- Joined
- Nov 11, 2017
- Messages
- 2,204
- Reaction score
- 1
I'm genuinely curious to see what fans give more weight to, breakout performances or the less notable wins. So why not measure this with another Conor thread! Yes rbj293 or whatever, another Conor thread. So I'm asking, what do you feel defines Conor more, his peak performances, or his more human performances?
In the Aldo and Alvarez fights, McGregor fully lived up to his hype. He ended a P4P king's reign in 13 seconds with his "patented" left hand shot, cementing his celebrity with the perfect knockout at the perfect time. Against Alvarez he made a savvy veteran look like he just took up MMA, and again displayed a level of power in his shots that Alvarez seemingly had never encountered. For a guy moving up, it was an insane performance and had people thinking "maybe this guy really is the best at FW AND LW".
But in his performances against Mendes, Siver and Nate, he's looked decidedly human. Yes, he beat all three, but he couldn't put Siver away with power and was actually taking some shots from him. He really didn't look as good as he should have. Mendes hit him hard a lot, and the size difference wasn't as big of a factor as people thought. Nate as we all know is the one guy who's truly pushed him to the brink and beyond. He ate Conor's shots like a robot and made his best weapons look weak. If there's a blueprint for beating Conor, Nate drew it up.
So what do you give more weight to? Is Conor the guy who makes champions look like amateurs, or is he the solid top 5 fighter who's beatable with the right gameplan? Which do you put more stock into? I'm curious to see the what the divide is and where it's coming from.
In the Aldo and Alvarez fights, McGregor fully lived up to his hype. He ended a P4P king's reign in 13 seconds with his "patented" left hand shot, cementing his celebrity with the perfect knockout at the perfect time. Against Alvarez he made a savvy veteran look like he just took up MMA, and again displayed a level of power in his shots that Alvarez seemingly had never encountered. For a guy moving up, it was an insane performance and had people thinking "maybe this guy really is the best at FW AND LW".
But in his performances against Mendes, Siver and Nate, he's looked decidedly human. Yes, he beat all three, but he couldn't put Siver away with power and was actually taking some shots from him. He really didn't look as good as he should have. Mendes hit him hard a lot, and the size difference wasn't as big of a factor as people thought. Nate as we all know is the one guy who's truly pushed him to the brink and beyond. He ate Conor's shots like a robot and made his best weapons look weak. If there's a blueprint for beating Conor, Nate drew it up.
So what do you give more weight to? Is Conor the guy who makes champions look like amateurs, or is he the solid top 5 fighter who's beatable with the right gameplan? Which do you put more stock into? I'm curious to see the what the divide is and where it's coming from.
