Biggest robbery? GSP/Hendricks or Jones/Reyes?

[krelianx]

GSP is my favorite fighter of all time, and I don't like Jones. But GSP lost that fight by a bigger margin. Round 1 was simply impossible to score for GSP as far as I'm concerned.

 

[surgeyou1]

GSP Hendricks for me. Hendricks was the better man that night. Everyone who watched the fight knew it.

 

[Ares Black]

GSP Hendricks for me. Hendricks was the better man that night. Everyone who watched the fight knew it.

*Except for 2 of 3 judges and 42% of fans

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

*Except for 2 of 3 judges and 42% of fans

Hey, are you noticing a big trend of: "Reyes clearly won and here's the stats and scoring criteria on a round by round basis which reflect that" vs "GSP lost cuz it feels like he lost the fight that day" ?

 

[VinceArch]

Jones/Reyes EASILY

 

[chinarice]

Condit vs Lawler

 

[RedDevilFan]

He very clearly landed more and harder the first 3 rounds, what on Earth are you talking about? He was ahead in nearly EVERY scoring criteria, as they're written. You actually believe Jon "won" the whole of the first 3 rounds? What else do you believe in, Loch Ness?

I do not want to get into this debate, but it was a close fight, and many say jones won.

What we know is that Reyes won the first two and Jones the last two. So, that leaves the third.

You say no one can score it for jones in the third but that is untrue. Yes, the striking numbers favor Reyes for that round, but at 23 to 19 it isn't exactly overwhelming. That is not even significant

"Scott Harris
: For example, UFC stats revealed a major advantage for Jones in striking accuracy, with 62 percent for Jones to Reyes' 44 percent. If that's not "effective striking" (the first of the UFC criteria for scoring), then I don't know what is. That helps illustrate why Jones won the third. Reyes' low percentage speaks to Jones' ability to slip shots.

Meanwhile, Jones blocked plenty of strikes as well, including a head kick in the third that caused far more drama than damage. But never forget UFC fights can never be a stats-only discussion. It's fairly easy to argue Jones held an edge in Octagon control in the third, applying constant pressure and consistently fighting from the center.

That itself tells you how close it really was. You can't just hand the round to somebody. In order to be credible, you have to make a case, no matter what side you're on. That, ladies and gentlemen, is what is known as a close fight. In a close fight, there are no robberies"

Kelsey McCarson:
"I thought the first three rounds were the hardest to score. Maybe you could reasonably score it 3-0 or 2-1 for Reyes. But the last two rounds looked like Jones rounds to me with some serious certainty. In fact, lost in the hubbub over how well Reyes performed in the first three rounds is what guts, guile and championship mettle Jones showed over the final two. For me, what Jones did over those last two rounds gave him a legitimate claim to winning it."

 

[Koro_11]

I don’t know, but neither of those are even close to the robbery that happened this past weekend.

 

[Mittens]

Jones/Reyes at least is a robbery (to what degree can be discussed)

GSP/Hendricks was scored correcty. Had Hendricks gotten the 1st, that would been okay too. And had Hendricks not been a complete idiot and coasted the 5th, he probably would have won the fight regardless of how R1 was scored. Not being an idiot is an usefull skill for a fighter.

 

[markg171]

Personally I'm fine with the decisions; I thought Hendricks and Reyes started strong and then wilted while GSP and Jones rallied for wins which is the much more important narrative aspect in a close fight. Maybe they should've lost on points, maybe not, but the narrative of the fight was much more GSP and Jones rallying back than Hendricks and Reyes doing well. I'd rather a champion with a champion drive to win and finishing stronger than their challenger who by contrast wilted and who was really ultimately turned away by the champion if that's the ending.

Obviously that's not how fights are scored in reality though per the rules. But I mean it is true that title defences aren't normal fights. There's a belt on the line that the challenger is trying to take from the champion; it's not just their records at stake when they fight. The belt actually is the champion's. That's why champions are recognized elsewhere in draws and NCs that without definitively losing they remain champion. Why shouldn't that be the case with super close round by round decisions? Not in a 1-4 decision no, but in a 2-3 case where the champ's clearly the better fighter by the end it IS a bad look for the challenger. The challenger came to take their belt and was sent scurrying in the final all or nothing play by the champion. They didn't get it. It's like winning a capture the flag game without capturing the flag.

There is a narrative at play with who "should" be champion after the fight. This is combat after all. In the real world we acknowledge things like Pyrrhic victories, why not here too? Again, not how fights are actually scored per the rules, but hard to get upset about if that's how they played out. It's very different than if somebody should've clearly won 5-0 and somehow didn't. That's a real robbery to be pissed about if they took a loss on their record and didn't get the belt.

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

I do not want to get into this debate, but it was a close fight, and many say jones won.

What we know is that Reyes won the first two and Jones the last two. So, that leaves the third.

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."

You say no one can score it for jones in third but that is untrue. Yes, the striking numbers favor Reyes for that round, but at 23 to 19 it isn't exactly overwhelming. That is not even significant

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.

"Scott Harris
: For example, UFC stats revealed a major advantage for Jones in striking accuracy, with 62 percent for Jones to Reyes' 44 percent. If that's not "effective striking" (the first of the UFC criteria for scoring), then I don't know what is.

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

That helps illustrate why Jones won the third. Reyes' low percentage speaks to Jones' ability to slip shots. Meanwhile, Jones blocked plenty of strikes as well, including a head kick in the third that caused far more drama than damage. But never forget UFC fights can never be a stats-only discussion. It's fairly easy to argue Jones held an edge in Octagon control in the third, applying constant pressure and consistently fighting from the center.

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.

That itself tells you how close it really was. You can't just hand the round to somebody. In order to be credible, you have to make a case, no matter what side you're on. That, ladies and gentlemen, is what is known as a close fight. In a close fight, there are no robberies

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.

Kelsey McCarson:
"I thought the first three rounds were the hardest to score. Maybe you could reasonably score it 3-0 or 2-1 for Reyes. But the last two rounds looked like Jones rounds to me with some serious certainty. In fact, lost in the hubbub over how well Reyes performed in the first three rounds is what guts, guile and championship mettle Jones showed over the final two.

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

For me, what Jones did over those last two rounds gave him a legitimate claim to winning it."

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.

 

[RedDevilFan]

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 13 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.


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.

Per the Unified Rules of MMA, scoring in each round is based on the following:

• Effective striking/grappling
• Aggressiveness
• Octagon/cage control

That is enough to give him the win in a score where about 4 more strikes are the issue. Jones won two of the three criterias which would favor him in the third round, which is what Scott stated, and so have many others.

 

[Ares Black]

Per the Unified Rules of MMA, scoring in each round is based on the following:

• Effective striking/grappling
• Aggressiveness
• Octagon/cage control

That is enough to give him the win in a score where about 4 more strikes are the issue. Jones won two of the three criterias which would favor him in the third round, which is what Scott stated, and so have many others.

The second and third criteria are only considered if the first one is even.

 

[RedDevilFan]

The second and third criteria are only considered if the first one is even.

With 4 more strikes, i consider that even.

 

[Ares Black]

With 4 more strikes, i consider that even.

It really depends on the strikes

 

[Cowboy Kurt Angle]

Hendricks GSP, they are both pretty bad but I think GSP Hendricks wins

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

Per the Unified Rules of MMA, scoring in each round is based on the following:

• Effective striking/grappling
• Aggressiveness
• Octagon/cage control

That is enough to give him the win in a score where about 4 more strikes are the issue. Jones won two of the three criterias which would favor him in the third round, which is what Scott stated, and so have many others.

7 to 8 more significant strikes and much more impactful strikes too (because like you said, it's not stats alone) so he wins handily on striking. Plus 11 more attempted strikes, because he was attacking and getting Jones off of him with more volume, and had Jones literally run from him, so he wins aggression too. But Jones was in the center more often, so that's enough to overrule the other 2? That's not a serious suggestion

With 4 more strikes, i consider that even.

You keep counting wrong for one, and the striking clearly wasn't even. You even specifically pointed out that numbers don't tell the whole story (which I had already accounted for) but then when I point out that, correct, Reyes' impact should actually make that gulf  bigger, then yyou're arping on stats alone. There is nothing Jones did except walk forward (into Dom's strikes)

 

[Fedorgasm]

Jones/Reyes for me. It was so easy even the casuals could see it. Reyes got the first 3, Jones got the last 2, and none of them were 10-8.

They really robbed Reyes of a life-changing moment there too. I mean Werdum and Weidman got to go down in history as the men who finally stopped the unstoppable. Reyes should be right there with them.

 

[Iactus Inferus]

You can look at MMA scoring criteria and see how the GSP/Hendricks decision made sense to the judges at the time. If you follow your own made up scoring criteria, you can do the same with Jones/Reyes too. Anyone bringing up stuff like perceived exhaustion, ring control (that just boils down to walking forward, which isn't ring control), fighter emotions, etc. are revealing their own ignorance and aren't worth the time wasted trying to explain basic reasoning to them. The vast majority of fight fans would benefit from doing an intro course at a local gym. Really helps shake out some of those dumb ideas that you get convinced hold water when your technical knowledge of the sport can be easily rivaled by a Hockey fan

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

There are some serious mental gymnastics going on here, displayed by multiple users, about scoring defense and accuracy (two things which simply do not get scored) so I just wanna give a quick brass tacks statement.

If the only action in an entire round is I throw one punch at you, and you guard yourself, I won the round. My 0% accuracy doesn't matter, your blocking doesn't matter. I won that round. That's just how it is. If anyone denies that, there is no moving forward

@IronGolem007
Nice try, again. Everybody can take a picture of a random guy with a random chick and say it´s him.


I would invite you to come to me, then you could try it out. And it would be a really nice surprise for you to see me. But your criminal ass is definitely not allowed to leave the country.
A big mouth with nothing behind it. A textbook keyboard warrior.
And a 60-year-old with so little brain? No way!
That's new. You are not someone I need to take seriously.

He's not a smart man. The mods actually had to delete him fully doxxing himself at one point because he wanted to fight someone here for disagreeing with him. Personal website with his name, bio, and hobbies, picture of him and presumably his vehicle with license plate and everything. Just so dumb