- Joined
- Oct 25, 2009
- Messages
- 2,934
- Reaction score
- 267
Here's a random musing.
So you now how the consensus among non-haters of Conor seems to be the idea that "he took the loss very well?" In fact that's what most media have been praising him of, about just how gosh darn well he took the loss. He's apparently humble in victory, and humble in defeat.
As a quick reminder, some of the explanations given when asked about the loss, surrounded issues regarding a bigger man being able to take a punch, and how if it were a lower weight class, how it would've been different. Oh, and there might've been a blip in there somewhere regarding energy efficiency.
I want you guys to try a thought experiment. I'll be facilitating this. I'll know if you cheat. I'm gonna ask you to read the question below, and then ask you to immediately examine your unfiltered thoughts.
Ready?
What's the difference between statements given by an "excuse making Conor," versus a "non-excuse giving, humble in defeat Conor?"
How would those statements differ? What type of statements would an excuse-giving Conor make regarding his loss, that is categorically different from this "humble in defeat Conor?"
Nothing. There is no difference, because he wasn't humble. Anyone who didn't cheat would realize this. Because short of a cartoonish, over the top answer of, "well the only reason I lost is because I went up in weight, otherwise I would've won," his answer is the only way you could give an excuse and not look like a complete asshole. You have to be subtle with excuses. Plant enough of a seed so that the easily influenced will water and sprout it themselves; and before you know it, you have an entire garden of excuses that you barely had to touch that will deflect the real reason for the loss.
Bottom line: what he said, is exactly what you would say if you had to give an excuse but not be obvious about it.
If that's not the answer, I'd like to know what is.
Btw, you cheated.
So you now how the consensus among non-haters of Conor seems to be the idea that "he took the loss very well?" In fact that's what most media have been praising him of, about just how gosh darn well he took the loss. He's apparently humble in victory, and humble in defeat.
As a quick reminder, some of the explanations given when asked about the loss, surrounded issues regarding a bigger man being able to take a punch, and how if it were a lower weight class, how it would've been different. Oh, and there might've been a blip in there somewhere regarding energy efficiency.
I want you guys to try a thought experiment. I'll be facilitating this. I'll know if you cheat. I'm gonna ask you to read the question below, and then ask you to immediately examine your unfiltered thoughts.
Ready?
What's the difference between statements given by an "excuse making Conor," versus a "non-excuse giving, humble in defeat Conor?"
How would those statements differ? What type of statements would an excuse-giving Conor make regarding his loss, that is categorically different from this "humble in defeat Conor?"
Nothing. There is no difference, because he wasn't humble. Anyone who didn't cheat would realize this. Because short of a cartoonish, over the top answer of, "well the only reason I lost is because I went up in weight, otherwise I would've won," his answer is the only way you could give an excuse and not look like a complete asshole. You have to be subtle with excuses. Plant enough of a seed so that the easily influenced will water and sprout it themselves; and before you know it, you have an entire garden of excuses that you barely had to touch that will deflect the real reason for the loss.
Bottom line: what he said, is exactly what you would say if you had to give an excuse but not be obvious about it.
If that's not the answer, I'd like to know what is.
Btw, you cheated.
