I have never seen so much gymnastic to try to give the fighter to the loser

[JBJISGOAT]

So basically, the fact Reyes landed more for 3 rounds doesn't matter for these people. Instead, lets made up arbitrary BS criteria to give Jon the rounds anyway. Lets see:

"Octagon control"

"He landed a higher percentage"

"He was moving forward. We all know the definition of fighting is moving forward."

"Well, the difference in strikes wasn't that big, so the percentage of strikes landed becomes more important than the total strikes"

"Yeah, he lost the rounds, but it was close, so it wasn't a robbery. It's ok to deprive someone of a victory if it's not a one sided beating"

"Well...for championship fights you only win rounds if you destroy the champion."

I have a few or my own even more convincing. You can use it if you want to:

"Jon turned his back and ran, which showed he was winning because if you weren't better than your opponent you wouldn't turn your back to him. That shows you aren't concerned about your opponent because you're winning easily"

"I think Jon won the rounds because by not landing much he was pretty much showing everybody he wasn't taking his opponent seriously, since those strikes were having no effect. It's a form of control. It's fighting arrogance. It's part of the judging criteria. I mean, when Batman was punching Bane, do you also feel he was winning the fight? Bane was just there chilling letting him punch"

Three human beings with much more MMA knowledge than you gave it to Bones. I will trust them, don’t lose too much sleep!

 

[bleeder]

Dumb thread. Controversial W but not grand theft.
Facts:
-Reyes outstruck Jones for three rounds, but over the entire fight, the gap was only 12 strikes.
-Jon was advancing for most of the fight.
-Jon landed two takedowns.

Score that as you will. 1 takedown that led to nothing and another with a bit of control for like, a minute, are really what are the determining factors.

 

[TheOnlyGreatest]

So basically, the fact Reyes landed more for 3 rounds doesn't matter for these people. Instead, lets made up arbitrary BS criteria to give Jon the rounds anyway. Lets see:

"Octagon control"

"He landed a higher percentage"

"He was moving forward. We all know the definition of fighting is moving forward."

"Well, the difference in strikes wasn't that big, so the percentage of strikes landed becomes more important than the total strikes"

"Yeah, he lost the rounds, but it was close, so it wasn't a robbery. It's ok to deprive someone of a victory if it's not a one sided beating"

"Well...for championship fights you only win rounds if you destroy the champion."

I have a few or my own even more convincing. You can use it if you want to:

"Jon turned his back and ran, which showed he was winning because if you weren't better than your opponent you wouldn't turn your back to him. That shows you aren't concerned about your opponent because you're winning easily"

"I think Jon won the rounds because by not landing much he was pretty much showing everybody he wasn't taking his opponent seriously, since those strikes were having no effect. It's a form of control. It's fighting arrogance. It's part of the judging criteria. I mean, when Batman was punching Bane, do you also feel he was winning the fight? Bane was just there chilling letting him punch"

I need to re-watch the fight but I remember being pretty convinced that Bones won round 2 and that 3 was a 50/50 round that could go either way. You seem upset. It's okay. I'm sure a fighter you like will win soon enough Also, thread title is on point but you have the fighters flipped around.

 

[Shinobi]

Three human beings with much more MMA knowledge than you gave it to Bones. I will trust them, don’t lose too much sleep!

The fact that you think judges have more MMA knowledge than other people just because they are judges show hows ignorant you are.

 

[JBJISGOAT]

GOAT JONES 2,4 and 5 clear. No robbery here, nothing to see. Feel fortunate you were able to witness the greatest mixed martial artist of all time.

 

[Mike]

Do jusges have the fight stats in front of them at the end of every round? They are indeed human, and if not I doubt they would be aware one fighter landed 4 more punches that round than their opponent.

They do not.

 

[NationWideNinja]

Preach brother.

The things people come up with to justify Jones stealing a round is seriously mindboggling to me.

Had this been a prelim fight between two no names with no fanbases, most people would agree its a clear robbery.

 

[KING BONES]

to be very honest, i've re-watched the fight about three times now, and it was a very close fight, but, when looking at the fight objectively, it is a win for the skeleton king

 

[Myrddin Wild]

Are you going by the bullshit fight metric numbers or did you do a count yourself as to how many really decent & damaging strikes landed by both of them? I plan to do such a study myself to put this debate to rest once & for all.

All I've done was watch it one time while pretty tipsy, which is what I feel like a majority of the people commenting about this have done. The fight was in Texas y'all... so octagon position is a key factor now.

love it or hate it, that's real. Since Reyes got out-positioned for the controversial rounds 2 & 3... he would've had to land "several" more damaging strikes than jones... in order to get the nod. Everyone really try & wrap your head around that because that's the reality. There's no specific science to it, & it's left up to inturpretation... but in order to make your case that Reyes won, you have to show that he did considerably more striking damage than Jones to make up for his lack of positioning & getting grappled & taken down.

Welcome to Texas mother fuckerz.

 

[SolarSeiko]

So basically, the fact Reyes landed more for 3 rounds doesn't matter for these people. Instead, lets made up arbitrary BS criteria to give Jon the rounds anyway. Lets see:

"Octagon control"

"He landed a higher percentage"

"He was moving forward. We all know the definition of fighting is moving forward."

"Well, the difference in strikes wasn't that big, so the percentage of strikes landed becomes more important than the total strikes"

"Yeah, he lost the rounds, but it was close, so it wasn't a robbery. It's ok to deprive someone of a victory if it's not a one sided beating"

"Well...for championship fights you only win rounds if you destroy the champion."

I have a few or my own even more convincing. You can use it if you want to:

"Jon turned his back and ran, which showed he was winning because if you weren't better than your opponent you wouldn't turn your back to him. That shows you aren't concerned about your opponent because you're winning easily"

"I think Jon won the rounds because by not landing much he was pretty much showing everybody he wasn't taking his opponent seriously, since those strikes were having no effect. It's a form of control. It's fighting arrogance. It's part of the judging criteria. I mean, when Batman was punching Bane, do you also feel he was winning the fight? Bane was just there chilling letting him punch"

English please.

 

[RampageFaction]

Do jusges have the fight stats in front of them at the end of every round? They are indeed human, and if not I doubt they would be aware one fighter landed 4 more punches that round than their opponent.

THIS. And if the punch/strike count is close, the guy landing harder shots and pressing will make the bigger impression in the judges minds’. I think Reyes won but robbery is so not the right word.

 

[chillyoo]

You know maybe running away is the secret to winning rounds.

worked for Connor against Diaz too

 

[DrGameboy]

Jones won the fight, Jones blocked most of Reyes shots. he backed up 90% of the fight, you guys just want to see Jones lose...

 

[fzoid4454]

So basically, the fact Reyes landed more for 3 rounds doesn't matter for these people. Instead, lets made up arbitrary BS criteria to give Jon the rounds anyway. Lets see:

"Octagon control"

"He landed a higher percentage"

"He was moving forward. We all know the definition of fighting is moving forward."

"Well, the difference in strikes wasn't that big, so the percentage of strikes landed becomes more important than the total strikes"

"Yeah, he lost the rounds, but it was close, so it wasn't a robbery. It's ok to deprive someone of a victory if it's not a one sided beating"

"Well...for championship fights you only win rounds if you destroy the champion."

I have a few or my own even more convincing. You can use it if you want to:

"Jon turned his back and ran, which showed he was winning because if you weren't better than your opponent you wouldn't turn your back to him. That shows you aren't concerned about your opponent because you're winning easily"

"I think Jon won the rounds because by not landing much he was pretty much showing everybody he wasn't taking his opponent seriously, since those strikes were having no effect. It's a form of control. It's fighting arrogance. It's part of the judging criteria. I mean, when Batman was punching Bane, do you also feel he was winning the fight? Bane was just there chilling letting him punch"

Jones landed cleaner, better, more effective shots in round two. Funny that you say people are making up reasons to give it to Jones, but you are acting like all punches are completely equal in some kind of asinine point-sparring criteria as a way to claim that Reyes indisputably won rounds that were actually razor-close.