Gus vs Jones: UFC faked the stats (pic included)

You can easily find it online. Someone else recorded it for your viewing pleasure.

If I gave you the stats, it would not be your own assessment. So you'd be in the same situation as you are in now, just putting blind faith on someone else's morality and ability to be completely unbiased and not corrupt.

It's really important to do the research yourself and not allow others to just hand it to you. In everything.

Amusing and true as the fist paragraph is, ill have to argue against the last part. Unless something ridiculous and egregious comes out of fightmetric, i have no reason to not believe them. I think the fight was close and could have gone either way, from the stats, this appears to be true aswell.

As for believing what others tell you, do you think Al-queda is a real group? If you havent met them, you only have others word to go on. Seen someone contract radiation poisoning? If not, you only have others word it is dangerous? All of history? simply what others tell you. Obama being president? unless you were at his inauguration it would rely on others to tell you. In fact, can you name any area of your life that you are not relying on the knowledge of others at all?
 
The UFC would of loved Gus to win, they have been trying to get more numbers for their European events and having a European champion would have done just that.

Look at the Brazilian market now, that's what it would be like!
 
So you think they made such a big mistake counting the strikes? I mean, on the left stat Gus has almost 200 strikes, on the right only 114. According to the UFC stat he landed only 38% of his strikes...as I recall, Gus was pretty successful landing his punches.

While i can accept the change as a "mistake", what bothers me is that the count for GUS decreased and the count of Jones increased, either the person who counted it was blind or a Gus nuthugger or else something is fishy,don't see the UFC doing such blatant lying though.
 
As for believing what others tell you, do you think Al-queda is a real group? If you havent met them, you only have others word to go on. Seen someone contract radiation poisoning? If not, you only have others word it is dangerous? All of history? simply what others tell you. Obama being president? unless you were at his inauguration it would rely on others to tell you. In fact, can you name any area of your life that you are not relying on the knowledge of others at all?

 
60% of the voters on Sherdog said Gus won the fight. Jones may be the champ, but in the eyes of most people and pro's Gus won the fight. End of story.

ROFL

Any Sherdog poll can automatically be thrown out as what "most people" think.

I see why you think what you think, what a golden logical thought process you have. BTW, are you up on the latest Bigfoot sightings?
 
ROFL

Any Sherdog poll can automatically be thrown out as what "most people" think.

I see why you think what you think, what a golden logical thought process you have. BTW, are you up on the latest Bigfoot sightings?

Twitter? Facebook? Sherdog is not the only place where people talk about MMA. If you say most people think Jones won the fight, you're wrong. Sorry.
Either way, the fight was just epic and it was really, really close, but I think Gus was slightly better. Would like to see a rematch in the near future, even if Gus would have got the W.
 
Unless something ridiculous and egregious comes out of fightmetric, i have no reason to not believe them.

You mean something like a 30% drop in strikes landed, a clear 80 strike win turning into a 10 strike loss, after the decision was announced and things had to be re-visited? Jones landing 137 strikes and a STAGGERING 134 of them being significant? The damage on Gustaffson suggests this is an accurate assesment to you?

I see. You have no reason to not believe them. What reason do you have to believe them?

As for believing what others tell you, do you think Al-queda is a real group?

Interesting question. Yes, there are people these days that will call themselves Al-Qaeda, just as there are bikers who now belong in "Sons of Anarchy", but both were fabrications at the time they were started in the media. I have read the book on Al Qaeda by Jason Burke, it's the most investigative and authoritive piece written about the phenomenon and Burke was the leading "expert" on the subject as the journalist about all things Al qaeda.

"The terrorist group al-Qaeda in fact does not exist. It was made up in January of 2001 in order to prosecute Osama bin Laden in his absence. In order to prosecute bin Laden there had to be an organization like the Mafia for which he was a part of. Under the law if such an organization exists then the head of the organization can be prosecuted under the law. So in order to bring the prosecution they made up the organization and called it al-Qaeda. But the organization is fiction. It doesn't exist. It's all a huge fraud."

It's more of a question of semantics whether they exist or not, but the creation of it was not like a group of terrorists deciding "hey, we will do stuff together and call ourselves this". It was a list of guys that the U.S was looking for, and they just named it something so people would have something more concrete to grasp. Of course wannabes followed after. The actual name Al Qaeda means "database", it was the database of those terrorists that they were after.


Seen someone contract radiation poisoning? If not, you only have others word it is dangerous?

There are numbers of scientific papers published about the subject, it has withstood peer review and the scientific process in general. So the case for it is actually strong, not like fightmetric where a person reviews something on video and then publishes it and it's not open for dispute.

You comparing scientific method and one guy publishing his own account on a video review in a closed media, just goes to show how very little questioning you do and how you put far too much pure faith into your thinking.


All of history? simply what others tell you.Obama being president? unless you were at his inauguration it would rely on others to tell you. In fact, can you name any area of your life that you are not relying on the knowledge of others at all?

You really need to understand the weight of evidence.

Comparing one guy in a video room publishing his personal view on a fight he reviewed, to for example historical events where there is plenty of material of, is just strange.

If you have a million witnesses to the same story, or if you have one guy "laying down the law" and allowing them to be your authority, is something very different.

Just like ignoring 2000+ architects and engineers, but completely putting your faith in 5+ guys who have already suggested 3 different theories and completely failed each time, having to come up with a new one just to stall a few more years.
 
Last edited:
Twitter? Facebook? Sherdog is not the only place where people talk about MMA. If you say most people think Jones won the fight, you're wrong. Sorry.
Either way, the fight was just epic and it was really, really close, but I think Gus was slightly better. Would like to see a rematch in the near future, even if Gus would have got the W.

If you want facts, it actually has to be a scientific poll. People who vote on Sherdog polls and spew crap on Twitter and Facebook just have big mouths, that isn't any kind of representation of the majority. People see what they want to see, that is also a fact of psychology, whether it's true in this instance or not. People wanted Jones to lose, and were butthurt because he didn't. Any close fight he is in is going to bring outrage from the haters (and half-cocked conspiracy theories).

Yes, the fight was very close. I want to see a rematch also.
 
A bunch of conspiracy theories.

We should keep the non mma stuff to the war room. In regards to fightmetric, they are they generally accepted authority, so i tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. They may not be peer reviewed, but its really not something that would be.
 
We should keep the non mma stuff to the war room. In regards to fightmetric, they are they generally accepted authority, so i tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. They may not be peer reviewed, but its really not something that would be.

yes, you have accepted authorities (which have absolutely no reason to be anyones accepted authority, it's just a guy or a few who watch fights), I got that.

"bunch of conspiracy stuff"....

I replied to you with facts and that's what you come up with. You are almost proudly parading that your judgement process is very much faith based. Unreal.
 
yes, you have accepted authorities (which have absolutely no reason to be anyones accepted authority, it's just a guy or a few who watch fights), I got that.

"bunch of conspiracy stuff"....

I replied to you with facts and that's what you come up with. You are almost proudly parading that your judgement process is very much faith based. Unreal.

I have more reason to accept their version than i do anyone elses. Have to go with the most reputable source.
 
I have more reason to accept their version than i do anyone elses. Have to go with the most reputable source.

There's the difference between people and sheeple.

I'd rather watch it and make up my own mind.
 
Jones-Gustafsson-stats2.jpg

The total strikes and significant strike numbers are exactly the same for both fighters in the first pic. Not possible.
 
There's the difference between people and sheeple.

I'd rather watch it and make up my own mind.

You are right, i wish i was as special as you. Then i would always know best too.
 
The total strikes and significant strike numbers are exactly the same for both fighters in the first pic. Not possible.

Yeah, and in the second it's 137 total strikes, 134 significant for Jones and 114 total for Gus with 110 sign. It's impossible to have a 100% total strikes/signficant strike rate, while it's totally possible to have a 99% total strikes/sign strikes rate according to your logic.
 
You are right, i wish i was as special as you. Then i would always know best too.

You'd know better than to take your information from a self proclaimed authority, especially when you have the option of checking it for yourself.
 
Okay I'm allergic towards anything that even smells like a conspiracy theory but missing that much? Not saying I'm buying it but wtf.
 
Back
Top