the hypocresy of mma fans

f529e152e5d43ee7657da2448360d2e9.gif
 
<JonesLaugh>
 
mma seldom has crease violations. Dana was right, the ufc is going places it's never been before!!!
 
let me fire this thread up for you ...

other than conors LUCKY punch against aldo

he has this ..

67d35596d3994a86822018cfbc22710b.gif



looks like a CM Punk worthy opponent

EsteemedHonorableIchthyostega-max-1mb.gif




he cant wrestle so naturally throws the left
 
even rogas said volkan/reyes was a bad decition
Brodie said:
One was a high profile headlining PPV title fight, the other was an undercard fight on a fight night. Obviously the Jones fight is going to garner more attention/controversy.
Click to expand...
 
Strawman. I've never heard anyone say Reyes won both fights. I could easily say mma fans are hypocrites for thinking Reyes lost both fights.

Both fights picked the wrong winner. The Jones-Reyes fight gets more attention because Jones gets more attention. It was the bigger robbery because it was on a bigger stage and was much more clearly a victory for the loser
 
Humans are hypocritical.. and that should be mocked and punished with cruelty btw..

Waaaahh, bad guy is good at his job - must be a conspiracy/luck/the devil or else my existencial viewing points take damage..
 
1. Plenty of people lamented the Reyes-Volkan decision. Suggesting they didn't is revisionist history.

2. Reyes-Jones was a bit more clear than Reyes-Volkan. 8 out of 19 media gave Reyes the victory over Volkan, whereas only 7 out of 21 gave Jones the victory over Reyes.

3. Even if we consider both of them robberies, the ramifications aren't the same. Reyes got robbed of the title and a win against arguably the GOAT; that's a really big deal. Volkan got robbed of an undercard fight on a Fight Night; not such a big deal.
 
laleggenda27 said:
1. Plenty of people lamented the Reyes-Volkan decision. Suggesting they didn't is revisionist history.

2. Reyes-Jones was a bit more clear than Reyes-Volkan. 8 out of 19 media gave Reyes the victory over Volkan, whereas only 7 out of 21 gave Jones the victory over Reyes.

3. Even if we consider both of them robberies, the ramifications aren't the same. Reyes got robbed of the title and a win against arguably the GOAT; that's a really big deal. Volkan got robbed of an undercard fight on a Fight Night; not such a big deal.
Click to expand...

well to start jones had a way bigger claim to victory than reyes had over volkan
had volkan won than figth as he should have reyes wouldn t have been "unbeaten" and reyes wouldn t even have had a tittle figth in the first place
 
laleggenda27 said:
1. Plenty of people lamented the Reyes-Volkan decision. Suggesting they didn't is revisionist history.

2. Reyes-Jones was a bit more clear than Reyes-Volkan. 8 out of 19 media gave Reyes the victory over Volkan, whereas only 7 out of 21 gave Jones the victory over Reyes.

3. Even if we consider both of them robberies, the ramifications aren't the same. Reyes got robbed of the title and a win against arguably the GOAT; that's a really big deal. Volkan got robbed of an undercard fight on a Fight Night; not such a big deal.
Click to expand...
The way I had figured it, if we're quantifying chance of rounds won via any possible arguments:

Reyes - Jones
Anyone pretending Jones lost rounds 4 or 5 should be given no respect in this conversation. Same with Reyes losing round 1. The question rounds were 2 and 3. To me, they really weren't questions. Jones winning either of them is basically 1/10 chance each. Since Jones only needs to take 1 of those rounds, that's basically a 19/100 chance. 19% argument for a Jones victory.

Reyes - Volkan
There's at least a mild swing for an argument for all 3 rounds, but via majority, it should have been rounds 1 & 2 for Volkan. Reyes only has a 1/10 argument for round 1 & 1/4 argument for round 2. Him winning round 3 was about 2/3rds. So with his chances in each round being 1/10, 1/4, & 2/3: the chance of Reyes taking at least 2 rounds was 27/120 = 22.5% argument for a Reyes victory. So Volkan has a slightly higher percent argument for winning, especially benefited with the variable of 3 arguable rounds, instead of 2.

Neither are particularly close. These weren't 50/50 fights. The wrong guy won both times. Jones was just the wronger guy.
 
alex21cms said:
well to start jones had a way bigger claim to victory than reyes had over volkan
had volkan won than figth as he should have reyes wouldn t have been "unbeaten" and reyes wouldn t even have had a tittle figth in the first place
Click to expand...
I can't tell if you're trying to punctuate and make two statements or one. If it's two? No. not at all. Jones doesn't have a bigger claim to victory.

If you meant it as one statement, suggesting that via direct cause and effect, Reyes would have never got the Jones match without the Volkan robbery, so if that fight was scored correctly, this wouldn't even be debated. Yeah, I agree. It sucks, and Reyes isn't the first time I've seen it, but you get a guy who builds a run to the title including a questionable decision who then loses via questionable decision, karma-wise, it basically cancels out. I remember back in the day telling GSP haters to shove it cuz Hendricks had a string of luck with the judges come his way before GSP, but really, that's not an argument for him losing to Georges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,076
Messages
55,466,080
Members
174,785
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top