and you think a fighter is hitting their physical and fighting prime after 8 fights in the UFC?
Physical and fighting prime isn't down to the number of fights they have in the UFC. It's at best tangentially related. Physical prime is related to age and the length of time training.
No, Conor is not going to be reaching his "prime" fighting in Ireland.
He would if that's the only place he was fighting. He'd reach a prime and then fall off if that's where he stayed - it would just be a different level. But anyway, you don't seem to understand that having that many training camps and being in the sport for that long will have an effect no matter what organization you are fighting in. If he had been fighting in the UFC he might not have had as much success but his training partners and training camps would have been pretty much the same. Fighting the easier guys in Ireland for longer actually has some advantages over coming into the UFC earlier. He got the ring experience without getting bashed up because he was fighting guys that weren't as high quality. He also got to spend more time perfecting his timing with his striking because not as many dominant wrestlers were going to put him on his back and grind him out; live fighting is an opportunity to get better in important ways and dispatching guys in a live scenario will give you confidence and sharpen your skills under pressure. Being a big fish in a small pond isn't all bad and I'm sure he was fighting guys that could possibly have been signed to the UFC at least at the prelims tier for many of his matches but just weren't - you know, guys like Holloway at 4-0. It's not like every guy in the UFC can beat every guy outside of the UFC. None of this really matters though because you are still confused on what is even being said here. The relevant point is that he is inexperienced and young is no longer valid now that he is over twenty pro fights into his career and in his late twenties. He can still learn and get better but he is much closer to his athletic apex than someone really young in their career and life would be. The level of his experience when he beat Holloway is of NO importance to that point so stop banging on about it.
Nate should be a complete wreck by now if we use your theory. Way past his "prime".
How would my theory imply that? I think he's still in his prime. He's only three years older than Conor. He's not early in his career, either, so if he'd lost we wouldn't have been able to say anything like this about him either: it would have been a loss and it would reflect on him long-term. What you don't seem to understand is that careers progress in arcs. Do you know what a parabola is? It looks like one of those but perhaps steeper on the upswing. Early in your career, you are still on the rapid rise in skill and experience. Once you get so far in, progress slows down but you are comfortable and your body is still in decent condition so you are considered "in your prime." You eventually peak out at some point and then start to decline. I don't think either Conor or Nate are past their peaks but neither of them are near the beginning where they are rapidly improving; they have mainly explored their talents and style and won't change too much.
I think you're wrong. How about Robbie Lawler?
What about Robbie Lawler? He's been able to put a nice string of wins together. He's not a dominant champ but he's always been a really tough, dangerous guy and he just moved back down to a weight that more favored him when he came back to the UFC after racking up cage time outside the UFC at MW. Ever since he matured as a fighter and athlete, getting his training and life in order, he's always been capable of doing this but he had to put himself into a position to; ask him yourself, he says it all the time. I'm a big fan of the guy but it's not like he completely reinvented himself and had a huge jump in ability before getting the UFC belt like some would have you believe.
Conor is in a place now, unlike the Ireland days, where he has basically unlimited resources. He can devote all his time improving. This includes affording the best training, working with elite athletes, recovery, etc.
He's been full time with MMA for a long time now. He was just poor back then. Being rich isn't necessarily going to improve the training; it may make it worse due to distractions. He is still mainly working with the same people. He's brought in Ido Portal but that guy's a joke. His training partners are still the same and he's always maintained that he will keep it that way. He's staying on the horse he rode in on. But even a change in camp is not likely to totally transform him as a fighter. He's got a competent coach in Kavanagh and no one is going to be able to rebuild him from the ground up; he's mainly the fighter today that he's always going to be. Yes, he'll get better but the improvements are not going to be leaps and bounds like you would expect out of a 15 or 21 year old kid that hasn't even been in the sport for three years.
Something he never had in Ireland. Now we get to see him move to the next level. As you know, taking a loss has a funny way of motivating athletes to improve. Conor is no different.
He might improve some but he's not going to become a new fighter. He's already past that stage in his career where his talents have mainly been explored.
I guess it's this statement I find ridiculous.
"I think it's perfectly valid to say the same about Holloway regarding his earlier losses but Conor lost the other day toward his physical and fighting prime. The same excuses don't apply. Get it?" That's just silly.
It's not silly; you're silly because you don't know what you are talking about. Conor is much closer to his fighting prime today at 27 than Holloway was at 21 after less than three years and 10 fights as a pro and especially copared to the Thai fighter in OP who was 15 years old when he got KO'd. Again, what's silly is that you can't recognize that.
