Wow, thanks for that link. the rules say “evaluate mixed martial arts techniques, such as effective striking, effective grappling, fighting area control, and effective aggressiveness/defense”. I guess the rules don’t say consider aggression and control when striking is even. It just says you have to consider aggression and control all together. Based off of what I read in that link you sent me, I can understand why the judges favored Jones. They were instructed to score aggression and octagon control.
Mate is this you or are you daft?
YOU are the one saying to check MMADecisions that not a single media scored the fight for GSP.
Mmadecisions is not biased. They simply post the media outlets they have information for and put them together. And I clearly said look on mmadecisions. All the media outlets on there didn’t score it for gsp. Not once did I say they had every media score nor does mmadecisions pretend they do. Your logic goes both ways. There are media outlets that scored it for jones that didn’t post. Either way, according to the website deals with topics like these gsp vs Hendricks has no wins for gsp. I don’t see that as a bad metric to look at.
The Texas rules even require the evaluation of defensive technique, which means that making your opponent miss (strongly in favor of Jones over Reyes every round but round three) is part of what gets evaluated, although there's no requirement (or ban on) that it be weighed highly.
Jones should have ducked that high kick like he is ducking TomAdding onto this, since I directly compared these 2 fights "as robberies" before in another thread, I'm just gonna pull the post from there::
-
Could I have been thinking of GSP vs Hendricks?
Hmm..?
Nah, I am thinking of Jones-Reyes.
You wanna talk about close rounds? Which rounds went to Jon exactly, cuz I'm confused.
I give Jon 2 rounds, but which 3rd should I give him? They all just look so delicious.
See, this is what a split looks like.
Hmm, maybe the stats will clear things up.
Yup, those definitely look like close rounds. Total strikes and attempetd volume vs significant strikes are similar or flipped, control time with takedowns split attention. Makes sense.
Ok, so we can identify close rounds. Let's see the close rounds with Jones
You see in the first 3 rounds, the significant strikes are all so clo..
DOM +6
DOM +11
DOM +7
..wait no. Well, even if the significant strikes have a wide margin, I'm sure the total strikes and attempted volume must have made up the diff..
DOM +6 / +32
DOM +11 / +31
DOM +7 / +11
..oh no. I mean, where the strikes land is important too, so maybe Dom was just doing legwork while Jon surpassed him in combined head & body strikes to close the ga-
DOM +11
DOM +10
DOM +8
shit.. Well, Jon is one of the best wrestlers in MMA, I'm sure his successful takedowns and control time stole some ro-
JON 0/2 0 sec
JON 0/0 0 sec
JON 0/2 15 sec
... Oh... Well, there's always a difference of power and clean connections. Maybe the biggest moments of the rounds were Jones'? If you take a look at the UFC's post-round highlights in round 3, I'm sure we'll fin-
Ah.. yeah, no. I don't think there's much of an argument that Jones should have won.
Are you kidding? That high kick was toe tips to skull, and the toe tips lose that battle every time. Just ask Ciryl Gane, who only managed to hit ribs with his toe tips. That kick definitely did more damage to Reyes than to Jones.
Wow, you’re completely right. The Texas rules are a bit wonky. Based on the criteria set out by the rules of Texas, Jones winning shouldn’t be controversial. It’s weird how some states hadnt adopted the same judging criteria as others at that time.
You gotta feel if there are lumps, that shit can be scary
Nobody won that fight. That fight was so boring. Nothing happened
. At least with Jones and Reyes the fight was exciting 
.
Seriously?
48-47 could never be the biggest robbery in mma history
