Rewatch Jon Jones vs Dominick Reyes

[StonedLemur]

You know it Lemur, all scores marked in pencil, of course.​

Lol that says everything you need to know sir.

 

[Alacran]

3-2 reyes

 

[Laheys'Liquorland]

Goat Jones baby!!!

 

[Myrddin Wild]

the rules say the judges must evaluate the effective striking, effective grappling, effective aggression, fighting area control, and defense. That means the judges need to look at what happened in the round to see what was most impactful. Reyes landing more shots and stopping jones takedowns is more impactful than jones moving forward

I don't dispute the "effective" part of "aggressiveness", but the criteria said it judged "effective striking" AND it also judged "effective aggressiveness." You're saying that effective striking is necessary for effective aggressiveness, but they are 2 different criteria. ("impact" is not actually mentioned as an all inclusive factor nor is it considered in the "aggression catagory).

In hindsite, I should not had even mentioned "aggression." Their 3rd mentioned criteria is straight oop "Fighting area control." I would expect that resolves this discussion... as Jones clearly owned the fighting area in both controversial rounds. The striking differential wasn't enough to over-come this texas judging criteria.

(edit: ) At long search I found a copy of teh 2020 Texas dialog outlining their judging criteria.

The 2020 link to teh rools has been erased by Texas. I'd assume this guy copied the correct criteria given that I posted more than anyone else in that thread & didn't contest it.)
"Judges must evaluate mixed martial arts techniques, such as effective striking, effective grappling, fighting area control, and effective aggressiveness/defense."

I was very interested in this when it happened & so was all over this rool-set & how Texas judges fights, & it was well known that they give a lot of credit to area control. This mainly got confused at the time by the fact that the Unified Rools were 3 years deep in most localz, but not Texas. This criteria was more dominant prior to "the big unified roolz amendment of 2017" which they had been working toward for a long time prior.

Striking is more important than Area Control... Even under those Texas roolz... but Reyes didn't make it close enough to trump it in this case. (that is the proper discussion to be had if you disagree)

I pretty much show where I stood & still stand on this as I fielded many posts in that 2020 thread... please just scroll that thread to hear more, but dig this HIGHLIGHT from post 16 where I found one of the judges for that fight tweeted that Reyes only advanced for 9% of the fight.

When presented with a "significant strike" count... ya Boiy Soliz said:
"Your stat sheet does not include advancing per round and pressure. Check those out and it will make much more sense."

He continuez!!!
"My judging is in perfect accordance with the Texas State athletic commission's guidelines"

"I have been working for the Texas commission for years I know my job."

His wordz, not mine.

I mean come on everyone... that's one of teh fooking judges for the event entering the convo!!! & he'z making teh same point I am about area control being the determining factor.

 

[RonDante]

I don't dispute the "effective" part of "aggressiveness", but the criteria said it judged "effective striking" AND it also judged "effective aggressiveness." You're saying that effective striking is necessary for effective aggressiveness, but they are 2 different criteria. ("impact" is not actually mentioned as an all inclusive factor nor is it considered in the "aggression catagory).

In hindsite, I should not had even mentioned "aggression." Their 3rd mentioned criteria is straight oop "Fighting area control." I would expect that resolves this discussion... as Jones clearly owned the fighting area in both controversial rounds. The striking differential wasn't enough to over-come this texas judging criteria.

(edit: ) At long search I found a copy of teh 2020 Texas dialog outlining their judging criteria.

The 2020 link to teh rools has been erased by Texas. I'd assume this guy copied the correct criteria given that I posted more than anyone else in that thread & didn't contest it.)
"Judges must evaluate mixed martial arts techniques, such as effective striking, effective grappling, fighting area control, and effective aggressiveness/defense."

I was very interested in this when it happened & so was all over this rool-set & how Texas judges fights, & it was well known that they give a lot of credit to area control. This mainly got confused at the time by the fact that the Unified Rools were 3 years deep in most localz, but not Texas. This criteria was more dominant prior to "the big unified roolz amendment of 2017" which they had been working toward for a long time prior.

Striking is more important than Area Control... Even under those Texas roolz... but Reyes didn't make it close enough to trump it in this case. (that is the proper discussion to be had if you disagree)

I pretty much show where I stood & still stand on this as I fielded many posts in that 2020 thread... please just scroll that thread to hear more, but dig this HIGHLIGHT from post 16 where I found one of the judges for that fight tweeted that Reyes only advanced for 9% of the fight.

When presented with a "significant strike" count... ya Boiy Soliz said:
"Your stat sheet does not include advancing per round and pressure. Check those out and it will make much more sense."

He continuez!!!
"My judging is in perfect accordance with the Texas State athletic commission's guidelines"

"I have been working for the Texas commission for years I know my job."

His wordz, not mine.

I mean come on everyone... that's one of teh fooking judges for the event entering the convo!!! & he'z making teh same point I am about area control being the determining factor.

I know it says it judges both effective striking and effective aggression. But it says the judges must evaluate, so the judges have to evaluate the effectiveness of the actions taken by each fighter in the round. I don’t know how you give jones the 3rd round when reyes had more effective striking, more effective aggression with his volume and harder shots, stopped jones from taking him down, which would go towards controlling the area the fight takes place.

“9% of the fight” so what about per round? And you’re saying that the Texas judges put a lot of weight into area control, how do you know this? It doesn’t say that area control is the biggest factor in the judging criteria, it just lists them one by one.

You’re clearly trying to use the relative vagueness of the rules to justify a jones win. No judge that can see things clearly would give someone the fight becuase of walking forward if they’re clearly getting outstruck and getting the harder shots landed on them.

And joe soliz can say what he wants, but he’s a judge that received tons of criticism for an incorrect decision, is there a reason why he shouldn’t try to justify his scorecard?

 

[Luffy]

I know it says it judges both effective striking and effective aggression. But it says the judges must evaluate, so the judges have to evaluate the effectiveness of the actions taken by each fighter in the round. I don’t know how you give jones the 3rd round when reyes had more effective striking, more effective aggression with his volume and harder shots, stopped jones from taking him down, which would go towards controlling the area the fight takes place.

“9% of the fight” so what about per round? And you’re saying that the Texas judges put a lot of weight into area control, how do you know this? It doesn’t say that area control is the biggest factor in the judging criteria, it just lists them one by one.

You’re clearly trying to use the relative vagueness of the rules to justify a jones win. No judge that can see things clearly would give someone the fight becuase of walking forward if they’re clearly getting outstruck and getting the harder shots landed on them.

And joe soliz can say what he wants, but he’s a judge that received tons of criticism for an incorrect decision, is there a reason why he shouldn’t try to justify his scorecard?

What about round two? I think it was an even round, could see Jones winning that one.

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

I don't dispute the "effective" part of "aggressiveness", but the criteria said it judged "effective striking" AND it also judged "effective aggressiveness." You're saying that effective striking is necessary for effective aggressiveness, but they are 2 different criteria. ("impact" is not actually mentioned as an all inclusive factor nor is it considered in the "aggression catagory).

In hindsite, I should not had even mentioned "aggression." Their 3rd mentioned criteria is straight oop "Fighting area control." I would expect that resolves this discussion... as Jones clearly owned the fighting area in both controversial rounds. The striking differential wasn't enough to over-come this texas judging criteria.

(edit: ) At long search I found a copy of teh 2020 Texas dialog outlining their judging criteria.

The 2020 link to teh rools has been erased by Texas. I'd assume this guy copied the correct criteria given that I posted more than anyone else in that thread & didn't contest it.)
"Judges must evaluate mixed martial arts techniques, such as effective striking, effective grappling, fighting area control, and effective aggressiveness/defense."

I was very interested in this when it happened & so was all over this rool-set & how Texas judges fights, & it was well known that they give a lot of credit to area control. This mainly got confused at the time by the fact that the Unified Rools were 3 years deep in most localz, but not Texas. This criteria was more dominant prior to "the big unified roolz amendment of 2017" which they had been working toward for a long time prior.

Striking is more important than Area Control... Even under those Texas roolz... but Reyes didn't make it close enough to trump it in this case. (that is the proper discussion to be had if you disagree)

I pretty much show where I stood & still stand on this as I fielded many posts in that 2020 thread... please just scroll that thread to hear more, but dig this HIGHLIGHT from post 16 where I found one of the judges for that fight tweeted that Reyes only advanced for 9% of the fight.

When presented with a "significant strike" count... ya Boiy Soliz said:
"Your stat sheet does not include advancing per round and pressure. Check those out and it will make much more sense."

He continuez!!!
"My judging is in perfect accordance with the Texas State athletic commission's guidelines"

"I have been working for the Texas commission for years I know my job."

His wordz, not mine.

I mean come on everyone... that's one of teh fooking judges for the event entering the convo!!! & he'z making teh same point I am about area control being the determining factor.

You need to re-read the judging criteria cause you are factoring in things like aggression and octagon control when the criteria clearly states those are only considered when the striking/grappling is even. Rounds 1-3 the striking was in Reyes' favor both in terms of shots landed and the impact of the shots, there was no effective grappling on Jones' part in the first 3 rounds to offset him losing the effective striking criteria so according to the judging criteria he should have lost the first 3 rounds. There were no 10-8 rounds and Jones won the last 2 rounds so he should have lost the fight 48-47.

 

[Myrddin Wild]

You’re clearly trying to use the relative vagueness of the rules to justify a jones win

This couldn't be further from the truth. I've got no dog in teh hunt. I've never been a Jones supporter. You should browse the discussion from 2020 I linked you to. I'm clearly in there saying that I thought Reyes won were it the unified rools, but I understand how it was judged for Jones due to it being under Texas rools.

And you’re saying that the Texas judges put a lot of weight into area control, how do you know this? It doesn’t say that area control is the biggest factor in the judging criteria, it just lists them one by one.

There's literally a quote from one of the judges of that fight, was commenting on twitter about how he scored it & he was making a major point about center control.

That said, I was following this scoring criteria before this controversial decision & was pretty deep into the chatter about it. It's always bothered me how often people would take someone down & then just lay there, & even though the guy on the bottom is landing shots from the bottom, & making submission attempts & all that... it doesn't seem to matter to the judges & they give it to the asshold just laying on top. This is the exact same situation, just with holding the center being the guy on top & the guy on the outside being the guy on the bottom.

The obvious difference though, is that in texas, you actually get credit for it & so it's legit.

Anywayz... I was all over that 2017 judging criteria change, & as a result, I was quite fascinated by Texas not following suit to the unified rools. So I had been following their judging criteria at the time of that fight, & so it wasn't a surprise to me.

No judge that can see things clearly would give someone the fight becuase of walking forward if they’re clearly getting outstruck and getting the harder shots landed on them.

I actually did re-watch it yesterday very carefully. It wasn't this washout from Reyes that you're describing. I agree that Reyes won under the unified rools. It was close enough in my opinion that Jones holding the center made the difference... using 2020 Texas rools.

2 of the 3 judges gave the 3rd to jones, which shows you how close it was... so there was no robbery. Interestingly the same judge that gave Reyes the 3rd... gave Jones the 2nd & scored the whole fight for Jones due to R4 & 5 going to Jones.

I know it says it judges both effective striking and effective aggression. But it says the judges must evaluate, so the judges have to evaluate the effectiveness of the actions taken by each fighter in the round.

This may be where your disconnect is happening with the way Texas judging was in 2020. You're not considering holding the center as being an effective aggression, but that is actually considered as a very important mark of aggression to them. I quoted a judges tweet above who was describing this emphasis. Those are his words not mine.

I NEVER liked judges giving credit for agression, holding the center or a wrestler laying on the top. It drives me crazy that even now-a-days we still see judges under the unified rools making calls for lay n pray wrestlers. its frustrating & ridiculous. This is different though, because that was the official criteria for that fight.

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

Meh, it was a pretty close fight, I would’ve probably gave the decision to Reyes had it been a regular fight. But for the belt against unbeaten Jones, I don’t feel he did enough..

Just my opinion, respectfully as always sir!

So you handicap fights? Why would you judge a title fight any different than any other fight? That never made sense to me. This isn't amateur bowling/golf.

 

[Myrddin Wild]

You need to re-read the judging criteria cause you are factoring in things like aggression and octagon control when the criteria clearly states those are only considered when the striking/grappling is even. Rounds 1-3 the striking was in Reyes' favor both in terms of shots landed and the impact of the shots, there was no effective grappling on Jones' part in the first 3 rounds to offset him losing the effective striking criteria so according to the judging criteria he should have lost the first 3 rounds. There were no 10-8 rounds and Jones won the last 2 rounds so he should have lost the fight 48-47.

My friend, you are quoting me the "unified rools." In 2020, Texas was under their own rool set. They did not adopt the big 2017 unified rools that most other commissions did. Please review my post on post 144 above. The part in the yellow is litterally a quote from one of the judges explaining his decision during this very fight.

Here ya go. This is exactly how teh Texas judging criteria read.
"Judges must evaluate mixed martial arts techniques, such as effective striking, effective grappling, fighting area control, and effective aggressiveness/defense."

Don't try to read a small emphasis on area control. In practice it was a very highly leveraged part of their judging criteria. As shown by the judge I quoted above. For sure striking is more important, but area control can outweigh a certain amount of striking... such as in this case.

 

[RonDante]

What about round two? I think it was an even round, could see Jones winning that one.

I had that round 29 to 16 on strikes personally, cause I don’t trust official stats, so strikes I had a 13 strike advantage for reyes, but the official stats say 11 strike difference so not much difference. Reyes landed the harder shots, so he had effective striking, he made jones turn around and run away early on from a strike so that would be effective aggression and fighting area control. The 3rd round is the closest, no argument for either for jones but you would be extra incorrect if you gave the 2nd to jones

 

[RonDante]

This couldn't be further from the truth. I've got no dog in teh hunt. I've never been a pendent of Jones. You should browse the discussion from 2020 I linked you to. I'm clearly in there saying that I thought Reyes won were it the unified rools, but I understand how it was judged for Jones due to it being under Texas rools.


There's literally a quote from one of the judges of that fight, was commenting on twitter about how he scored it & he was making a major point about center control. You quoted me the part where I showed what he said.

That said, I was following this scoring criteria before this controversial decision & was pretty deep into the chatter about it. It's always bothered me how often people would take someone down & then just lay there, & even though the guy on the bottom is landing shots from the bottom, & making submission attempts & all that... it doesn't seem to matter to the judges & they give it to the asshold just laying on top. This is the exact same situation, just with holding the center being the guy on top & the guy on the outside being the guy on the bottom.

Anywayz... I was all over that 2017 judging criteria change, & as a result, I was quite fascinated by Texas not following suit to the unified rools. So I had been following their judging criteria at the time of that fight, & so it wasn't a surprise to me.

I actually did re-watch it yesterday very carefully. It wasn't this washout from Reyes that you're describing. I agree that Reyes won under the unified rools. It was close enough in my opinion that Jones holding the center made the difference... using 2020 Texas rools.

2 of the 3 judges gave the 3rd to jones, which shows you how close it was... so there was no robbery. Interestingly the same judge that gave Reyes the 3rd... gave Jones the 2nd & scored the whole fight for Jones due to R4 & 5 going to Jones.

This may be where your disconnect is happening with the way Texas judging was in 2020. You're not considering holding the center as being an effective aggression, but that is actually considered as a very important mark of aggression to them. I quoted a judges tweet above who was describing this emphasis. Those are his words not mine.

I NEVER liked judges giving credit for agression, holding the center or a wrestler laying on the top. It drives me crazy that even now-a-days we still see judges under the unified rools making calls for lay n pray wrestlers. its frustrating & ridiculous. This is different though, because that was the official criteria for that fight.

You’re quoting a guy who isn’t using the criteria in order to make his point. The criteria does not put any special emphasis on fighting area control. It lists it among the other criteria. That’s it. Effective is the word here. Moving forward didn’t let jones achieve any advantage in the striking or grappling. Reyes striking was more effective than jones pushing forward.

And it doesn’t say that holding the centre is aggression, becuase if that’s what it meant they wouldn’t separate fighting area control and effective aggression. The rules are vague but they’re not so vague that two separate listed criteria actually mean the same thing

Again, the judges EVALUATE the techniques, and see which ones did more to win the round. Reyes had more strikes and had the harder strikes. You would have to favour moving forward much more than anything else to give the 3rd to jones

 

[Myrddin Wild]

You’re quoting a guy who isn’t using the criteria in order to make his point

That guy I quoted was literally one of the judges for that fight, so I'm not sure what your point here is.

The criteria does not put any special emphasis on fighting area control.

It literally spells it out just after effective striking & grappling.

Effective is the word here. Moving forward didn’t let jones achieve any advantage in the striking or grappling.

That's where your disconnect is here. You're not seeing the fact that Reyes was outside the line as being "Effective." That however is a judging criteria.

You don't have to take my word for it, Here's the judge himself saying it.

When presented with a "significant strike" count... ya Boiy Soliz said:
"Your stat sheet does not include advancing per round and pressure. Check those out and it will make much more sense."

I quoted myself where I showed you what he said... here it is:

Reyes had more strikes and had the harder strikes.

This would certainly be considered under the heading "effective strikes." We're then tasked with weighing that amount of strikes against a 3rd criteria which is "Fighting Area Control."

Bro, that's fine you just don't want to accept that Fighting Area Control is actually a heavily weighed part of texas judging in 2020, but that is the case & I don't really want to keep reviewing this. I actually gotta split & go make some diner here in a bit, so you'll either get this or you won't, but I quoted a judge himself explaining how heavily it was weighed... it's not just me saying this.

You would have to favour moving forward much more than anything else to give the 3rd to jones

Well that's subjective. I think it's obvious that Texas will consider a "certain amount" of striking to be equal to or bested in their criteria by simply holding the center.

For example, lets say hypothetically Reyes lands 2 nice leg kicks the whole round & Jones lands nothing, but Jones keeps the center. Under Texas rools, Jones wins that round, because they weigh holding the center to be just as valuable as a certain amount of strikes.

Again, I'm with you in that it sux. The lay n pray wrestler who doesn't do jack shit on top while the guy on the bottom is going for subs & striking, yet the top guy wins the round drives me fooking crazy. This is the same situation except that we're crediting holding the center... & the obvious exception is that it was actually a part of the official judging criteria to do so.

I hope that makes sense. I gotta split, but if you want to keep reviewing this, i'll check back in tomorrow.

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

My friend, you are quoting me the "unified rools." In 2020, Texas was under their own rool set. They did not adopt the big 2017 unified rools that most other commissions did. Please review my post on post 144 above. The part in the yellow is litterally a quote from one of the judges explaining his decision during this very fight.

Here ya go. This is exactly how teh Texas judging criteria read.
"Judges must evaluate mixed martial arts techniques, such as effective striking, effective grappling, fighting area control, and effective aggressiveness/defense."

Don't try to read a small emphasis on area control. In practice it was a very highly leveraged part of their judging criteria. As shown by the judge I quoted above. For sure striking is more important, but area control can outweigh a certain amount of striking... such as in this case.

That's irrelevant, even the old rules didn't factor in aggression and octagon control unless effective striking/grappling were even, that part didn't change. You're quoting a summary of the rules, you need to read them in their entirety

 

[Ludwig von Mises]

You need to re-read the judging criteria cause you are factoring in things like aggression and octagon control when the criteria clearly states those are only considered when the striking/grappling is even. Rounds 1-3 the striking was in Reyes' favor both in terms of shots landed and the impact of the shots, there was no effective grappling on Jones' part in the first 3 rounds to offset him losing the effective striking criteria so according to the judging criteria he should have lost the first 3 rounds. There were no 10-8 rounds and Jones won the last 2 rounds so he should have lost the fight 48-47.

Jones fanboys are so insecure.

 

[Myrddin Wild]

That's irrelevant, even the old rules didn't factor in aggression and octagon control unless effective striking/grappling were even. You're quoting a summary of the rules, you need to read them in their entirety.

You don't understand. That was not a "summary." That was exactly how the rools read. Also, that quote was from a judge of that fight explaining his decision. Please review the yellow part of my post 144.

Alright, I gotta split. I'll check back in tomorrow to see if we're still going in circles with this. I really don't know how to be any clearer with it. Perhaps review that thread from 2020 where I & others had some great discussions. The whole thread is only one page long & it's a good read. The OP of that thread is worth a read as he contrasts the unified rools with the texas rools.

 

[RonDante]

That guy I quoted was literally one of the judges for that fight, so I'm not sure what your point here is.


It literally spells it out just after effective striking & grappling.


That's where your disconnect is here. You're not seeing the fact that Reyes was outside the line as being "Effective." That however is a judging criteria.

You don't have to take my word for it, Here's the judge himself saying it.

I quoted myself where I showed you what he said... here it is:

This would certainly be considered under the heading "effective strikes." We're then tasked with weighing that amount of strikes against a 3rd criteria which is "Fighting Area Control."

Bro, that's fine you just don't want to accept that Fighting Area Control is actually a heavily weighed part of texas judging in 2020, but that is the case & I don't really want to keep reviewing this. I actually gotta split & go make some diner here in a bit, so you'll either get this or you won't, but I quoted a judge himself explaining how heavily it was weighed... it's not just me saying this.

Well that's subjective. I think it's obvious that Texas will consider a "certain amount" of striking to be equal to or bested in their criteria by simply holding the center.

For example, lets say hypothetically Reyes lands 2 nice leg kicks the whole round & Jones lands nothing, but Jones keeps the center. Under Texas rools, Jones wins that round, because they weigh holding the center to be just as valuable as a certain amount of strikes.

Again, I'm with you in that it sux. The lay n pray wrestler who doesn't do jack shit on top while the guy on the bottom is going for subs & striking, yet the top guy wins the round drives me fooking crazy. This is the same situation except that we're crediting holding the center... & the obvious exception is that it was actually a part of the official judging criteria to do so.

I hope that makes sense. I gotta split, but if you want to keep reviewing this, i'll check back in tomorrow.

You quoted to me the rules that Texas was under, then said that becuase one of the judges claims area control was really important that that’s what the rules are, when we can plainly see the rules don’t say that.

I said special emphasis meaning special emphasis over every other aspect of scoring a round. You would need to value moving forward as more important than anything else

The rules aren’t even that you HAVE to score fighting area control, it says judges must evaluate mixed martial arts techniques SUCH AS, as in striking grappling aggression area control and defense are techniques they can consider. So again, you would have to value fighting area control more than anything else in order to give jones that round. It makes it subjective and kind of up to the judge when it gives them so much leeway, but it doesn’t say you have to weigh them equally. What if they weighed defense to be the most important, and then reyes landed 50 strikes out of 500 and jones landed 5 out of 10? Jones would have landed much more accurately and dodged or blocked most of reyes strikes, so would we give him that round? If a judge only valued defense we might have to, but we know that defense isn’t even required to be scored, it’s one of many mixed martial arts techniques mentioned as being able to be scored but not having to be. But obviously judges are better than that

 

[Brendan The Hybrid Schaub]

the judging criteria hasn't factored in "control" or "aggression" since sometime in 2017, effective striking and near submission attempts are all that score from my understanding

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

You don't understand. That was not a "summary." That was exactly how the rools read. Also, that quote was from a judge of that fight explaining his decision. Please review the yellow part of my post 144.

Alright, I gotta split. I'll check back in tomorrow to see if we're still going in circles with this. I really don't know how to be any clearer with it. Perhaps review that thread from 2020 where I & others had some great discussions. The whole thread is only one page long & it's a good read. The OP of that thread is worth a read as he contrasts the unified rools with the texas rools.

Unless Texas invented their own rules in 2017 then I am not misunderstanding anything. The old rules that every commission used to use never had judges consider aggression or octagon control unless effective striking/grappling was even, those two criteria have always been used as tie breakers for when all else is equal. It was this way back in like 2006 and even earlier.

 

[Reach4theSky]

So you handicap fights? Why would you judge a title fight any different than any other fight? That never made sense to me. This isn't amateur bowling/golf.

I just don't like to see belts change hands on super close controversial split decisions. Especially against long time defending champions like Jon, who was also unbeaten..

All I'm saying is, when the fight is as close as Jones/Reyes was (a coin flip) you give the nod to the champ..