Big John "Jones/Reyes was not a robbery"......HUH??

So I have seen a heard at least a few times now from different MMA sources where someone will say "Dominick won the first 3 rounds", then they say "This fight was not a robbery". Can someone explain to me how you can say both of those things? If you are arguing that the fight should have gone to the other fighter then isn't that essentially the definition of a robbery? How bad does a decision need to be before it's a robbery??

Big John,

 

He is just trying to return to UFC

 

I totally agree with him, same line of thinking on this particular topic. Basically if you think that Dominick should have won the fight then subconsciously you agree that he got his victory stolen.


That being said all cops are bastards lol

 

Big J is correctamundo Cunningham.

 

You have to be able to leave room for disagreement—for example—some argue that Jon being the aggressor, and walking Reyes down for the whole fight, won him the close rounds.

I think that that is bullshit—but I can see how someone might say that.

Robberies are when there are no rational arguments that fit with the rules.

 

It wasn't. Noob post whores on here lmao

 

Boom

 

And yet Reyes was the aggressor for most of the early rounds. So their logic breaks down.
Also, octagon control ranks lower than effective striking on the judging criteria, so it doesn’t even come into play when Reyes clearly outstruck Jon in the first 3 rounds.

 

Except there were no close rounds.

 

Are you retarded?

 

Are you retarded?

 

People who say it wasn’t a robbery usually say that because Reyes won by a narrow margin. However, it’s still a robbery because that narrow margin was very clear.

Doesn’t matter if you win a race by a 10 second lead or by a 0.5 second lead. If you award the loser with the win, it’s a robbery.

 

Where’s your actual counter argument? Oh wait, you have none.

 

Big John (who wrote the rules) said himself that "walking down" means absolutely nothing.

 

I already said that I thought that the argument was bullshit. But I was leaving space for the possibility of someone disagreeing with me—which was the point of the post.

But since you ignored that, I’m assuming that you’re retarded...

How can I have a counterargument against myself?

 

ultimate blacklist hey

Hasn’t been seen reffinf teh UFC since he created the World MMA Association (something like that) and gave Fedor a belt lol

some guys on here tracked the Association to some crumby empty offices

 

It was a competitive fight with Jon clearly winning the last 2 rounds.

That fight wasn't a robbery. Reyes needs to reel himself in and remember his ass got the nod over Volkan. It's MMA sometimes the shit doesn't go your way, maybe start a better cardio regiment so your not sucking air and circling the last 8 minutes.

 

There should not be any room left for their type of reasoning because they are objectively wrong. That’s my point.

It’s an internally inconsistent argument and one that is not in line with the MMA judging criteria.

 

Im not sure of the exact timeline so I could be off here but Big Jon reffed UFC matches up until he did an interview disparaging fighter pay....then he was blacklisted for a couple of years but continued reffing outside the UFC, he was eventually allowed back and reffed there ((and other promotions)) until he retired

Reyes 3-2, he was robbed

 

1. probably, my brain is fucked

2. totally agree