The morning after the fight I saw that people thought that Jones had completely dominated Cormier, and boy how confused I was. The myth did not vanish away, it still lives strongly in the minds' of many.
But what is it really based upon? What made people think that Jones dictated everything in the fight and beat Cormier up like a little kid gets beat up by his drunken father? Is it the fact that Cormier cried? Is that the only reason why people think that it was a one-sided match? Or were people just watching the results from Wikipedia and saw that Jones won each and every round?
Lets look at the facts, shall we:
-Jones outlanded Cormier, but not by that much (I think it was like 10-20 strikes). Cormier may have landed more head strikes. Neither guy landed anything truly significant, biggest strikes were the left cross Jones landed in the first, the elbow from the clinch Jones landed in the fourth, and the two combinations from the clinch Cormier landed in the first half of the fight. Neither got hurt, dropped, swarmed, cautious, injured or anything.
-Both guys were pushing and pulling, and also striking, in the clinch. Jones landed more and more frequently and wasted less energy in the clinch, but didn't make a huge difference.
-Jones got four or five takedowns, most of them in the fourth, Cormier got one in the fifth. Cormier had the only takedown which inflicted possible damage.
-Neither guy had significant submission attempts, nor gnp. Cormier passed Jones' guard when Jones pulled guard, and Jones controlled Cormier in the fourth, but didn't do anything significant.
So in reality rounds 1,2,3 were very competitive, admittedly 4th was clearly Jones' round and 5th was very uneventful but Jones did more. 50-45 for Jones, but not a fight where the loser didn't belong in the cage with the winner. Can we cut the bullshit... Jones wasn't dominating. Cormier has a real chance in the rematch.
inb4 "TS, suck it", "Shut the fuck up you pussy" etc.
