What was a bigger upset - Mcgregor v Diaz 1 or Holm v Rousey?

For casuals Ronda but for educated fans McGregor? That might be a fair assessment. Ignoring trying to say she could beat Velasquez under the right conditions, it was realistic that a true striker could give her problems. A lot of the hype behind Ronda was unfounded really and completely overblown.
 
Holm vs Rousey I think, prior to that fight it was said she can beat Cain Velasquez by many of the hapless MMA pundits and commentators and new fans. I know obviously she would get beaten very easily and quickly by the lowest ranked male flyweight on UFC roster at that time, but people were talking about Cain and also Floyd. A truly difficult and unpleasant time for the forum with many embarrassing threads
 
Rousey thanks to rogans hype

Well, and also the fact that 10 of her 12 wins were in a minute or less (with two being under 20 seconds). Only Tate was able to take her past 1:06, and even she got finished in both of their fights.

So yes, Rogan (and plenty of others who should have known better) hyped Ronda up like crazy, but she was also doing things no one has ever done before or since.
 
Reading this topic made me look up McGregor vs. Diaz predictions on Youtube. Had to share this classic video:


This is a clear example, Conor going into the Nate fight where a champion and/or rising star had looked as good as anyone ever, many simply thought that he was, but he hadn't proven himself vs a lot of different styles, scenarios and adversity yet and he went up in weight which meant he went from having a certain set of physical attributes to giving up those attributes to a longer taller man.
 
The odds would say Holm/Rousey but i was more suprised by Conor/Nate.
Holm had a perfect style to beat Rousey. She was strong and athletic, with fast, technical hands and good takedown defense. Rousey hadn't really faced any athlete's up til that point in time. I picked Holm to win and wasn't surprised when she did.
Conor was taking a risk going up two weight classes, but Nate was always sorta "whatever" and inconsistent as hell. I thought Conor would keep it standing, but we all know what happened.
 
No matter how much people will try to rewrite history Holm/Ronda was def and obviously the bigger upset between the two.
 
she was also doing things no one has ever done before or since.
In WMMA, that's a big qualifier there. I thought the biggest upset concerning these was Conor/Nate 2. We all thought Nate won. I haven't watched it since, so that may be a terrible take.
 
In WMMA, that's a big qualifier there. I thought the biggest upset concerning these was Conor/Nate 2. We all thought Nate won. I haven't watched it since, so that may be a terrible take.

lol what? You thought Conor squeeking by a win in their second fight is a bigger upset? Okay then.....
 
lol what? You thought Conor squeeking by a win in their second fight is a bigger upset? Okay then.....
I worded that poorly. I was comparing the 2 fights with Nate, not the Ronda fight. We all knew Nate would win the first one, that was no upset. The fact that he lost the 2nd one was.
 
I worded that poorly. I was comparing the 2 fights with Nate, not the Ronda fight. We all knew Nate would win the first one, that was no upset. The fact that he lost the 2nd one was.

Okay no worries, kind of threw me off thinking you thought the second fight was a bigger upset against Ronda than the first haha
 
McGregor just came off sparking Aldo plus had a full camp. Diaz had just returned from a long layoff from a contract battle and beat MJ and was vacationing in Cabo.

This is an extremely odd way of saying Diaz had just beaten MJ only 3 months prior to Conor I. He even called out Conor in his MJ post-fight speech as Conor had KO'd Aldo the week prior and was saying he was coming up to LW next and Diaz wanted him. Lol at trying to paint him as some long layoff guy totally unprepared for Conor when he'd called him out for his next fight 3 months prior.

And why people continue to talk about Cabo, which was 11 days prior to the fight and which Diaz himself said in literally that same post that he was ready to fight and not out of shape, is beyond me. I mean, Diaz was "so unprepared to fight" that he... passed his drug test instead of failing for marijuana like he should've if he were so out of fight prep and just doing whatever he wanted in Cabo and prior since MJ? Conor had been preparing to fight and Diaz hadn't yes. There's no need to keep exaggerating it beyond what it was though.

With Conor vs Nate,I did think Conor would not be able to get the mental edge on Diaz (there isnt a whole lot there) and words just dont work on him. Nate is very difficult to knock out and if Conor cant do that,he's in trouble...but because its short notice I thought Conor would win.
Conor had only beaten manletts, and always gassed, and Diaz towered over him, was tough, and had great stamina. Easy call, really.

This is revisionist history. Conor had no history of gassing prior to Nate I. Conor had already outlasted Holloway, Mendes, and Siver in the UFC just fine, and while injured against Mendes and Holloway to boot, and there were no cardio issues in his pre-UFC career. Even his 2 losses were quick 1 minute submission losses.

As far as anybody knew his gas tank was fine. Nobody was sitting there thinking he'd gas or be in trouble if he couldn't score a KO. He'd just continue outstriking Diaz as the better striker. Especially given he'd had a full camp unlike Nate as if anybody was expected to possibly gas here it was Nate, hence why Dana said Nate had been training for a triathlon prior to this.
 
Neither were surprising to long time MMA fans.

Although, from a betting perspective, I do believe Holm was the larger underdog.
 
Only a casual would call those upsets.

I believe Vegas odds makers had Holm as a large underdog, and those folks ain't casual. It was dumb of them to make the odds to extreme for sure, but they are not in fact casual dude bros at the bar.
 
I believe Vegas odds makers had Holm as a large underdog, and those folks ain't casual. It was dumb of them to make the odds to extreme for sure, but they are not in fact casual dude bros at the bar.
They don't set the odds, the odds are based on what people bet on each fighter. And even when they set the opening line they don't try to predict the fight, they are trying to predict who people will bet on to try and keep the equity equal on both fighters so the book makes money no matter who wins.
 
This is revisionist history. Conor had no history of gassing prior to Nate I. Conor had already outlasted Holloway, Mendes, and Siver in the UFC just fine, and while injured against Mendes and Holloway to boot, and there were no cardio issues in his pre-UFC career. Even his 2 losses were quick 1 minute submission losses.

It's not.

Holloway was a flimsy fighter back when Conor faced him, still a boy.

Rewatch the Chad Mendes fight, Conor was gasping for breath at the end of the fight. The only reason Conor won is that Mendes was even more gassed, and a tiny person.

That Conor McGregor was a short-winded fighter might have escaped your notice, but this fact escaped mine. It was pretty clear.


As far as anybody knew his gas tank was fine. Nobody was sitting there thinking he'd gas or be in trouble if he couldn't score a KO. He'd just continue outstriking Diaz as the better striker. Especially given he'd had a full camp unlike Nate as if anybody was expected to possibly gas here it was Nate, hence why Dana said Nate had been training for a triathlon prior to this.

Speak for yourself. It's okay to say as far as "you" knew, she don't have a right to speak for what I know.

I knew for sure Conor could not beat Nate Diaz on the ground, and I knew for sure he didn't have what it took to knock Nate Diaz out.

That Conor was a front runner was already evident, it just took raising the bar (and increasing the size of his opponents) to bring this to light.
 
Back
Top