I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. I had a discussion on a show I run about Conor McGregor's grappling. In particular, the common assertion that it's bad. I find that most analysts (and fans) go back to this talking-point when assessing his skills. And I think that it's unfounded based on the evidence that we have. Here's the short clip. In my view, his grappling overall is quite good. The word itself, 'grappling', is used in a very broad sense, because there's a lot to it. And he's better at certain things than others. But I don't see it as being a major hole in his game. And he's proven that over the years. He was submitted by Diaz, but, let's be real, he lost that fight on the feet. He resigned himself to his fate because he was about to get smashed by strikes. And even if you disagree with that, I'd argue that getting subbed by Diaz isn't a suitable measuring stick. And the same applies to Khabib. He did OK in some exchanges against him (minus the blatant fouls). But, either way, context is key, and the context is he was fighting Khabib. I think he has many problems, perhaps his cardio above all else, but I don't think his grappling is his primary concern. What do you think?