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

[Squarechoke]

The question whether Aspinall would beat Jones, and the fact that Jones should have fought Aspinall (the champ must face the interim champ as the title is disputed), are two separate matters.

It doesn't matter how you think a fight between Tom and Jon would go, the latter still put on a pathetic display for a champ when he avoided the interim champ and actually fought someone else instead, that didn't have a single win in several years.

So if Aspinall should lose to Gane it doesn't excuse or justify Jones in any way.

 

[Superzorro]

No, that's not what I'm saying but solid attempt to put words to me that don't apply.

If I "feel" a guy won but the other guy was given the decision, do you think there might be any other things we could possibly look at to see if my "feelings" might hold some merit at all? I mean, it would be great if there were millions of other interested fans that were chiming in with their opinions too, right? Or shit...what if some media outlets that covered and followed the sport (and like myself know more about it than boxing judges with shit knowledge of grappling, appointed by athletic commissions) would publish their scorecards. Wouldn't that be cool? Then we could have some of that...you know...context we've been discussing.

Fucking amazing that you as someone who seemingly follows boxing to a degree with all its rampant corruption and the multitude of absolutely rigged or bullshit scorecards over the years would choose to sit there and say "Welp Adelaide Byrd said that guy won so who am I to question it!!??"

Fuck sake man...

Not if you’re trying to argue that it’s the equivalent of a loss and appealing to popularity or the masses. You can argue that it is less of a win. But it’s not going into loss territory if the person won by unanimous decision. This isn’t a popularity contest. If we go by your logic, then decisions don’t matter because you can just argue that the judges got it wrong. And you’re willing to get behind an ideology that would allow for that, just for the sake of winning this one isolated debate. That’s crazy to me. Whenever I make an argument, I think of the greater implications, not just what it means in the context of the single debate I’m having at the moment. Think about it, you’re willing to get behind an argument that would effectively throw out the validity of judges decisions entirely just to try and say that this one unanimous decision one fighter got counts as a loss. Complete madness. What ever happened to objective reality? If this isn’t a win and it’s somehow the equivalent of a loss, no decision can factually be deemed a win or a loss because it’s all opinion and you can just say you thought the other guy won.

 

[Luffy]

The question whether Aspinall would beat Jones, and the fact that Jones should have fought Aspinall (the champ must face the interim champ as the title is disputed), are two separate matters.

It doesn't matter how you think a fight between Tom and Jon would go, the latter still put on a pathetic display for a champ when he avoided the interim champ and actually fought someone else instead, that didn't have a single win in several years.

So if Aspinall should lose to Gane it doesn't excuse or justify Jones in any way.

The champion doesn't need to face the interim. That's a rule only if the champion keeps fight and there's not a previous fight already booked. The interim is there only when the champion can't defend his belt, and since there was a fight booked, the existence of an interim does not (and I say that as a fact, I've read the rules) supersede a fight already booked.

Someone else he was already set to face. There was never a deal that we know to fight Tom. Or if there was, the fight was done already, like Dana said. Done means fought. Not in the process. So he either fought and you all don't know, and it's waiting a timing to be released or... The UFC always knew JJ wouldn't fight and kept him as pretending on purpose , asking him that so they'd profit off it. Otherwise JJ wouldn't get paid. Dana said JJ got the money. That is telling.

It says nothing about JJ. Aspinall has his own legacy now, he isn't glued to JJ. JJ isn't defined by Tom. If he retired, that's it, a fighter doesn't need to bleed forever for fans. If he got paid and the fight was done, ohh then you better believe it went JJ's way if they're even making the Gane fight firstly to see if Tom gets even more hype... Anyways, JJ may lose... But not to Tom... He may lose if he beats Tom and decides to stick more. If he fights Tom, he wins but that will come at the cost of more years of his brain lost as it'd likely be a very tough fight. If he doesn't , it doesn't change anything, only to random fans who talk online... That is so small, you think some random fans define legacy but that's just delusion.

 

[Superzorro]

But there is an objective falsehood in your post he quoted

Jon ducking Tom is absolutely a contender for worst duck in UFC history. To play the new fan card on that is bs.

There have been other cases. But given that HW is the premier division of combat sport and the way Jones ducked Tom it is absolutely one of a very small number that can be considered worst duck in MMA history and for many it is hands down the worst

That might no sit comfortably with Jones stans. But it is indisputable to reasonable fans of the sport.

I disagree. Being out due to injury, returning to face the opponent that you were originally scheduled to face and then retiring afterwards like you said you would isn’t even close to the greatest duck in UFC history. Heavyweight also isn’t the premier division of MMA or even combat sports. There was a certain time period where, in boxing, it was. You can maybe argue that in the early 2000s with Pride FC. But not anymore and this was certainly never the case in the UFC. And the majority of fans don’t look at what GSP did the same way, so they lose all credibility with me on this one. For me to take you seriously, you first have to be consistent.

 

[Squarechoke]

The champion doesn't need to face the interim. That's a rule only if the champion keeps fight and there's not a previous fight already booked. The interim is there only when the champion can't defend his belt, and since there was a fight booked, the existence of an interim does not (and I say that as a fact, I've read the rules) supersede a fight already booked.

Someone else he was already set to face. There was never a deal that we know to fight Tom. Or if there was, the fight was done already, like Dana said. Done means fought. Not in the process. So he either fought and you all don't know, and it's waiting a timing to be released or... The UFC always knew JJ wouldn't fight and kept him as pretending on purpose , asking him that so they'd profit off it. Otherwise JJ wouldn't get paid. Dana said JJ got the money. That is telling.

It says nothing about JJ. Aspinall has his own legacy now, he isn't glued to JJ. JJ isn't defined by Tom. If he retired, that's it, a fighter doesn't need to bleed forever for fans. If he got paid and the fight was done, ohh then you better believe it went JJ's way if they're even making the Gane fight firstly to see if Tom gets even more hype... Anyways, JJ may lose... But not to Tom... He may lose if he beats Tom and decides to stick more. If he fights Tom, he wins but that will come at the cost of more years of his brain lost as it'd likely be a very tough fight. If he doesn't , it doesn't change anything, only to random fans who talk online... That is so small, you think some random fans define legacy but that's just delusion.

First of all, quote and source the rule you're talking about.

As for a booked fight, that's obviously not a thing because they get cancelled when a fighter gets a severe injury. Hence why Stipe was offered other fights in between. The only reason Jones fought Stipe when he came back was because he asked for that and ducked the interim champ (which he also continued to do afterwards by holding on to the title and asking for other fights instead).

If Jones had retired directly after the Stipe fight he wouldn't have embarrassed himself as much. That's not what he did though. He neither fought the interim champion when he fought, and he kept hogging the title and did things like asking to fight Pereira instead. The biggest case of ducking an interim champion in UFC history.

 

[SuperAlly]

Because he's good natured and harmless. Once you don't take his shtick seriously or try to read through all the ridiculously long posts and just skim em, he's like the nutty cousin at the family reunion that says wacky shit that you mostly dismiss and chuckle at. But you also know he just likes to jabber nonstop. That's Luff on this forum.

 

[SuperAlly]

So effectively, you’re saying wins and losses don’t matter if they come by decision. “Context” is code for “feels,” and that trumps the reality of the result of a fight. I’m glad we sorted that out. So decisions are effectively meaningless. All that matters is how you personally feel about a fight. So with that being said, I guess we can say that most of GSP and Jones career didn’t happen. Only the finishes count, because they can’t be disputed.

You are disingenuously saying all decisions are the same.

It is a very hotly contested decision.

Stop being belligerent and pedantic.

You just look silly playing this game.

 

[SuperAlly]

This was the exact same scenario that already happened with Pavlovich. Pav was on a 6 fight win streak all by TKO/KOs and was supposed to be the next HW GOAT and the person to beat Jones. Aspinall wasn't even that hyped because Pav was overshadowing the whole division. He also beat Blaydes who had a win over Aspinall. Then Aspinall beats Pav and somehow got his rub after only a 2 fight win streak and became the new person to beat Jones. Sure, he avenged the "loss" to Blaydes, but Aspinall could easily end up just like Pav and be on the losing end of a KO to another HW. Then it will just be "well, he was never really that good." The problem is HW is just too unpredictable as a division.

Still wrong , no matter how many times and how many different ways you guys try to railroad through this false narrative

Yeh, a few bozos couldn't tell the difference between Pav and Tom. But plenty of others could see Tom could do what Pav could - 1 shot KO punches - plus a shit load more. Like moving like Gane for example and being well rounded.

All you who keep parroting Tom is just like Pav are feeble minded morons who have no place commenting on MMA.

In football terms it's like saying Harry Kane and Ronaldo are identical because they both score lots of goals.

It's border line retarded frankly

 

[SuperAlly]

No, no, nobody loves JBJ more than their children... Only Kabib loves his imaginary friends more than his own children.

Good reply BalkanRacist

 

[SuperAlly]

Would you be saying this if he was an Aussie?

Of course not, he is every inch the Bruce and Sheila stereotype

 

[SuperAlly]

Not if you’re trying to argue that it’s the equivalent of a loss and appealing to popularity or the masses. You can argue that it is less of a win. But it’s not going into loss territory if the person won by unanimous decision. This isn’t a popularity contest. If we go by your logic, then decisions don’t matter because you can just argue that the judges got it wrong. And you’re willing to get behind an ideology that would allow for that, just for the sake of winning this one isolated debate. That’s crazy to me. Whenever I make an argument, I think of the greater implications, not just what it means in the context of the single debate I’m having at the moment. Think about it, you’re willing to get behind an argument that would effectively throw out the validity of judges decisions entirely just to try and say that this one unanimous decision one fighter got counts as a loss. Complete madness. What ever happened to objective reality? If this isn’t a win and it’s somehow the equivalent of a loss, no decision can factually be deemed a win or a loss because it’s all opinion and you can just say you thought the other guy won.

"What ever happened to objective reality?"

Lol. Stop and think about what you just said...

....combat sports results are not "objective reality" - they are quite literally 3 peoples subjective opinions on what happened.

 

[balkanbomber85]

Good reply BalkanRacist

A racist who supports the african american Jon Bones Jones - You wouldn’t believe the stuff you read on the internet!

 

[SuperAlly]

I disagree. Being out due to injury, returning to face the opponent that you were originally scheduled to face and then retiring afterwards like you said you would isn’t even close to the greatest duck in UFC history.

When you are this disingenuous there is zero point continuing debate.

He didn't retire like he said he would, he held the division to ransom for months and months and months trying to drum interest in fighting anyone but the interim champ and when the UFC wouldn't allow him to duck Tom he retired rather than fight again.

Don't even write a wall of bs back. We both know you are going to be selective and creative with history and the facts again.

Don't waste your, my or the forums time. Ain't no one buying the bs you are selling.

 

[SuperAlly]

A racist who supports the african american Jon Bones Jones - You wouldn’t believe the stuff you read on the internet!

The racist who hates people from the middle east.

 

[balkanbomber85]

The racist who hates people from the middle east.

I have no issues with people from the middle east, the jews are great. The druze and the kurds have a freaking hard life with the Islamistic movement there. Also all other ethnicities as assyrians, copts, maronites etc are all fine. Good people, honest people, but having a hard time with the islamic terrorists which overtake the countries.

 

[mkess101]

I bet it will. JJ is better than you all think he is. I go with what DDP said "if you ask me as a fighter, no, i don't think Aspinall wins, I think Jones makes it look easy".

Fighters are wrong all the time. I'm not.

 

[mkess101]

Not if you’re trying to argue that it’s the equivalent of a loss and appealing to popularity or the masses. You can argue that it is less of a win. But it’s not going into loss territory if the person won by unanimous decision. This isn’t a popularity contest. If we go by your logic, then decisions don’t matter because you can just argue that the judges got it wrong. And you’re willing to get behind an ideology that would allow for that, just for the sake of winning this one isolated debate. That’s crazy to me. Whenever I make an argument, I think of the greater implications, not just what it means in the context of the single debate I’m having at the moment. Think about it, you’re willing to get behind an argument that would effectively throw out the validity of judges decisions entirely just to try and say that this one unanimous decision one fighter got counts as a loss. Complete madness. What ever happened to objective reality? If this isn’t a win and it’s somehow the equivalent of a loss, no decision can factually be deemed a win or a loss because it’s all opinion and you can just say you thought the other guy won.

To what end? "Counted as"? You want to live in this world where literally nothing but a notch in a certain column matters, but that isn't reality. We all have eyes. The subjectivity doesn't start and stop at what me or you or the media scorecards say either when it comes to MMA. You understand that bonuses, title shots, etc all have levels of subjectivity that can undermine those judges scorecards that you hold so dearly to, right? The UFC can look at a bullshit decision and choose to make the reward for the winner as little as possible in numerous ways.
For example, the UFC chose to give Gane the next title shot this time. Bit there was a groundswell saying that Volkov deserved it more because of the bullshit decision in their last fight. The UFC decided (CHOSE) to go with the guy who technically won, but they easily COULD have gone the other way and Dana would simply stand up there and say "we all saw who won their fight, Volkov is up next". They (the UFC) aren't beholden to judges scorecards in a lot of ways either in your "big picture" world.

 

[markantony20]

what damage are you talking
can you name me a fighter who has 17 title wins
does a man whos been fighting since he was 20 doesnt deserve to retire at the age of 38

ive seen people saying fedor should retire at 32 lool

Jones is undeniably suffering from issues after not fighting Tom.

All you have to do is look at the big platforms like Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Reddit.

 

[dominion]

Wouldn't it make Jones look more a pussy by ducking someone so inadequate?

 

[Captain Herb]

No, JJ would just beat him like he did vs let's say... Hmmm... Lyoto Machida or Ryan Badder

I'm pretty sure Tom would beat him like Blades and Pavlovich...you know...Heavyweights