The truth about Conor and Justin's title shot statuses

[johncola]

More recent = older and more shot cowboy. So it counts less.

Less recent = fighters don't have same skillsets anymore. So it counts less.

 

[Lovelyboy]

Less recent = fighters don't have same skillsets anymore. So it counts less.

Low IQ.

Fighters lose their skillset as time goes on once they hit a certain age

 

[Only Here for Attachments]

Dana likes Conor, Conor draws, therefore Conor gets title shots whenever he wants

Dana doesn't like Justin, Justin doesn't draw, therefore Justin will never get a title shot

 

[DarkneT]

Conor's loss to Khabib is included in the OP.

Justin beating Cowboy first doesn't mean that much, as you could just as easily argue that Conor's win is more relevant as it's more recent.

what the fuck are you even saying
Are you actually retarded?
Don’t ever quote me if you’re going to talk absolute shite

 

[DarkneT]

Thats a false narrative that it wasn't competitive. Khabib dominated round 2 granted but Conor won round 3(only person to do so), round 1 was very close and during round 4 Conor was doing well until Khabib finally got another takedown.

LOL

 

[Kono dio da!]

I'll compare the two fighters, in terms of the business, the sport, and the narrative.

Business-wise, Conor's obviously the superior option. No need to make much argument, unless someone disagrees. And this is why Dana prefers Conor to Justin.

Sport-wise, Conor is the better fighter. And he hasn't turned down fights like Gaethje. However, Gaethje has a good style to beat Khabib, and we've already seen Conor fight Khabib. So there are good arguments for both.

Narrative-wise, you need to look at the titles, rankings, and records. Conor is a two-division champion, which works in his favor. Conor has the better overall MMA record. Conor has the faster and superior victory over Cowboy. Conor has beaten the likes of Dustin and Eddie, each of whom has victories over Gaethje. And like it or not, Conor has the superior ranking, both divisionally and P4P. Justin has the longer win streak. Justin has more recent wins. Justin has more wins within the divisin. So you have to weigh all of these things.

Overall, maybe Gaethje should get the shot, but the argument for it isn't overwhelmingly strong, and you could just as easily argue that Conor is more deserving.

Look conor got dominated. Gaethje didn't. So I

It is and always has been. But the UFC use different metrics to you. They reward the fighter that does the best business, just like you reward the fighter with the best narrative, and I reward the best fighter.

That's a bullshit excuse. Doing the best business is a function of things beyond a fighter's control. A fighter from a poor country with fans who can't afford to buy tickets and PPV like conor's fans will never be big, regardless of exciting and dope they are, which is stupid. In other sport and even promotions, there is tourney structure. Ufc can't even commit to that. They don't even have a mandatory defence clause in the UFC. Wtf is that bro.

 

[Furious77]

Round 1 Conor outstruck Khabib, who wasn't able to get any offense off on the ground. Not only was it not "not close", but Conor won the round. Both by the book AND by how the book should be. Score offense over control. Khabib was rewarded for his control by tiring Conor out, which won him round 2 heavily. Don't credit a fighter in round 1 for shit that happened in round 2. Also, your method of scoring encourages LNP.

Conor landed significantly more, and better shots, in round 3.

Conor was clearly winning on the feet in round 4.


You don't need to lie, so I don't know why you do it. Reality is favorable to the outcome you want. Khabib had by far the most dominant round, he dropped him, he fucked him up with GNP, and he choked him out. So why add all the extra shit that isn't true?

The sad thing here is you're not even trolling, you believe this crap. You think the 2 or 3 strikes that Conor threw and didn't land won him the round? That's ridiculous. Furthermore, you ignore that while khabib actively tried to pass Conor's gaurd, Conor's main defense was holding on to Khabib shorts and preventing him gaining better position. Khabib doesn't lay and pray, he's always tried to improve his position to ground and pound. Conor wasnt trying to stand up or mount any offence, he was just surviving by grabbing, holding, stalling and throwing 12-6 elbows and just hanging on. His cheating and stalling techniques coupled with an incompetent ref and your dishonest assessment is why you think Khabib was laying and praying. It wasn't fucking competitive.

 

[sdpdude9]

Round 1 Conor outstruck Khabib, who wasn't able to get any offense off on the ground. Not only was it not "not close", but Conor won the round. Both by the book AND by how the book should be. Score offense over control. Khabib was rewarded for his control by tiring Conor out, which won him round 2 heavily. Don't credit a fighter in round 1 for shit that happened in round 2. Also, your method of scoring encourages LNP.

Conor landed significantly more, and better shots, in round 3.

Conor was clearly winning on the feet in round 4.


You don't need to lie, so I don't know why you do it. Reality is favorable to the outcome you want. Khabib had by far the most dominant round, he dropped him, he fucked him up with GNP, and he choked him out. So why add all the extra shit that isn't true?

Let’s finally put your awful opinion that Conor won round 1 to rest once and for all. Let’s look at the official judging criteria.

Spoiler: Effective Striking/Grappling

“Legal blows that have immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute towards the end of the match with the IMMEDIATE weighing in more heavily than the cumulative impact.”

Successful execution of takedowns, submission attempts, reversals and the achievement of advantageous positions that produce immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute to the end of the match, with the IMMEDIATE weighing more heavily than the cumulative impact.”

It shall be noted that a successful takedown is not merely a changing of position, but the establishment of an attack from the use of the takedown.

Top and bottom position fighters are assessed more on the impactful/effective result of their actions, more so than their position.

This criterion will be the deciding factor in a high majority of decisions when scoring a round. The next two criteria must be treated as a backup and used ONLY when Effective Striking/Grappling is 100% equal for the round.

While looking at the striking, it’s true Conor landed more shots 39-18. However, how many of those are considered effective striking? Is landing weak punches off your back effective? I’d argue they don’t contribute to end of the fight by immediate or cumulative impact, as they were no damage shots and the weakest strikes you can throw in a fight. If you look at the significant strike count, Khabib wins 7-6. So you can argue under the official criteria, Khabib was more successful with effective striking. Conor had the numbers overall, but few were considered significant.

But the real tale of this round is the grappling as most of it took place on the ground. A takedown is considered an attack by the official rules, so Khabib wins in that realm. Khabib also had a pass while Conor had none and achieved the more advantageous position. Khabib wins the grappling.

So overall, you can certainly argue Khabib had more effective striking being that he landed more significant strikes and he clearly won the grappling completing a takedown, pass, and secured the advantageous position, whilst Conor did none of. Khabib wins this criteria.

Spoiler: Effective Aggressiveness

Aggressively making attempts to finish the fight. The key term is ‘effective’. Chasing after an opponent with no effective result or impact should not render in the judges’ assessments.”

Effective Aggressiveness is only to be assessed if Effective Striking/Grappling is 100% equal for both competitors

Moving on to the next criteria. Effective aggressiveness. You could argue neither was truly effective aggressively as neither produced anything near a fight ending sequence. This is a wash in my opinion.

Spoiler: Fighting Area Control

Fighting area control is assessed by determining who is dictating the pace, place and position of the match.”

Fighting Area Control” shall only to be assessed if Effective Striking/Grappling and Effective Aggressiveness is 100% equal for both competitors. This will be assessed very rarely.

And the final criteria. If you want to argue Conor outstruck Khabib so won the striking, then it was countered by Khabib winning the grappling. So then you move onto aggressiveness, which you could argue was a wash as neither completed anything “effective” nearing a fight ending sequence then you land on fighting area control. Khabib wins this without a doubt. He put the fight where he wanted, he was on top and controlled where the fight took place. No contest here.

So overall, they only thing you can really argue is Conor won the striking by landing more strikes, however majority of those strikes would not be considered effective striking and he landed less significant strikes than his opponent. So you could argue he even lost that according to the official rules. Conor definitely lost the grappling, Khabib scored a takedown, a pass, and had the advantageous position. Aggression was a wash. Khabib won fighting area control.

Spoiler: Sources

http://www.abcboxing.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/juding_criteriascoring_rev0816.pdf

http://ufcstats.com/fight-details/3eea92e7f26fb05b

 

[vladimirvlad]

Good post, he should fight Gaethje next.

 

[johncola]

what the fuck are you even saying
Are you actually retarded?
Don’t ever quote me if you’re going to talk absolute shite

You don't understand my post, so I must be retarded? It's more likely that you're just not very intelligent and frustrated by that. How do you know it's "absolute shite" if you admit you don't even understand?

Anyway, I'll try and rewrite the post for you. Conor's loss to Khabib is included in the first post of this thread, so you added nothing by repeating that it happened. I think you were trying to argue that Justin beating Cowboy first made his win somehow better. Well you could just as easily argue that Conor beating Cowboy more recently made his win more relevant, and thus better.

 

[johncola]

Look conor got dominated. Gaethje didn't. So I

That's a bullshit excuse. Doing the best business is a function of things beyond a fighter's control. A fighter from a poor country with fans who can't afford to buy tickets and PPV like conor's fans will never be big, regardless of exciting and dope they are, which is stupid. In other sport and even promotions, there is tourney structure. Ufc can't even commit to that. They don't even have a mandatory defence clause in the UFC. Wtf is that bro.

Excuse for what? What am I trying to excuse? I never said it's "right" or the way it should be. Just that it's the way it is. Become the fighter that the fans care the most about, and you'll be rewarded accordingly. That still falls under the definition of a meritocracy. It's just that it doesn't have metrics that you or I would prefer.

 

[johncola]

The sad thing here is you're not even trolling, you believe this crap. You think the 2 or 3 strikes that Conor threw and didn't land won him the round? That's ridiculous. Furthermore, you ignore that while khabib actively tried to pass Conor's gaurd, Conor's main defense was holding on to Khabib shorts and preventing him gaining better position. Khabib doesn't lay and pray, he's always tried to improve his position to ground and pound. Conor wasnt trying to stand up or mount any offence, he was just surviving by grabbing, holding, stalling and throwing 12-6 elbows and just hanging on. His cheating and stalling techniques coupled with an incompetent ref and your dishonest assessment is why you think Khabib was laying and praying. It wasn't fucking competitive.

I think the strikes that Conor did land won him the round, because they're more important than positional dominance, because it's a fight. I haven't ignored the things you say. And I agree that Khabib has some of the best offense on the ground as far as wrestlers go. I never said he was LNPing. But ultimately, Khabib was the one in control, yet wasn't able to land offense despite it, regardless of the reasons. If he couldn't land offense, then he had the option of getting up himself. He was free to choose. He sacrificed the round to tire Conor out. Maybe the ref shoulda taken a point at some point. But he didn't, and in judging the fight, you can't go rogue and start deducting points yourself. Your opinion that Khabib won the first round is understandable, but to call it uncompetitive is crazy. It was absolutely competitive. Conor stopped a takedown, outstruck him, and prevented Khabib from mounting offense on the ground.

 

[William Huggins]

If Conor is so desperate for a rematch with khabib, they should put Conor vs. Gathje on the same card as khabib vs. Tony. If either of khabib or tony pull out, Conor gets the title shot. (Interim vs. Tony or undisputed vs khabib) In this scenario they line up someone like Dustin as the backup to fight Gathje, he gets a guaranteed big paycheck just for signing and promoting vs Conor even if he doesn't end up fighting him. Everybody wins. Khabib gets a huge payday and either fights tony or Conor. Tony gets a big payday for fighting either khabib or Conor. Conor gets another big payday and either a title shot or a title shot for a win. Gathje gets a big payday for fighting Conor or the next contender up in his own title eliminator. Conor has the most to lose in this situation, and the turnaround would be quick, but he's already said he will fight if either pull out.

But would they agree to the co main event, don't think they would.........

 

[Istryker]

Conor vs Justin makes no sense because it kills off two contenders.

 

[Moro]

Thats a false narrative that it wasn't competitive. Khabib dominated round 2 granted but Conor won round 3(only person to do so), round 1 was very close and during round 4 Conor was doing well until Khabib finally got another takedown.

Conor was not the only one ever to take a round from Khabib, damn casual.

You Conor nuthuggers always spin it into something like as if Conor is making history every time he does something.

 

[johncola]

Let’s finally put your awful opinion that Conor won round 1 to rest once and for all. Let’s look at the official judging criteria.

Spoiler: Effective Striking/Grappling

“Legal blows that have immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute towards the end of the match with the IMMEDIATE weighing in more heavily than the cumulative impact.”

Successful execution of takedowns, submission attempts, reversals and the achievement of advantageous positions that produce immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute to the end of the match, with the IMMEDIATE weighing more heavily than the cumulative impact.”

It shall be noted that a successful takedown is not merely a changing of position, but the establishment of an attack from the use of the takedown.

Top and bottom position fighters are assessed more on the impactful/effective result of their actions, more so than their position.

This criterion will be the deciding factor in a high majority of decisions when scoring a round. The next two criteria must be treated as a backup and used ONLY when Effective Striking/Grappling is 100% equal for the round.

While looking at the striking, it’s true Conor landed more shots 39-18. However, how many of those are considered effective striking? Is landing weak punches off your back effective? I’d argue they don’t contribute to end of the fight by immediate or cumulative impact, as they were no damage shots and the weakest strikes you can throw in a fight. If you look at the significant strike count, Khabib wins 7-6. So you can argue under the official criteria, Khabib was more successful with effective striking. Conor had the numbers overall, but few were considered significant.

But the real tale of this round is the grappling as most of it took place on the ground. A takedown is considered an attack by the official rules, so Khabib wins in that realm. Khabib also had a pass while Conor had none and achieved the more advantageous position. Khabib wins the grappling.

So overall, you can certainly argue Khabib had more effective striking being that he landed more significant strikes and he clearly won the grappling completing a takedown, pass, and secured the advantageous position, whilst Conor did none of. Khabib wins this criteria.

Spoiler: Effective Aggressiveness

Aggressively making attempts to finish the fight. The key term is ‘effective’. Chasing after an opponent with no effective result or impact should not render in the judges’ assessments.”

Effective Aggressiveness is only to be assessed if Effective Striking/Grappling is 100% equal for both competitors

Moving on to the next criteria. Effective aggressiveness. You could argue neither was truly effective aggressively as neither produced anything near a fight ending sequence. This is a wash in my opinion.

Spoiler: Fighting Area Control

Fighting area control is assessed by determining who is dictating the pace, place and position of the match.”

Fighting Area Control” shall only to be assessed if Effective Striking/Grappling and Effective Aggressiveness is 100% equal for both competitors. This will be assessed very rarely.

And the final criteria. If you want to argue Conor outstruck Khabib so won the striking, then it was countered by Khabib winning the grappling. So then you move onto aggressiveness, which you could argue was a wash as neither completed anything “effective” nearing a fight ending sequence then you land on fighting area control. Khabib wins this without a doubt. He put the fight where he wanted, he was on top and controlled where the fight took place. No contest here.

So overall, they only thing you can really argue is Conor won the striking by landing more strikes, however majority of those strikes would not be considered effective striking and he landed less significant strikes than his opponent. So you could argue he even lost that according to the official rules. Conor definitely lost the grappling, Khabib scored a takedown, a pass, and had the advantageous position. Aggression was a wash. Khabib won fighting area control.

Spoiler: Sources

http://www.abcboxing.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/juding_criteriascoring_rev0816.pdf

http://ufcstats.com/fight-details/3eea92e7f26fb05b

Like I said in the other thread, to score the round for Khabib, you need to believe he outstruck Conor. I disagree, but I think it was close, so it'd be understandable to give the edge to Khabib there. Conor landed the only shot at distance, and landed some hard shots to the temple while Khabib was taking him down.

A takedown isn't considered an attack by the official rules. You've misread or misunderstood them. A takedown or pass is only counted as effective if it results in the fighter gaining an advantage in the striking. So again, it really comes back to whether you think Khabib won the striking. As John McCarthy has said, these rules were worded in such a way as to avoid saying the word "damage", as it sounds bad. I tend to use the word "offense". Submission attempts would count here, but Khabib didn't have any.

You can make an argument that Khabib won in this first criterion, but it's dependent on him winning the striking. I don't think he did. Remember, I've never said it's crazy for you to think Khabib won the round, or called you names because of it, or called your opinion "awful". That's on you.

Aggression should only be considered if "effective striking/grappling" is considered even. And I think it's feasible to consider it even. It's certain that no fighter had a significant edge. So, I'll consider aggression…

Conor clearly won on aggression. On the feet, he was trying to knock Khabib out, while Khabib was trying to grab his legs. On the ground, Conor was trying to get back to his feet so he could knock Khabib out, while Khabib was holding onto Conor's legs, trying to keep him down so he wouldn't get knocked out himself. He attempted no submissions, and wouldn't posture up to land harder strikes, despite having the option.

Khabib clearly won on control, but it's only relevant if everything above is even.

To summarise, if you think Conor won the striking, Conor won the round. If you think the striking was even, then Conor won the round on aggression. If you think Khabib won the striking, then Khabib won the round.

To recap our discussion from the other thread – you made some claims that I showed were wrong, you got upset and called me names, and then you ran away, refusing to respond to me. Should I expect you to return and answer for the claims you made, or do you want to leave them unsubstantiated?

 

[johncola]

Conor was not the only one ever to take a round from Khabib, damn casual.

You Conor nuthuggers always spin it into something like as if Conor is making history every time he does something.

Officially, Conor is the only one to take a round off Khabib, at least in the UFC. I dunno about pre-UFC.

 

[mmadeewana]

Justin Geathje in on a 3 fight win streak at LW and Mcgregor is on 1 fight win streak at WW

 

[You Will Vote For Dreyga]

Conor beat Cowboy more decisively and has wins over the guy Justin lost to He SHOULD be ranked higher. Honestly, he should be ranked high than Dustin too.

 

[NorrisB]

Bullshit

Conor fought Khabib and got his arse kicked up and down and finished in a non competitive fight somewhat recently

that puts him so far behind Justin let alone the fact Justin murdered cowboy first.

So did every other guy that fought Khabib, this is a discussion about Gaethje vs Conor not Conor vs Khabib