The truth about Conor and Justin's title shot statuses

[Pancake Sprawl]

there is no way, sports wise, you can argue that Conor deserves it more than Gaethje. in a pure meritocracy Gaethje is hands down more deserving than Conor. Conor hasn't done shit but beat a guy Gaethje already beat in a weight class above the one he wants a title shot in. that makes no logical sense no matter where you come from. he has 1 win in 3 fucking years against a guy who had just been thrashed by the 2 guys who deserve a title shot over Conor.

from a business stand point it's obvious Conor is not only a better choice than Gaethje, but ANYONE in the division to face Khabib. there's no denying Conor's superstar status and his ability to generate money.

 

[sdpdude9]

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?

Wrong. “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.” A takedown is considered establishing an attack and is considered a successful offensive technique. Passing the guard is considered a successful offensive technique as you are moving into an advantageous position. Fighting is more than just landing strikes.

So to be clear, to you, arm punches off off your back > having more significant strikes, securing a takedown, completing a pass, and 4 minutes of top control. This sounds like an opinion of somebody that has never actually participated in martial arts.

Do me a favor, find a local mma gym. Have a good wrestler take you down and keep you there. Try your hardest to get up and throw an arm punch off your back every 10 seconds or so and let him hit you every 20 seconds or so. Then tell me you feel like you came out on top in that exchange.

To recap our discussion, I pointed out numerous flaws in your your opinions, numerous logical fallacies you use to argue your points, your narcissistic tendencies, and inability to understand other viewpoints. Then you got very emotional going on a rant. Then you claim I run away (which you do frequently with numerous posters), which is an obvious defense mechanism to try to dismiss the conversation on your part. Again, I can read you like a book.

I’ve exposed the flaws in how you approach debating and have exposed the flaws in your judgment regarding scoring criteria. But I’m sure you’ll give me a long winded response, claim I’m misunderstanding (when really you are), say I haven’t disproven your points (I have), and the claim I’m running away. I have no more time for you, as I’ve pointed out discussion with you is pointless as you’re unwilling and unable to understand anything beyond your own thought.

 

[johncola]

Wrong. “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.” A takedown is considered establishing an attack and is considered a successful offensive technique. Passing the guard is considered a successful offensive technique as you are moving into an advantageous position. Fighting is more than just landing strikes.

So to be clear, to you, arm punches off off your back > having more significant strikes, securing a takedown, completing a pass, and 4 minutes of top control. This sounds like an opinion of somebody that has never actually participated in martial arts.

Do me a favor, find a local mma gym. Have a good wrestler take you down and keep you there. Try your hardest to get up and throw an arm punch off your back every 10 seconds or so and let him hit you every 20 seconds or so. Then tell me you feel like you came out on top in that exchange.

To recap our discussion, I pointed out numerous flaws in your your opinions, numerous logical fallacies you use to argue your points, your narcissistic tendencies, and inability to understand other viewpoints. Then you got very emotional going on a rant. Then you claim I run away (which you do frequently with numerous posters), which is an obvious defense mechanism to try to dismiss the conversation on your part. Again, I can read you like a book.

I’ve exposed the flaws in how you approach debating and have exposed the flaws in your judgment regarding scoring criteria. But I’m sure you’ll give me a long winded response, claim I’m misunderstanding (when really you are), say I haven’t disproven your points (I have), and the claim I’m running away. I have no more time for you, as I’ve pointed out discussion with you is pointless as you’re unwilling and unable to understand anything beyond your own thought.

You have misunderstood that text you quoted. What it's saying is that its definition of a "successful takedown" is one that leads to an advantage in ending the fight. Otherwise, what do you think the text means when it says "not merely a changing of position"?

I'm not valuing Conor's high strike totals to reward him the striking advantage; I'm just saying he landed the better strikes. Go back and watch the fight and tell me he didn't land the better shots. It's close so I can definitely see the argument, but I disagree.

Being dominated by a wrestler is definitely not nice. But that doesn't necessarily means it should grant a win in MMA scoring.

Your recap is inaccurate. Any time you pointed out perceived flaws/fallacies/narcissism/closedmindedness, I responded, to tell you how you're wrong. You've failed to in turn respond to me. I've demonstrated clearly in my posts how and why you're wrong, and you've been able to back up your words by responding in kind. If you're right then why aren't you able to respond to me? I don't see any evidence that I've gotten emotional. I've responded to the things you've said, point by point, and haven't started calling you names. You can't say the same. And that's the type of behavior that's evidence of one getting emotional. You haven't responded to me, and have literally said words to the effect of "goodbye" multiples times. That's what I mean by running away. Do you deny you've done those things? Other people have done the same thing, and typically do (because most people have the goal of "winning" an argument, rather than exchanging information with a view to finding the truth; and they don't see a means of meeting their goal with me), so I've called them out on it like I have you. Point to a single instance of me saying someone's run away, to dismiss their argument (you won't do this). I've pointed out repeatedly how you're wrong, meaning you've only misread me, which you presumably often do with books too.

You clearly have no intention of backing up the shit you've said. You aren't gonna respond to all these points I've made against you. Inevitably you aren't just gonna run away, but actually stay away. Which is not what I want; I want one of us to learn from this. Either you have the information to back up your shit, from which I can learn, and you're just choosing to keep it to yourself. Or you're wrong like I say you are and you can have an opportunity for self-improvement. But if you just run away and stay away then no one learns anything.

 

[Hotora86]

He was, despite Khabib's 10-8 in round 2. Not that it matters, considering the finish.

Khabib winning 29-27 before the end of round 4, which he clearly dominated before the tap. After round 4 it's 39-36. Just stop your lies.

 

[johncola]

Khabib winning 29-27 before the end of round 4, which he clearly dominated before the tap. After round 4 it's 39-36. Just stop your lies.

I'm not talking about the judges' scorecards. I'm talking about how the fight should be scored. The fight was even going into the 4th. Conor was winning in the 4th until Khabib started landing GNP past the halfway mark of the round, which lead to the choke.

 

[Hotora86]

I'm not talking about the judges' scorecards. I'm talking about how the fight should be scored. The fight was even going into the 4th. Conor was winning in the 4th until Khabib started landing GNP past the halfway mark of the round, which lead to the choke.

Super delusional.

 

[Kono dio da!]

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.

Like how everyone cared about cm punk. That's a result of the new approach.

 

[johncola]

Like how everyone cared about cm punk. That's a result of the new approach.

It's not a new approach. For as long as the UFC is a private business, which it's always been, it's been the approach. Tank Abbott is arguably the most popular fighter from the early years, and he never won a tournament or title. Ken Shamrock coming back from the WWF to fight Tito was the biggest fight of the early Zuffa years. A trashy reality show on a niche cable network is what saved the UFC from bankruptcy. Brock Lesnar arrived with a 1-0 record to become by far the biggest star in UFC history up to that point. Is normal.

 

[johncola]

Super delusional.

Your post almost seems like a parody at this point.

 

[DarkneT]

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.

So in your world, as long as you did it last you are more relevant? Got you.
So if James Vick knocks out Cowboy next he jumps over Conor

 

[BooBoyMan]

Round 1 Conor outstruck Khabib

Not true at all, check the stats.

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

He landed significantly more shots but I could easily argue that Khabib landed the more damaging hits.

Conor was clearly winning on the feet in round 4.

No, he was not. He landed a good 1-2 at the beginning of the round and did nothing else afterwards. Khabib also landed shots on him.

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 irony of this, lmao.

You keep talking about how the fight 'should have been' scored, but you seem to completely disregard the cheating at the same time. Come on bud lol.

Conor would not have made it out of the 2nd round in the first place if he did not cheat to defend the kimura.

 

[Strijfy]

I'm not talking about the judges' scorecards. I'm talking about how the fight should be scored. The fight was even going into the 4th. Conor was winning in the 4th until Khabib started landing GNP past the halfway mark of the round, which lead to the choke.

 

[Craig Hogg]

Conor won't face Justin because he now only takes fights where he has nothing to lose and everything to gain.
He could beat Justin as he is very hittable and his chin can't save him forever but if he lost it would be terrible for him.

 

[johncola]

So in your world, as long as you did it last you are more relevant? Got you.
So if James Vick knocks out Cowboy next he jumps over Conor

In that win's regard, yes. But to consider James Vick as a whole, you could break down the whole picture like I did in the main post.

 

[johncola]

Not true at all, check the stats.

View attachment 717417

He landed significantly more shots but I could easily argue that Khabib landed the more damaging hits.

No, he was not. He landed a good 1-2 at the beginning of the round and did nothing else afterwards. Khabib also landed shots on him.

The irony of this, lmao.

You keep talking about how the fight 'should have been' scored, but you seem to completely disregard the cheating at the same time. Come on bud lol.

Conor would not have made it out of the 2nd round in the first place if he did not cheat to defend the kimura.

What I mean by he outstruck Khabib is that he landed the better strikes. He also landed more strikes, as you say. You could easily argue that Khabib's shots were more damaging, and that's how I think it's how it's possible to score the round for Khabib. But I disagree, and this is where there's room for interpretation in the rulebook. To go any further in this argument, we'd need to break each strike down stike by strike. I can't be arsed to do that, unless you really insist. To go yet further than that, you could develop some sort of technology that reads the effectiveness of the strike by using the video, measuring its speed/velocity, the position it lands, the angle at which it lands, and even the opponent's reaction to the shot. But that's purely hypothetical, since that doesn't exist that I'm aware of.

Round 4, like round 1, is open to interpretation. But I think it's even clearer in Conor's favor. The 1-2 and the shots to the body stand out as the most significant strikes. And Conor landed more times than Khabib on the feet too.

Anyway, if you scored round 3 for Khabib then there'll be no convincing you about the other rounds. I don't see how there's any room for interpretation in round 3.

I'm disregarding the cheating because it isn't relevant to my particular point. He probably shoulda been deducted a point at some point. But he wasn't, so you can't score the point deduction; as a judge you aren't allowed to go rogue and start taking points off yourself.

 

[johncola]

Conor won't face Justin because he now only takes fights where he has nothing to lose and everything to gain.
He could beat Justin as he is very hittable and his chin can't save him forever but if he lost it would be terrible for him.

It woulda been terrible had he lost to Cowboy too.

 

[johncola]

That's what they do...

 

[Sam's UFC title reign]

While it is true that Conor has the better narrative, I think that calling him the better fighter is a bit off. Gaethje has changed his style in a way where he has knocked out three straight tough opponents in the first round. Conor just knocked out a dude coming off 2 losses.

 

[King Joffery]

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.

Yes he was, a filthy casual like me knows more about a sport you take super seriously so what does that say about you?

 

[DarkneT]

In that win's regard, yes. But to consider James Vick as a whole, you could break down the whole picture like I did in the main post.

I give up with you
You are clearly pushing an agenda and/or trolling
Good day