- Joined
- Jul 20, 2015
- Messages
- 20,464
- Reaction score
- 15
You can't possibly say Conor was "winning until he gassed" because... he was only winning because he threw strikes that made him extremely susceptible to gassing.
It's difficult to even say "Conor was winning." Technically he won a basic 10-9 round (and no, it wasn't 'domination') and started off round 2 well, but if you know anything about The Tortoise And The Hare, he was never really winning at all. Every overhand left he threw was getting him that much closer to his demise. Trying to flash KO Nate Diaz was never a plan that was going to work, and he gassed himself out on his own accord.
COULD Conor have won by "out-pointing" Nate? Yes, but it too would've been incredibly difficult. Nate is a slow starter but what's to say he wouldn't have groomed Conor for that 1-2 combo just the same over a 5 round fight?
But it's nice to see the "He was winning until he lost" excuse only applies for when Conor loses, and not when Conor beats someone who was "winning until they lost." like Mendes
All these excuses are stupid as shit. Conor lost because he was inferior to Nate Diaz. Regardless of "muh size difference," it's not like Nate hasn't lost to smaller fighters before. Conor's stirking wasn't better, and his ground game sure as fuck wasn't better.
Nate Diaz is an absolute nightmare matchup for Conor McGregor and the rematch will be that much more decisive.
It's difficult to even say "Conor was winning." Technically he won a basic 10-9 round (and no, it wasn't 'domination') and started off round 2 well, but if you know anything about The Tortoise And The Hare, he was never really winning at all. Every overhand left he threw was getting him that much closer to his demise. Trying to flash KO Nate Diaz was never a plan that was going to work, and he gassed himself out on his own accord.
COULD Conor have won by "out-pointing" Nate? Yes, but it too would've been incredibly difficult. Nate is a slow starter but what's to say he wouldn't have groomed Conor for that 1-2 combo just the same over a 5 round fight?
But it's nice to see the "He was winning until he lost" excuse only applies for when Conor loses, and not when Conor beats someone who was "winning until they lost." like Mendes
All these excuses are stupid as shit. Conor lost because he was inferior to Nate Diaz. Regardless of "muh size difference," it's not like Nate hasn't lost to smaller fighters before. Conor's stirking wasn't better, and his ground game sure as fuck wasn't better.
Nate Diaz is an absolute nightmare matchup for Conor McGregor and the rematch will be that much more decisive.