Biggest robbery? GSP/Hendricks or Jones/Reyes?

[Mohawk Banditó]

48-47 could never be the biggest robbery in mma history

It absolutely can be, what do you mean

Seriously?

Jones landed more strikes than Santos in each of rounds two through five, landing 37% more strikes overall even including round one. Santos landed at an astoundingly bad 25% clip while Jones was landing at a 65% rate, an absurd 2.6 times better than Santos. Mostly Santos was gassing himself out throwing strikes that missed by a mile. Santos's striking stats for this match are some of the worst you'll ever see - 9 of 92 on head strikes! - while Jones's were pretty good albeit modest in total volume.

Any per-round stats-only argument has to result in a 49-46 score for Jones in this fight.

I never thought the Santos fight was a robbery and don't get people who do, but it is kinda funny how there are some people here arguing "Oh, Reyes only had 7 more significant strikes than Jones in round 3, that's not much" but Thiago, who had an even bigger power advantage than Dom seems to clearly have lost rounds where the strike stats were only 11-7 or 11-8. With numbers that low, of course the percentage difference is huge. When you only land 7 strikes total, even 2 more is already almost a 30% increase

Carlos Condit at worst, won 4 rounds against Lawler and didn't walk away champion. I think you're really stretching to give Lawler 3 rounds. I think it's a pretty big stretch to even give him 2.

That's unquestionably a worse decision than either of these fights.

Speaking of stats only, jeez this fucking fight. I'm never one to harp on the total stats of a fight, but it was always insane to me that Carlos landed almost nearly double what Robbie landed and about as many strikes as Robbie  threw and somehow still lost. I get accounting for a power difference, but holy shit

 

[markg171]

48-47 could never be the biggest robbery in mma history

I swear there was some recent fight where both guys were awarded all rounds by different judges. Like 30-27 both ways or something. I think the right guy ultimately won the split instead of the unanimous it should've been, but that's just such a bigger egregious situation than the cards might've maybe be off by 1 round. They were off by every round.

As for something like a 48-47, I agree it sucks if you ultimately lost by 1 round that may or may not have been scored right, but still always go back to the fact that you should've won the other rounds to cover it and make it undisputable. Or finished them and taken the judges power away entirely. We're in a thread discussing fights where:

1. Hendricks and his team themselves say they coasted in round 5 because they thought they had it already scoring wise and allowed GSP to instead to take it. They could've simply kept fighting as hard and instead gotten the actual 3-2 on the table or gotten the 4-1 they thought they'd be at. Or tried to KO GSP.
2. Reyes gassed halfway through the fight and couldn't win the latter rounds barring some all or nothing bursts to try and catch Jon. Which he also didn't do. Should've come in better shape or at least dug deeper.

You can say the scorecards suck and it's the judges fault they lost, but it's also the fighters fault here too. This wasn't a Machida/Shogun or Cejudo/MM 2 situation where Shogun and MM went at it all 5 rounds and didn't get the wins many think they should've. We're all well aware Hendricks and Reyes took their feet off the gas, voluntarily or not, and opened themselves up to losing rounds that cost them.

Also boxing. Nobody in MMA should be saying shit about our scorecards. Boxing is where actual robberies and corruption occur. Nobody wants to watch anymore as we all know how the scores are going to miraculously end up every single big fight, no matter how absurd they are when announced. Boxing looks you dead in the eye and tells you to shut up and take the decision.

 

[JBJ was here]

I never thought the Santos fight was a robbery and don't get people who do, but it is kinda funny how there are some people here arguing "Oh, Reyes only had 7 more significant strikes than Jones in round 3, that's not much" but Thiago, who had an even bigger power advantage than Dom seems to clearly have lost rounds where the strike stats were only 11-7 or 11-8. With numbers that low, of course the percentage difference is huge. When you only land 7 strikes total, even 2 more is already almost a 30% increase

I'm not claiming otherwise, just responding to the insanely stupid argument that was being made which was essentially that you can't judge the fight based on total strikes landed because you have to judge round-by-round. If you want to argue that Santos won that's clearly not enough of an argument because Santos clearly loses by that measure; you need to evaluate damage, or, more specifically "contribut[ions] towards the end of the match."

One thing that the unified rules aren't clear about that's raised by the Jones/Santos fight is how to consider damage from non-contact injuries, injuries resulting from bad or unlucky striking/grappling technique, and other contributions towards a fighting being finished that aren't caused by their opponent (e.g. gassing yourself out through over-aggressiveness). When judging effective striking and grappling, should judges look at the net effect of all relevant action in a round towards ending the fight or only action that improves the actor's chance of ending the fight? The main contributions towards ending the Santos Jones fight were Santos blowing out his knee attempting strikes and Santos gassing himself out. If either of those count in judging then the fight was a very clear win for Jones, not a close fight. I think gassing yourself out should count (this also makes Reyes vs. Jones a not particularly close fight at all) while injuries not caused by the opposing fighter mostly shouldn't, but that's all me, not something clear in the unified (or Texas) rules.

Compare a stoppage from a non-contact injury, which is a TKO like any other, not a no contest, making it clear that it doesn't matter that the non-injured fighter didn't cause the damage.

 

[icemun]

You realize fights are judged by rounds right? Not by total punch stats at the end. Also if you want to talk punch stats santos threw almost double the amount jones did

Santos "threw" double the amount of shots with 26% accuracy

Out of every four swings, he hit, once.

He landed 40% less strikes than Jones did.

That fight was a clinic.

 

[markg171]

Santos "threw" double the amount of shots with 26% accuracy

Out of every four swings, he hit, once.

He landed 40% less strikes than Jones did.

That fight was a clinic.

I remember being out with friends that night and other friends watching the fight told me in our group chat Santos was clearly beating Jones and then later were disgusted at the robbery afterwards.

Watched it the next morning and had zero idea what they were talking about. Wasn't a vintage Jones performance, but he won that. And even if he had lost it he certainly wasn't clearly losing like I was being told was happening by friends watching live.

People very much get caught up in the hype of seeing fighters unexpectedly look human when they expected a dominant performance. You'll over value what the other fighter's doing, but an unexpectedly competitive fight =/= actually winning. Pretty much every fight goes like this when you get a dog fight instead of a dominance.

 

[mister piscadinha]

i watched hendricks vs gsp five times and i cant call a winner confidently
reyes beat jones straight up, 3 rounds to 2 and the jones rounds were closer than the reyes ones

 

[VAfan]

GSP hendricks was not a robbery. so that leaves only one possible candidate.

 

[Versez]

It absolutely can be, what do you mean


I never thought the Santos fight was a robbery and don't get people who do, but it is kinda funny how there are some people here arguing "Oh, Reyes only had 7 more significant strikes than Jones in round 3, that's not much" but Thiago, who had an even bigger power advantage than Dom seems to clearly have lost rounds where the strike stats were only 11-7 or 11-8. With numbers that low, of course the percentage difference is huge. When you only land 7 strikes total, even 2 more is already almost a 30% increase


Speaking of stats only, jeez this fucking fight. I'm never one to harp on the total stats of a fight, but it was always insane to me that Carlos landed almost nearly double what Robbie landed and about as many strikes as Robbie  threw and somehow still lost. I get accounting for a power difference, but holy shit

Hendricks first round against GSP was legendary, man i remember him taking GSP down like that at the middle of the round, who does that to gsp ? it was unheard of.

 

[sanguinius]

Well, gsp vs Hendricks was actually a robbery, so obviously that one.

 

[samoajoe]

I'm a big GSP fanboy.

But I scored it 48-47 Hendricks. I've rewatched this fight many times, and yeah Hendricks won.

The Jones fight I scored 48-47 Jones, but I'm not entirely sure of that and haven't seen the fight since it happened.

I'm a big GSP fanboy.

But I scored it 48-47 Hendricks. I've rewatched this fight many times, and yeah Hendricks won.

The Jones fight I scored 48-47 Jones, but I'm not entirely sure of that and haven't seen the fight since it happened.

Real GSP fanboy here and have actually watched the fight many times. Hendricks only clearly won rounds 2 and 4 in a 5 round fight. Round 1 is a toss up and Hendricks did not clearly take it

Hendricks was also blown up by the end and GSP was easily controlling him in the 5th.

 

[sanguinius]

If jones vs Reyes was two different fighters, nobody would call it a robbery.

If gsp vs Hendricks was two different fighters, nobody would pretend to agree with the decision.

 

[OleBuffalo]

We don't know, because the "many" (an extremely small minority) who say Jon won can't agree that the third was in fact the swing. Every thread I get into this debate with people, without fail, has the Jones fans disagreeing saying, "Dom clearly won round 3, but 2 was close enough to give to Jon," and "Jon won rounds 1, 4, and 5."


Good thing then that it was 26 to 19. And it does become pretty obviously significant when you look at the impact of the strikes, considering head and body strikes make it 20 to 12 Dom, and the hardest strikes and biggest moments of the round to highlight were Reyes, so he wins on quantity and quality.


Then Scott Harris doesn't know what is effective striking, because accuracy isn't in the scoring criteria, pretty explicitly.


The scoring criteria was written to SPECIFICALLY not score points for dodging and blocking. It is offensive impact alone. Yes, Jones had the center of the octagon in round 3, except for the moment he was running away from Dom. This is the lone actual scoring criteria Jon was ahead on.


Scott is not credible because he's not arguing from a place of credibility. He just made up 2 different things to give Jon points for which not only wouldn't be scored for him, but historically, would normally be scored against him.


Meaning how well he won the last 2 rounds is irrelevant, and even worse..


Just stupid. We went from Scott Harris legitimately not knowing how to score fights, to Kelsey McCarson not even being able to count scores to 3, despite almost assuredly having enough fingers to do so.

So far I haven’t seen a quality argument for JJ winning. First we had classic Golem, completely devoid of self-awareness and bizarrely obsessed with testicular fortified and lions hunting like a 2011 Rogan disciple lmfao. Not applying the actual scoring criteria, instead using his own proprietary system based on confidence, strength, momentum, and ‘active excellence’ (whatever the fuck that means…) Senile, incoherent, and arrogant as usual.

Then the next person points to two excerpts that are clearly unhelpful by just plainly reading them. The first quote is a guy saying nothing except pointing to striking efficiency which of course in and of itself means nothing.

Then the lady in the next quote literally says the grit and veteran savvy JJ showed in the last TWO rounds gives him a strong argument for winning. So this lady is personally placing imaginary value on two rounds because she appreciated his grit, meanwhile two rounds doesn’t win you the fight, and creating your own criteria for who won in your heart is 100% irrelevant outsider of yourself.

Wild to think any of the above constitute actual arguments. I blame myself for expecting more lol

 

[OleBuffalo]

Jones had a striking accuracy of 62 percent for Jones to Reyes' 44, which details the actual reality of the fight. Striking accuracy is a measure of a fighter's ability to land blows in a combat sport, and jon jones was more accurate than Reyes with landed strikes.

Which tells us that a good majority of Reyes strikes were indeed not impactful and did not land.

A better measure of a fighter’s ability to land blows is the number of blows they land. Missed strikes are not a scoring factor, as not all strikes are meant to land effectively just as not all takedown attempts are meant to succeed. Some strikes are meant to set other strikes up and more, just as some takedown attempts are meant to make your opponent work. See current Champ Merab who weaponizes the ‘failed td’

Also, referencing the strikes Dom missed tells us nothing about the impactfulness of the ones that did land. You’ve drawn a conclusion that can’t be drawn by pure statistics. You’re speaking on the quality of the strikes landed, which can only be judged by watching them.

This is a good old fashioned non-sequitur.

 

[RedDevilFan]

A better measure of a fighter’s ability to land blows is the number of blows they land. Missed strikes are not a scoring factor, as not all strikes are meant to land effectively just as not all takedown attempts are meant to succeed. Some strikes are meant to set other strikes up and more, just as some takedown attempts are meant to make your opponent work. See current Champ Merab who weaponizes the ‘failed td’

Also, referencing the strikes Dom missed tells us nothing about the impactfulness of the ones that did land. You’ve drawn a conclusion that can’t be drawn by pure statistics. You’re speaking on the quality of the strikes landed, which can only be judged by watching them.

This is a good old fashioned non-sequitur.

No one is saying that the judges score striking accuracy. Scott is detailing jones ability to slipshots and evade strikes and his defensive striking as well as offensive. He is not saying that they score striking accuracy but that jones had the better striking accuracy, and with that was the better defensive fighter. He details his ability to evade shots from Reyes and during that third, details blocked shots that were not as impactful as they looked, such as a head kick that jones blocked but was given to Reyes. In a close fight with only 4- 7 more landed strikes, he gave it to jones after going to the other scoring criterias, which was octagon control and aggression, which jones was ahead in.

It was a close fight with 4-7 strikes between them in the third, which the second was even closer, which is too close and close enough to go to the other scoring criterias. Which jones was ahead of Reyes in, and what edged jones out in that Round. Which is more than plausible for JJ winning that third, let alone the closer second.

It is that simple

 

[OleBuffalo]

No one is saying that the judges score striking accuracy. Scott is detailing jones ability to slipshots and evade strikes and his defensive striking as well as offensive. He is not saying that they score striking accuracy but that jones had the better striking accuracy, and with that was the better defensive fighter. He details his ability to evade shots from Reyes and during that third,details blocked shots that were not as impactful as they looked. In a close fight with only 4- 7 more landed strikes, he gave it to jones.

Because of his octagon control and aggression during that round, which jones was ahead of Reyes in, which is more than plausible for JJ winning that third. The idea that you cannot see it as plausible speaks to you not being serious about the debate.

Lemme see if I can be more clear cus your last sentence is the product of imagination. Notice I didn't say it wasn't plausible for JJ to have won the round. Notice I never mentioned who I think won at all; that's because my concern isn't whether someone thinks JJ or Reyes won. Hell, I don't have a strong opinion myself cus I haven't rewatched for years. My focus in on the logic used to arrive at the conclusion.

In other words, I don't care what conclusion someone lands on, just that the conclusion is arrived at with reasoning that isn't clearly flawed. You've decided on my behalf that JJ winning isn't plausible despite me never making that claim. Go back and re-read what I said but this time knowing that I'm not saying JJ or Reyes won.

Now, about the first paragraph in your post above - It takes a bit of mental gymnastics to use the missed strikes against Reyes when the landed strikes are a more direct and objective measure of striking effectiveness. You can argue that the 7 strikes are trivial(19 for JJ, 26 for Reyes) but in a round where not many strikes were landed, 7 more strikes is almost 40% of what JJ landed. So on paper, that's not an inconsequential amount in a round where neither guy landed very much. But like I said in my original post, assessing their impact is only possible through going back and watching the strikes and round in general, which I'm not gonna do, which is why I'm not asserting a winner.

If you feel like you have some good stuff cooked up and feel compelled to reply, go for it. If not, I'm cool with us just moving on cus we're probably just gonna keep spinning our wheels.

 

[JBJ was here]

Lemme see if I can be more clear cus your last sentence is the product of imagination. Notice I didn't say it wasn't plausible for JJ to have won the round. Notice I never mentioned who I think won at all; that's because my concern isn't whether someone thinks JJ or Reyes won. Hell, I don't have a strong opinion myself cus I haven't rewatched for years. My focus in on the logic used to arrive at the conclusion.

In other words, I don't care what conclusion someone lands on, just that the conclusion is arrived at with reasoning that isn't clearly flawed. You've decided on my behalf that JJ winning isn't plausible despite me never making that claim. Go back and re-read what I said but this time knowing that I'm not saying JJ or Reyes won.

Now, about the first paragraph in your post above - It takes a bit of mental gymnastics to use the missed strikes against Reyes when the landed strikes are a more direct and objective measure of striking effectiveness. You can argue that the 7 strikes are trivial(19 for JJ, 26 for Reyes) but in a round where not many strikes were landed, 7 more strikes is almost 40% of what JJ landed. So on paper, that's not an inconsequential amount in a round where neither guy landed very much. But like I said in my original post, assessing their impact is only possible through going back and watching the strikes and round in general, which I'm not gonna do, which is why I'm not asserting a winner.

If you feel like you have some good stuff cooked up and feel compelled to reply, go for it. If not, I'm cool with us just moving on cus we're probably just gonna keep spinning our wheels.

You say you haven't rewatched in years, and that's a problem. The strikes Reyes landed throughout the fight with Jones were particularly ineffective strikes, and you need to watch to really take notice of that. Almost all - not just most, mind you - were partially blocked, glancing, slapping, deflected, or were landed with Jon moving with the strike, taking the power out of the strike. When it comes to strikes that landed flush with penetration, Jones significantly outlanded Reyes. Jones buckled Reyes's knees, snapped his neck, and moved him off his spot with strikes. Reyes simply did not respond in kind.

Reyes also gassed himself out pretty badly chasing Jones, handing Jones a steadily increasing advantage over the course of the fight. Reyes had more and more difficulty executing technique as the fight went on while Jones didn't particularly slow down or show increasing struggle. From one round to the next Jones persistently gained advantage over Reyes and there's no doubt it would have been Jones who would have eventually stopped his opponent if the fight were not limited to five rounds.

Jones was far more effective than Reyes and clearly made greater progress towards ending the fight, both over the fight as a whole and on a round-by-round basis, and it's not a close call at all.

 

[RedDevilFan]

Now, about the first paragraph in your post above - It takes a bit of mental gymnastics to use the missed strikes against Reyes when the landed strikes are a more direct and objective measure of striking effectiveness.

Hold on, no mental nothing, and yes we are using Reyes inability to hit jones and jones ability to hit reyes as striking accuracy as a statistic and yes effective striking.

Defensive striking can be considered an effective strike, as long as it successfully disrupts an opponent's attack and creates an opportunity to counterattack or escape, even if it doesn't directly inflict significant damage. Jones blocked and disrupted a good majority of Reyes strikes in the third round and througout the fight jones had the better striking accuracy. Reyes threw more strikes but many were partially blocked and evaded as scott mentioned.

Jones was the more effective defensive striker along with fighter with the better striking accuracy, and thus the more effective striker. Which allowed him to block and slip many of Reyes strikes.Dominick cruz even made mention of that in the third round with jones and Reyes and jones blocking alot of his shots. Like the kick in the third detailed by scott that jones blocked but was given to Reyes, and looked more impactful than it was. So when you look at the fight and assess it properly, 7 strikes, even with that low amount of activity is inconsequential. You can't even tell that Reyes threw 7 more shots, unless you look at the cards, as it was that inconsequential. For instance jones and Reyes traded jabs in the third but jones partially blocked the jab and Reyes did not.

That is why scott mentioned why he went to the other scoring criterias, which jones was ahead in, such as octagon conrrol and aggressivness, and gave the third round to Jones as per UFC rules.

 

[tornado362]

Real GSP fanboy here

 

[The-AxeMurderer]

Dunno how anyone can argue rounds 1, 2, and 3 were clearly Reyes rounds.

GSP got 2 rounds clear, Johny got 2 rounds clear.

Rounds 1 was actually pretty close.

If GSP lost i wouldn't cry robbery.

Johny only has himself to blame for letting his foot off the gas in the last round.

 

[Kommit]

GSP won the fight
Jones won the fight
so, to answer your questions: no robbery