Bookmakers tip Khabib to lose to either Tony or Conor

[johncola]

"legitimate" = whatever you wanna make up.

That is the *official* scorecard and they all say 10-9 to Khabib for Rd.1

I'm convinced people like you are actually PAID to post threads like this which contain a whole bunch of easily proven lies.

See the post directly above.

 

[mkess101]

Never disputed that. Stay on topic. I'm referring to legitimate scoring of the first round.

The issue is (keep in mind I'm about as impartial a person as you'll find here on this as I'm a Tony fan and not a fan of Conor or Khabib) that while you've attempted to state your case in a reasonable way, it still falls short.

Not only all 3 judges scored it for Khabib, every media outlet did too. At some point you look in the mirror and realize that your bias has clouded your judgement. You want to focus on damage but the reality is that essentially no damage was done by either fighter that round. So scoring will then generally default to control. Which was completely lopsided in favor of Khabib.

Judging has a level of subjectivity but at some point if you are basically alone on an island believing one thing while everyone else (many of whom, maybe MOST of whom, have no bias as they don't care who wins) sees it the other way, it's time to take a step back and understand that you're judgement is likely too clouded to make an accurate assessment of what happened.

 

[johncola]

I did start out mocking you. I thought you were a typical Conor troll. Unfortunately it’s become clear that your are suffering from some serious issues. You claim your feelings to be facts, and news. You try to keep mythical argument stats. You hold your feelings higher than irrefutable evidence. I am genuinely concerned for you and am not mocking you.

You failed to do what I asked. Like I said, post a single reason, in the form of one of these refutations you speak of. Then we'll get to my supposed delusions. Also, my last post ITT holds relevance to you, so read that. (I think you'll run instead)

I wonder how you're gonna respond to being corrected on the odds. Doubt that'll be pretty.

 

[Doughie99]

The issue is (keep in mind I'm about as impartial a person as you'll find here on this as I'm a Tony fan and not a fan of Conor or Khabib) that while you've attempted to state your case in a reasonable way, it still falls short.

Not only all 3 judges scored it for Khabib, every media outlet did too. At some point you look in the mirror and realize that your bias has clouded your judgement. You want to focus on damage but the reality is that essentially no damage was done by either fighter that round. So scoring will then generally default to control. Which was completely lopsided in favor of Khabib.

Judging has a level of subjectivity but at some point if you are basically alone on an island believing one thing while everyone else (many of whom, maybe MOST of whom, have no bias as they don't care who wins) sees it the other way, it's time to take a step back and understand that you're judgement is likely too clouded to make an accurate assessment of what happened.

this is well summarized and more or less sums up this thread.

All the judges said "khabib Rd.1, 10-9" and pretty much all the MMA journalists said the same thing but APPARENTLY they are all wrong, as JohnCola is the only one who can see the reality, and has enlightened us all in this thread with the truth. Fire those MMA judges, they're incompetent and fire those MMA judges, they're incompetent too!!
- Thanks John, for showing us the light. You're one in a million!

 

[johncola]

The issue is (keep in mind I'm about as impartial a person as you'll find here on this as I'm a Tony fan and not a fan of Conor or Khabib) that while you've attempted to state your case in a reasonable way, it still falls short.

Not only all 3 judges scored it for Khabib, every media outlet did too. At some point you look in the mirror and realize that your bias has clouded your judgement. You want to focus on damage but the reality is that essentially no damage was done by either fighter that round. So scoring will then generally default to control. Which was completely lopsided in favor of Khabib.

Judging has a level of subjectivity but at some point if you are basically alone on an island believing one thing while everyone else (many of whom, maybe MOST of whom, have no bias as they don't care who wins) sees it the other way, it's time to take a step back and understand that you're judgement is likely too clouded to make an accurate assessment of what happened.

I'm aware of the media scores. But the majority can be wrong. Were that to have never been the case in human history, we'd have probably gone extinct already due to lack of social and technological evolution.

As to why I think the majority are wrong... Firstly, people don't pay attention to detail. There's absolutely zero question that Khabib won on control. Meanwhile, Conor's striking edge was only small. So it's the safe option to go with him. They do this in complete disregard that their method of scoring doesn't follow the rules by the book, and encourages LNP. Secondly (and this ties in with the first reason), people are afraid to go against the majority. When scoring a fight, people have an awareness of how others are probably scoring it. And they have an inclination to go with the majority, in order to avoid singling themselves out. This is especially true for those in the public spotlight, like judges and media. So, they go with that safe option.

And this is actually something that makes me less biased and more objective; I genuinely don't give a shit about what the majority thinks. I have the self confidence to trust my own opinion. The worst thing that'll happen is that I'm wrong. And that's a win because it means I'll have learned something. This is why I don't care about engaging in threads like this one, with legions of angry Sherdoggers chatting shit to me.

 

[Hassan Mouzine]

It ain't meaningless for a couple of reasons. Firstly, as you've pointed out, Conor did better than average, while winning most rounds. Secondly, Khabib's stats are swayed by his lack of success against Gleison Tibau (0 of 13). Against other opponents he did much better.

winning most rounds?

he won 1 round against him and he looked bad in that round. it was a stand up fight in that round and conor was nowhere near getting khabib in any kind of trouble. it actually made him look bad that that was the best offence he mounted.

conor got raped in that fight, just accept the fact that conor will never beat khabib. the grappling skill difference is so huge that conor will never catch up.

 

[johncola]

Who are these oddsmakers?? Gianni "The Cuck" Greek

The mainstream ones.

 

[johncola]

lots of people can't read betting lines.
Khabib is the betting favorite against both, a bit more vs Conor than Tony.

Agreed fully. you probably need to read the OP again til you understand what I'm saying.

 

[johncola]

BS 1. Conor won most the rounds. Lol - he didn’t.
BS 2. Khabib has only lost one round in his career. Utter trollop. Tibau won AT LEAST one

I think Conor won round 1 (https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/158249989/).

I dunno that I've spoken to BS2 in this thread, but maybe you're talking to someone else. The judges gave all rounds to Khabib vs Tibau. But that fight sucked donkey dick, and neither fighter deserved to have won any of the rounds. I'd be happy to score it a draw, but I'd probably favor Tibau were I to choose a winner.

 

[Bluntforce420]

If you score the first round properly, Conor won it. He clearly landed more offense. Khabib's control didn't get him in a position to land better offense. What it did do is tire Conor out, which won Khabib round 2. People shouldn't credit round 1 for Khabib's success in round 2.

Actually if you score it properly khabib still won round 1 due to the multiple times Conor cheated

 

[johncola]

This is the dumbest post. Khabib is a -225 favorite against Tony and would probably be a bigger favorite vs Conor.

You misunderstood the OP. Re-read it if you're inclined to increase your understanding.

 

[johncola]

Actually if you score it properly khabib still won round 1 due to the multiple times Conor cheated

Fair argument. But that decision's in the ref's hands. I'm arguing strictly for the judges' scorecards.

 

[sdpdude9]

I see this dude is going for I’m not wrong, I’m just smarter than everybody else argument. Common tactic for somebody that holds an opinion firmly in the minority that can’t grasp the notion that they’re in the minority because they’re wrong.

When 99% of people interpret something one way and you interpret it the other way, it’s not because you’re smarter, it’s because you can’t see what everybody else sees due to bias or misunderstanding.

 

[johncola]

Lol, ts trying to find the most arbitrary way of calculating that Khabib is not favored to win both fights and is still wrong. This dude is a troll that constantly makes outlandish statements about Conor. Don’t waste your time.

If this is the most arbitrary way to calculate whether or not Khabib is favored, then what's the typical way? Using odds to measure outcome likelihood is pretty standard. And how are my odds wrong? I've proven ad nauseum ITT that they're correct.

 

[johncola]

He's a heavy favorite over both

Agreed but irrelevant to the thread. Re-read the OP if you want to understand.

 

[mkess101]

I'm aware of the media scores. But the majority can be wrong. Were that to have never been the case in human history, we'd have probably gone extinct already due to lack of social and technological evolution.

As to why I think the majority are wrong... Firstly, people don't pay attention to detail. There's absolutely zero question that Khabib won on control. Meanwhile, Conor's striking edge was only small. So it's the safe option to go with him. They do this in complete disregard that their method of scoring doesn't follow the rules by the book, and encourages LNP. Secondly (and this ties in with the first reason), people are afraid to go against the majority. When scoring a fight, people have an awareness of how others are probably scoring it. And they have an inclination to go with the majority, in order to avoid singling themselves out. This is especially true for those in the public spotlight, like judges and media. So, they go with that safe option.

And this is actually something that makes me less biased and more objective; I genuinely don't give a shit about what the majority thinks. I have the self confidence to trust my own opinion. The worst thing that'll happen is that I'm wrong. And that's a win because it means I'll have learned something. This is why I don't care about engaging in threads like this one, with legions of angry Sherdoggers chatting shit to me.

I assure you I'm not angry at you. I tend to doubt most others are either (though I can't know for sure).

I'll address your reply in a bit more detail later when I have more time.

 

[Bluntforce420]

Fair argument. But that decision's in the ref's hands. I'm arguing strictly for the judges' scorecards.

Well who won round 1 is strictly in the judges hand

Ur talking about "scoring the round properly". Well Conor cheated multiple times, should be obvious to the only person watching the fight who's "paying attention to the detail"

If ur gonna use ur make believe scorecard and claim your scoring rounds properly, then why wouldn't you include the repeated attempts at cheating

 

[DagOban**]

Well, consecutive title defenses is the hardest thing in combat sports, especially in the UFC.

 

[johncola]

Well who won round 1 is strictly in the judges hand

Ur talking about "scoring the round properly". Well Conor cheated multiple times, should be obvious to the only person watching the fight who's "paying attention to the detail"

If ur gonna use ur make believe scorecard and claim your scoring rounds properly, then why wouldn't you include the repeated attempts at cheating

I'm saying that to JUDGE the fight correctly, you have to score round 1 for Conor. Were Herb to have deducted points from Conor, then as a judge, you'd need to deduct points. But a judge can't go rogue and deduct points themselves.

I'm definitely not the only person watching fights who pays attention to detail. In fact I have far from the keenest eye in observing the technical aspect of fights.

 

[johncola]

I see this dude is going for I’m not wrong, I’m just smarter than everybody else argument. Common tactic for somebody that holds an opinion firmly in the minority that can’t grasp the notion that they’re in the minority because they’re wrong.

When 99% of people interpret something one way and you interpret it the other way, it’s not because you’re smarter, it’s because you can’t see what everybody else sees due to bias or misunderstanding.

My arguments are quite specific. They're available to go read. At no point have I said "I'm smart thus I'm right". But I clearly think I'm smarter than most of these people. And their conduct in these arguments is evidence of that.

Your last paragraph suggests that the 1% has never been right. Is that so? And for the record, on the argument in question (who won Conor/Khabib round 1), it'd be more than 1%. Maybe 2% or 3%. And that number will go up as fans get more educated not just on the sport, but the ability to grow some cojones and go against the grain.