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

[loisestrad]

Reyes could have even had a 10-8 round or two ,.... so it was technically a robbery .

Giving Reyes a 10-8 round or two would definitely be way more unreasonable than Jones winning the fight.

 

[Bacco]

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.

More than bullshit the rules book itself say "octagon control" is (or should be) considered marginal bullshit, next to main factor like actual strikes landed

“Cage/Ring Control” is dictating the pace, place and position of the fight".

"Judges shall evaluate mixed martial arts techniques, such as effective striking, effective grappling, effective aggressiveness and Cage/ring control. Scoring evaluations shall be made giving equal weight to effective striking and effective grappling. It will be determined on a sliding scale. If a round is affected more by striking, then striking will be weighed more heavily. If a round is affected more by grappling than grappling will be weighed more heavily. Cage/Ring Control are secondary criteria to be used when effective striking and effective grappling are even. Effective aggression will be weighed more heavily than cage/ring control."
http://www.abcboxing.com/Unified_Rules_of_MMA_Judging_Criteria.pdf

Wich was'nt the case lol

 

[Al Stone]

I have seen a lot of your threads and posts, I think you just don't get things that are generally very easy to grasp. It was a close fight, he lost the fight that could have gone either way. Seems extremely simple to me. If you need someone to explain the difference between someone leaning slightly one way because of a close round, it going another, and them saying it wasn't a robbery, than there's nothing anyone can say to help you.

People just talk in circles to try and justify their mentality of a robbery because they want Jones to lose. They just wont get it until people ignore the crying. Then they will be on to the next reason to be spiteful. I address it in two words... and still

 

[IamStryker]

People just talk in circles to try and justify their mentality of a robbery because they want Jones to lose. They just wont get it until people ignore the crying. Then they will be on to the next reason to be spiteful. I address it in two words... and still

Yeah. Just like when there were all those threads arguing that Anthony Smith beat Jones as well....oh wait that didn't happen.

 

[Only Here for Attachments]

Sherdoggers would've scored the fight 50-35 for Reyes no matter what happened <45>

 

[Kumason]

People just talk in circles to try and justify their mentality of a robbery because they want Jones to lose. They just wont get it until people ignore the crying. Then they will be on to the next reason to be spiteful. I address it in two words... and still

Sometime's simplicity is best I over analyze things too much haha, you're spot on.

 

[Local Plata]

Robberies are when fights are not even close and the decision cannot be defended by any rational viewer who saw it. Probably the most over/misused term in the sport along with gatekeeper.

 

[VVarhead]

Fucking MMA Noobs don't know what robbery fucking means. Go watch Sanchez vs Pearson or some shit you embarrassing newbies

 

[felmmando]

Are you retarded?

No, you are. Only a retard takes ad hominem arguments seriously.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

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

Perfect answer. Kudos sir.

When 8 people honestly believe that fighter A won a round and 12 people think fighter B won the round, it's not a robbery (the way most people colloquially use the term.) If you're one of those 12 people, you shouldn't view it as such or claim you're "right" by definition because it's 12-8.

If it were 19-1, then maybe, just maybe, the word can be used. Soliz score of Krause v Giles round 1 is a good candidate for the term "robbery". Jones v Reyes rounds 2 and 3 were not even close.

But let's go back further and remember that subjectivity is built into the scoring!!! Many sports fans and American sports fans especially have a hard time grasping/accepting this. But quite often judge X scores it one way because he values certain things more, and judge Y scores it different because he doesn't. This isn't a moral question of right or wrong; this is a fact that needs to be accepted. And because of said built in subjectivity, a "close round" is a larger gray area than many are comfortable with.

It's unfortunate and a bit amazing to me that it takes a controversial Jones fight for people to learn some basics about the sport they claim to love.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

"robbery" is just a word. People need to start paying more attention to people's meaning, instead of the words they use to communicate their meaning. The dictionary isn't a quiz book. We're the dictionary's boss; it's not the other way around.

When some people call the fight a "robbery", they're saying Reyes deserved the win, and thus, the win was "robbed" from him. If you disagree that Reyes deserved the win, then argue that point.

You're right. If some people are indeed using the term the way you describe, then ultimately this is just a big stupid semantics debate.

I contend that most people use the term 'robbery' differently than how you describe.

And now I choose to exit the debate. Because semantics debates are stupid. Thanks for opening my eyes. Cheers.

 

[Fight Professor]

Close fights are not robberies. Reyes became less effective as the fight goes on and was just trying to win by points. Dominant champs are typically favored in close decisions unless you are Mighty Mouse.

 

[Karuzo]

He is just trying to return to UFC

You know he was never employed by the UFC right?

 

[egk]

Most people are smart enough to understand that close rounds can go either way. Even if you think one guy won them, it's perfectly understandable that other rational people might disagree. Ergo, not a robbery.

 

[IamStryker]

Most people are smart enough to understand that close rounds can go either way. Even if you think one guy won them, it's perfectly understandable that other rational people might disagree. Ergo, not a robbery.

They still need a good argument within the rules which they don't have.