Ok, I'm biased and I'd be a terrible judge

[snapster]

I realized after reading articles and shit after the Conor-Nate fight that I'd be a terrible judge. I was rooting for Nate, and I really think I ended up perceiving the fight in a biased way. After round 1, I actually thought Nate looked pretty good. Sure, he had a pretty good cut, but to me he definitely looked good with his stand-up. It seemed like Conor was missing a lot because of Nate's movement, and it seemed like Nate connected roughly as often as Conor did. But pretty much everyone had it 10-9 Conor.
I think it comes down to what I'm watching, exactly: I think I'm looking at Conor's head, and how often it gets tagged, and maybe ignoring Nate's head a little bit. I dunno. Does anyone else find they view fights in a biased way?

 

[chaos_36]

If it's a close fight I normally think who I was cheering for won, upon review though I will be impartial.

 

[Fatal Catro]

I gave Conor round 1, however Nate was not losing by or being tagged as much as Rogan and Goldie made it seem.

 

[RiotWyatt]

I do all the time and it's worse when Rogan does the opposite.

My guy lands a hard punch. **crickets chirping*
Rogan's guy lands a punch. "OMG! He hurt him! He never misses! That's the 20th unanswered punch!"

Me:

 

[Sgt Smith]

I gave round 1 to Conor, but you're not incorrect for thinking Nate did well. Much of what he did was letting Conor throw everything he had and keep coming. Conor landed some good shots, but nothing that had Nate remotely in trouble. I'm sure that was unsettling to a guy used to owning that advantage. Nate answered with enough shots of his own to let Conor know he was in a tough fight.

 

[Fatal Catro]

I too would be an awful job and never want the position.

 

[QcChopper]

Yeah, I had Conor winning the first although I was rooting for Nate, but the round was closer than many make it out to be.

 

[Helden]

Well, according to fightmetric, the first round was close in terms of significant strikes, Conor McTap definitely landed more though

 

[jk7707]

I realized after reading articles and shit after the Conor-Nate fight that I'd be a terrible judge. I was rooting for Nate, and I really think I ended up perceiving the fight in a biased way. After round 1, I actually thought Nate looked pretty good. Sure, he had a pretty good cut, but to me he definitely looked good with his stand-up. It seemed like Conor was missing a lot because of Nate's movement, and it seemed like Nate connected roughly as often as Conor did. But pretty much everyone had it 10-9 Conor.
I think it comes down to what I'm watching, exactly: I think I'm looking at Conor's head, and how often it gets tagged, and maybe ignoring Nate's head a little bit. I dunno. Does anyone else find they view fights in a biased way?

It was a 10-9 round for Conor. Nate landed some good punches but Conor landed his with more power (which is why he ended up gassing in round 2).

The only thing I found crazy was all the morons on here saying Conor won the first round 10-8.

 

[Hans Gercmiov]

I'm usually drunk on fight night, so yeh, in between that and looking down at my phone at Sherdog, I'd probably be a pretty bad judge.

 

[Dionysos]

I gave Conor round 1, however Nate was not losing by or being tagged as much as Rogan and Goldie made it seem.

To be fair I thought Nate was being demolished in round 1 watching it live, but looking at it again the way he managed to roll with the punches and negate the damage was pretty goddamn masterful. Nate got hit by some good shots, but McGregor used up a lot of energy on the ones Diaz negated.