Why Conor's Title Defenses Don't Matter

c0rbin9

Orange Belt
@Orange
Joined
May 9, 2017
Messages
264
Reaction score
0
The haters say this like he is purposefully avoiding fights, but consider if after beating Aldo, he stayed in the featherweight division and defended the belt. It's absurd to think that it would have been more impressive to beat an over-the-hill Frankie Edgar and who else - JEREMY STEPHENS - than moving up to lightweight, signing to fight RDA, losing and subsequently avenging his short-notice loss to the much bigger Nate Diaz, and then TKO'ing the lightweight champion in Eddie Alvarez for the second belt.

At each fork in the road he takes the more difficult path, and this is somehow construed by the haters as ducking, or being given easy fights, when in reality it's just the opposite!
 
What title defenses?
 
White knight the dude that literally has everything, OOOOKKKK bud. Ok.
 
No impressive would have him doing both like he said. Instead we got neither.
 
What the hell do you guys expect? Him to fight Mayweather in the morning and Tony Ferguson in the evening?

Patience.
 
tenor.gif
 
Frankie Edgar is a 4 time UFC LW champion. Please explain to me what Nate and Eddie have done in comparison?
Alvarez doesn't even have as many Bellator championships as Frankie has UFC championships, and Diaz couldn't even win a WEC championship.

This thread is garbage.
 
Last edited:
The double champ does whatever the fuck he wants.

Which apparently was sitting on his ass until he had no belts left.
 
Last edited:
I have as many title defenses as Conor. I guess now you’re going to say that mine don’t matter?
 
lol Frankie Edgar was not over the hill, he was on a five fight win streak and stylistically a bad match-up for Conor.

Although in fairness to Conor, they did offer Frankie the fight against him at 196 (at Lightweight, not Featherweight), but he was unable to take it due to a rib injury.
 
He doesn't have defenses, idiot.
 
Does having no title defenses diminish his record?

Measuring a fighter by their # of title defenses is like measuring a fighter by the number of bonuses they've received. What matters is the W-L ratio and the names they've competed against.
 
Does having no title defenses diminish his record?

Measuring a fighter by their # of title defenses is like measuring a fighter by the number of bonuses they've received. What matters is the W-L ratio and the names they've competed against.


What ?!?

G3X17zd.png
 
Oh Sherdog. So dumb.

Never change.
 
Conor ran from Frankie like Forrest Gump ran when his legs started working.


And about title defenses, he's thinking "I can't lose what I don't put on the line." That's true. But what he (and his offputing super fans like yourself) don't realize is that it's not embarrassing to lose a belt, as long as you step up to the plate to defend it. It's FAR more SHAMEFUL to be stripped of not 1 but 2 belts because you don't have the guts to compete like a man and risk losing.
 
Conor won the FW belt, congratulations. He moved up in weight and FAILED. It should've been BACK to FW you go to defend your belt.
 
Back
Top