If Aspinall loses to Gane people will basically just say he was never good enough to beat Jon

Yeah that’s nice but a win is a win and a loss is a loss. You can’t say a win is a loss or a loss is a win. You couldn’t be as bright as you’re claiming to be if you can’t understand that simple concept. Get the basics down first before you try to spiral off on these like… bizarre tangents of pseudo-intellectual logic.

We’re not talking about what the fighter gets to do after the fight or where it puts them in the division. All we’re saying is that a loss here against Gane is a terrible look for the person who supposedly scared Jones off, considering Gane was not only beaten by Jones but wiped out in the first round. Gane’s not supposed to be on Tom’s level.

If you’re so confident about Aspinall smoking Gane, why are you this afraid of being held accountable for all the hype you’ve put behind him? I don’t get it. Why all the damage control before the fight even happens?

What damage control? I entered into this discussion overall based on the general concept that it's stupid to look at one common opponent and claim "he beat that guy easily, he didn't (or lost), thus that guy is better". It's a simplistic and stupid way to analyze fights. Period. You can pretend otherwise, obviously I can't stop you. But it makes it no less dumb.

And "a win is a win" means...nothing. Nobody felt Sterling was a "winner" after the first Yan fight. In your make believe world where context doesn't matter maybe people felt that way. Here in reality, nope. I don't know exactly how bright it makes me in being able to grasp this extremely simple concept...just that it evidently makes me brighter than you because you can't.

And again, Aspinall likely smokes Gane so what I'm saying is an overall view.
 
Most people who don’t like Jones are irrational here. A lot of them don’t even care about Aspinall.
This thread is literally "MMA math (you know, that thing we have all spent years mocking people for using as evidence) is actually good evidence here" and you're accusing the detractors of being irrational.
 
What damage control? I entered into this discussion overall based on the general concept that it's stupid to look at one common opponent and claim "he beat that guy easily, he didn't (or lost), thus that guy is better". It's a simplistic and stupid way to analyze fights. Period. You can pretend otherwise, obviously I can't stop you. But it makes it no less dumb.

And "a win is a win" means...nothing. Nobody felt Sterling was a "winner" after the first Yan fight. In your make believe world where context doesn't matter maybe people felt that way. Here in reality, nope. I don't know exactly how bright it makes me in being able to grasp this extremely simple concept...just that it evidently makes me brighter than you because you can't.

And again, Aspinall likely smokes Gane so what I'm saying is an overall view.
The funny part here is you deceptively decided to put “or lost” in parentheses as if it’s a minor caveat of the argument people are trying to make here, when it’s actually the main point and the only thing we’re saying. And you thought that no one would notice that. The fact that you had to try and lump those two in together shows how weak your argument is. Not to mention the fact that you went as far as to completely delegitimize the validity of ALL decision wins across the board just to try and validate your argument in this one debate.
Beating someone more easily than the next guy isn’t the same as full on losing to the common opponent. A guy can get his ass beat by someone who another guy finished in the first round but because it’s Tom Aspinall who’s the fighter in question, we have to sit here and act like it means nothing? Use common sense. You tried to make the argument but it just didn’t work. It fell apart the moment you said winning and losing is subjective and interchangeable if the method was judges decision.

It doesn’t matter what people feel. Peter Yan cheated. Just because they don’t like the way that Sterling looks, it doesn’t change the reality that Yan disqualified himself. In a different thread, you used that same argument but in reverse to say that Hamill beat Jon Jones. So what I’m gathering here is that how much you like the fighter determines whether or not a disqualification is legitimate or not, which is my entire point. Emotions (like the ones you think should be able to override the official result of a fight) are fleeting.
 
Last edited:
The funny part here is you deceptively decided to put “or lost” in parentheses as if it’s a minor caveat of the argument people are trying to make here, when it’s actually the main point and the only thing we’re saying. And you thought that no one would notice that. The fact that you had to try and lump those two in together shows how weak your argument is. Not to mention the fact that you went as far as to completely delegitimize the validity of ALL decision wins across the board just to try and validate your argument in this one debate.
Beating someone more easily than the next guy isn’t the same as full on losing to the common opponent. A guy can get his ass beat by someone who another guy finished in the first round but because it’s Tom Aspinall who’s the fighter in question, we have to sit here and act like it means nothing? Use common sense. You tried to make the argument but it just didn’t work. It fell apart the moment you said winning and losing is subjective and interchangeable if the method was judges decision.

It doesn’t matter what people feel. Peter Yan cheated. Just because they don’t like the way that Sterling looks, it doesn’t change the reality that Yan disqualified himself. In a different thread, you used that same argument but in reverse to say that Hamill beat Jon Jones. So what I’m gathering here is that how much you like the fighter determines whether or not a disqualification is legitimate or not, which is my entire point. Emotions (like the ones you think should be able to override the official result of a fight) are fleeting.

I wanna say "nice try" but I don’t even think that applies. The "or lost" yes IS the exact point! Because every win OR loss has CONTEXT. And after this many posts I'm quite sure that you aren't going to let that sink in. You claim I'm trying to "sneak something by" and then you state that my claim is that "wins and losses are interchangeable"? FFS dude, did YOU think that would slip by? Stating that every fight has its own context and the official decision at the end can matter far more or less depending on that context is NOT saying "wins and losses are interchangeable". And you pretending that was my claim shows how bad faith you are.

And "what you're gathering" is again you interjecting bullshit that was never said or even implied. No, how fans and the media (and the org itself!) etc view it doesn't change an official decision. But that's far far FAR away from pretending those things are irrelevant and the ONLY thing that matters is what 3 goobers sitting cageside and assigned from the AC think. My Hammil example was quite obviously an example of EXACTLY what I'm talking about! That you'd not understand this is truly mind blowing. Luffy and tons of other Jones sycophants here are always claiming Jones is undefeated. Bring up Hammil, and OF COURSE they're gonna talk about the context of that loss and why they still are comfortable saying Jones is "unbeaten" etc. Some maybe will try semantics and word it as cleverly as they can to state how Jones "really hasn't lost". My using the example was literally to HIGHLIGHT what seems lost on you. The tone I used was so obvious...hard to fathom how you didn't get it. OF COURSE Jones loss to Hammil is viewed differently than 99% of losses in the sport. We all know why. Well, all of us outside you maybe...
 
Tomboy's acting like Aspinall never had to fight anybody not named Jon Jones.

He doesn't just need to beat Gane, he needs to dominate Gane. Anything less than domination is a clear you could NEVER beat Jones
 
Tomboy's acting like Aspinall never had to fight anybody not named Jon Jones.

He doesn't just need to beat Gane, he needs to dominate Gane. Anything less than domination is a clear you could NEVER beat Jones

Only if you're a smooth brain that doesn't understand the sport. Tai Tuivasa knocked out Lewis. Lewis knocked out Volkov. So obviously Tuivasa would beat Volkov right? Except...Oops. Volkov beat Tuivasa. And there's a zillion other examples. Thinking one common opponent means everything is so stupid it's hard to fathom how someone could entertain it.
 
I
Based off what we've seen, Tom "SHOULD" beat Gane, but remember these fights...

Shogun/Forrest
Adesanya/Strickland
Crocop/Gonzaga
Holly/Ronda

Nothing is certain
I would add Wonberboy vs Pettis and Nunes vs Pena 1 actually, Nunes vs Pena 1 is why I no longer get surprised by fight outcomes, no matter how I feel the other fighter is a huge favourite.
 
Since Jon beat Gane with basically no difficulty

This is gonna be the worst nightmare of Jon Jones haters

All he damage he's done to his legacy by not fighting aspinall is going to disapear and he's going to be remembered as an indestructible super goat with insurmountable accomplishments when one will surpass.

They're going to be like "wow I see why Jon didn't fight him, he's not even on his level..."

It depends on how he loses.

If Gane lands something in round 1 that drops or KOs Tom, I would still say Tom is the most challenging opponent for Jones.

Gane is a different type of striker/fighter from Jones. Different weapons entirely.

If its a decision win for Gane then yes Tom never had a chance
 
This isnt a new story your telling here. People say that because its a tale as old as time.
 
people will say anything, doesn't mean you should listen.

the answer to mmath is always 'styles make fights'.
The answer to MMAth is sometimes "styles make fights" but the vast majority of the time it's "things that have a 50% chance of happening happen 50% of the time, things that have a 25% chance of happening happen 25% of the time, things that have a 10% chance of happening happen 10% of the time . . . do I really need to explain this to you, and if so, would you like to buy this bridge in Brooklyn that I have for sale?" There is, of course, overlap where both responses apply.
 
I wanna say "nice try" but I don’t even think that applies. The "or lost" yes IS the exact point! Because every win OR loss has CONTEXT. And after this many posts I'm quite sure that you aren't going to let that sink in. You claim I'm trying to "sneak something by" and then you state that my claim is that "wins and losses are interchangeable"? FFS dude, did YOU think that would slip by? Stating that every fight has its own context and the official decision at the end can matter far more or less depending on that context is NOT saying "wins and losses are interchangeable". And you pretending that was my claim shows how bad faith you are.

And "what you're gathering" is again you interjecting bullshit that was never said or even implied. No, how fans and the media (and the org itself!) etc view it doesn't change an official decision. But that's far far FAR away from pretending those things are irrelevant and the ONLY thing that matters is what 3 goobers sitting cageside and assigned from the AC think. My Hammil example was quite obviously an example of EXACTLY what I'm talking about! That you'd not understand this is truly mind blowing. Luffy and tons of other Jones sycophants here are always claiming Jones is undefeated. Bring up Hammil, and OF COURSE they're gonna talk about the context of that loss and why they still are comfortable saying Jones is "unbeaten" etc. Some maybe will try semantics and word it as cleverly as they can to state how Jones "really hasn't lost". My using the example was literally to HIGHLIGHT what seems lost on you. The tone I used was so obvious...hard to fathom how you didn't get it. OF COURSE Jones loss to Hammil is viewed differently than 99% of losses in the sport. We all know why. Well, all of us outside you maybe...
Context doesn’t override the official result. The logical entailment of your claim is that wins and losses are interchangeable. You said that Jones win versus Reyes is equal to an Aspinall loss because of “context.” If we can make official wins into losses because of this arbitrary “context” that varies from person to person, then effectively decision wins and losses meaningless because they are the same thing.



Like I said, you can argue the merit of a win ie the quality or how much of a win it is. You can even say that the win is a net zero. But you can’t say it’s equal to a loss or in the negatives. Jones win versus Reyes would in no way be equal to a potential loss for Aspinall here, no matter what way you try to spin or repackage it.

In another thread, you verbatim said that Jones vs Hamill counts as a loss for Jones— I agreed (this is what’s called logical consistency). But now all of a sudden Yan didn’t lose to Sterling? The only difference here is you like Yan and dislike Jones. Every argument you make is dictated by how you feel in the moment.


Only if you're a smooth brain that doesn't understand the sport. Tai Tuivasa knocked out Lewis. Lewis knocked out Volkov. So obviously Tuivasa would beat Volkov right? Except...Oops. Volkov beat Tuivasa. And there's a zillion other examples. Thinking one common opponent means everything is so stupid it's hard to fathom how someone could entertain it.
When Lewis beat Volkov, he had to reinvent himself, make a comeback and put in considerable work with a winstreak before people favored him over Tuivasa. If they threw Volkov in there with Tuivasa immediately after the Lewis KO before any of the aforementioned occurred, Tuivasa would have been the favorite (and for good reason). So is your argument that Aspinall could work on his game potentially come back to be on Jones level later in his career?

No one said it means everything. We’re just not going to pretend it means nothing. A loss never means nothing. It means Aspinall is not the fighter he was advertised to be. Gane is not a good fighter. He’s not even supposed to be on Tom’s level. This isn’t supposed to be difficult for him. When there’s supposedly this many levels between the two fighters, the “styles make fights” doesn’t really apply. And then what’s more, it’s not even a bad style match up for him on paper. Remember, Gane has the takedown defense of an infant apparently.

Anything short of domination will be an embarrassment. And I’ll keep it a buck with you— if what the original poster says came true, it would be catastrophic. Not for Tom per se, but for the people who tried to advertise him as this future GOAT candidate and dogpiled on anyone who so little as questioned it. Cry all you want about that, but it’s the truth (if he loses which admittedly he likely won’t). It’s just crazy to me how the bar is so low now for this kid that a loss means nothing. The favoritism is on another level.
 
Context doesn’t override the official result. The logical entailment of your claim is that wins and losses are interchangeable. You said that Jones win versus Reyes is equal to an Aspinall loss because of “context.” If we can make official wins into losses because of this arbitrary “context” that varies from person to person, then effectively decision wins and losses meaningless because they are the same thing.



Like I said, you can argue the merit of a win ie the quality or how much of a win it is. You can even say that the win is a net zero. But you can’t say it’s equal to a loss or in the negatives. Jones win versus Reyes would in no way be equal to a potential loss for Aspinall here, no matter what way you try to spin or repackage it.

In another thread, you verbatim said that Jones vs Hamill counts as a loss for Jones— I agreed (this is what’s called logical consistency). But now all of a sudden Yan didn’t lose to Sterling? The only difference here is you like Yan and dislike Jones. Every argument you make is dictated by how you feel in the moment.



When Lewis beat Volkov, he had to reinvent himself, make a comeback and put in considerable work with a winstreak before people favored him over Tuivasa. If they threw Volkov in there with Tuivasa immediately after the Lewis KO before any of the aforementioned occurred, Tuivasa would have been the favorite (and for good reason). So is your argument that Aspinall could work on his game potentially come back to be on Jones level later in his career?

No one said it means everything. We’re just not going to pretend it means nothing. A loss never means nothing. It means Aspinall is not the fighter he was advertised to be. Gane is not a good fighter. He’s not even supposed to be on Tom’s level. This isn’t supposed to be difficult for him. When there’s supposedly this many levels between the two fighters, the “styles make fights” doesn’t really apply. And then what’s more, it’s not even a bad style match up for him on paper. Remember, Gane has the takedown defense of an infant apparently.

Anything short of domination will be an embarrassment. And I’ll keep it a buck with you— if what the original poster says came true, it would be catastrophic. Not for Tom per se, but for the people who tried to advertise him as this future GOAT candidate and dogpiled on anyone who so little as questioned it. Cry all you want about that, but it’s the truth (if he loses which admittedly he likely won’t). It’s just crazy to me how the bar is so low now for this kid that a loss means nothing. The favoritism is on another level.

Wrong again. I am not only a FAR bigger Sterling fan than a Yan fan, I had $ on Sterling in that fight. You clearly are NOT letting anything sink in. While not identical, Yan/Sterling and Jones/Hammil DO have similarities in the CONTEXT of those wins (for Aljo and Hammil) and losses (for Yan and Jones). Obviously the rematch changed the overall perception of Yan/Aljo in its totality with Aljo clearly winning the rematch. But in the direct aftermath, both Aljo' win in the first Yan fight and Hammil's win over Jones were viewed similarly. Read this slowly, multiple times if needed: THAT IS THE POINT AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHO I LIKE OR DON'T. OR WHO I HAVE $ ON. THE CONTEXT OF A WIN OR LOSS CAN BE AS IMPORTANT AS THE OFFICIAL RESULT. CAN BE. IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.


And I honestly don't know why you're whining about all of this anyway. Weird things happen in MMA, but odds are we won't see a scenario where the context of a potential outcome matters a lot. Aspinall losing in a weird scenario a la Jones/Hammil is remote. Him losing an outright robbery decision where he was the clear winner but got fucked over is remote. Most likely he wins and finishes and in this case our argument is moot. And if he does lose, it's likely not some massive screw job and the argument would still be moot because the CONTEXT of that win for Gane would be "He's better than we gave him credit for" and for Aspinall it would be "He's not as good as we thought". See, because it's actually me that's consistent. I understand that context ALWAYS matters whether it's an outcome I wanted or not.
 
Context doesn’t override the official result. The logical entailment of your claim is that wins and losses are interchangeable. You said that Jones win versus Reyes is equal to an Aspinall loss because of “context.” If we can make official wins into losses because of this arbitrary “context” that varies from person to person, then effectively decision wins and losses meaningless because they are the same thing.



Like I said, you can argue the merit of a win ie the quality or how much of a win it is. You can even say that the win is a net zero. But you can’t say it’s equal to a loss or in the negatives. Jones win versus Reyes would in no way be equal to a potential loss for Aspinall here, no matter what way you try to spin or repackage it.

In another thread, you verbatim said that Jones vs Hamill counts as a loss for Jones— I agreed (this is what’s called logical consistency). But now all of a sudden Yan didn’t lose to Sterling? The only difference here is you like Yan and dislike Jones. Every argument you make is dictated by how you feel in the moment.



When Lewis beat Volkov, he had to reinvent himself, make a comeback and put in considerable work with a winstreak before people favored him over Tuivasa. If they threw Volkov in there with Tuivasa immediately after the Lewis KO before any of the aforementioned occurred, Tuivasa would have been the favorite (and for good reason). So is your argument that Aspinall could work on his game potentially come back to be on Jones level later in his career?

No one said it means everything. We’re just not going to pretend it means nothing. A loss never means nothing. It means Aspinall is not the fighter he was advertised to be. Gane is not a good fighter. He’s not even supposed to be on Tom’s level. This isn’t supposed to be difficult for him. When there’s supposedly this many levels between the two fighters, the “styles make fights” doesn’t really apply. And then what’s more, it’s not even a bad style match up for him on paper. Remember, Gane has the takedown defense of an infant apparently.

Anything short of domination will be an embarrassment. And I’ll keep it a buck with you— if what the original poster says came true, it would be catastrophic. Not for Tom per se, but for the people who tried to advertise him as this future GOAT candidate and dogpiled on anyone who so little as questioned it. Cry all you want about that, but it’s the truth (if he loses which admittedly he likely won’t). It’s just crazy to me how the bar is so low now for this kid that a loss means nothing. The favoritism is on another level.
"The only thing that matters is the official result - except for one i don't want to use this rule"
 
Back
Top