Conor given that Nate was THREE TIMES his size!
Did Conor call out Nate? I'm actually pretty sure that Nate called out Conor first in the post-fight interview following the MJ win.
I also disagree (sorry I'm disagreeing with you a lot man, nothing personal) that Nate was a favorable match up in any way. His BJJ/ground game posed huge threat to Conor's clear lack of skill in that area, plus he was physically huge in comparison.
He didn't risk nothing, he risked the entire legitimacy of the FW championship. If he were to lose it would totally undermine his entire legacy and everything he'd worked for to that point. Which he did. And what happened after he lost? The FW title lost all credibility (partly due to Conor's actions afterwards demanding a rematch etc), but
again that was all related to the outcome of the first fight - Conor almost had no choice, how could he go back to defending his belt after the entire world witnessed his dramatic defeat at the hands of a guy who is with all due respect a journeyman level fighter - Conor
had to avenge that loss for fear of total loss of credibility as FW champ. As for Nate... what did he have to lose? There were no title implications, it was totally an exhibition fight as far as he was concerned. He wasn't a champion anyway so a loss would only see him return to his place in line for the 155 title, but a win faced him with the prospect of being propelled right to the forefront of the MMA media circus, which was easily at the most popular point in the sport's history. Which again, is exactly what happened, and as we all know he made shit loads of money.
Everytime he's had a chance to fight a contender or defend his belt, there's always been an excuse. When there's no chance it materializes, he plays the media and his stupid fans like a fiddle.
Yeah this point I agree with. I'm happy to defend Conor's achievements, but I also remain highly critical of his faults.
