Well, I am pulling for the Big Mac attack of McGregor and MacDonald.
The great thing about these fights is each side has legitimate arguments, strengths and weaknesses, for why their guy should win. I will not be surprised one bit if Mendes and Lawler win. But, here is how I see the Mendes/McGregor fight playing out.
I don't think Mendes can strike with McGregor. McGregor is superior here and on top of the reach advantage he also has the height. I see Mendes getting flustered without being able to get within range.
He will then resort to what he knows best and is his strength. I see him going for the take down and though he might in fact get McGregor to the ground a couple of times I believe McGregor will be able to scramble and get back to his feet quickly. I also think McGregor has some great sprawling ability and again...with his height and reach will be able to stuff most of the take down attempts.
I then see the fight turning into a replay of the Esparza/Jedrzejczyk. In that fight, Esparza could not stand and strike and got toasted. Then stuffed on weak take downs that sapped her energy.
I ultimately see Conor winning by TKO stoppage.
Alternatively, Mendes has great power and though Conor has yet to really get rocked as far as I can recall he has a tendency to drop his hands. If Mendes can drop a bomb on Conor and shake him up there is no telling what might happen.
I hear and read time and time again critical things about McGregor and MacDonald. These guys are still young fighters. To think that just because Conor hasn't demonstrated wrestling skills in the Octagon against an opponent that his wrestling skills are non-existent or circa 2010 it a woeful miscalculation. As much as this is an area of strength for Mendes I really think the advantage has been dramatically overblown.
The fighter that McGregor is today versus a year ago are probably vast. The notion that MacDonald may have only made marginal improvements since he last fought Lawler would be silly.
One final thought. As fans of any sport, we tend to place to suggest that the differences between fighters, baseball players, teams is far greater than it actually is. When you are dealing with elite talent (e.g. any professional athlete who makes it to the top of the food chain like the UFC, MLB, NFL, etc) the differences between the best and the very good is microscopic.
On any given Sunday (pardon the cliche) or any given fight...just the slightest change in the location of a punch landing or a pitch being thrown can change the outcome in a split second. We as fans blow these things out of proportion.
I watched an interview of Tim Lincecum sometime in the past year I think where it was talking about his struggles after being one of the most dominant pitchers in the game. He expanded upon this in a way I wish I could repeat verbatim. But it was along the lines of this where even the weakest players in the game at the MLB were all-world studs from their area...the absolute best of the best.
So, I guess that it a long-winded way of saying that anything can happen and I don't believe that just because a fighter wins a fight that he is the better fighter, etc. It is like trying to argue that a pitcher with a 4+ ERA and lots of run support with 20 wins is better than a guy who had a sub 3 ERA and no run support with 12 wins and 10 losses.