- Joined
- Nov 2, 2017
- Messages
- 2,793
- Reaction score
- 1,910
JJ won. Nothing to discuss. The biggest misconception though os that people think the fight was controversial... When they say robbery, that is not even to be taken serious, since controversial is already wrong since ti wasn't even controversial... It was as clear of a 3-2 for Jon Jones as it could be. Here lies the misconception:
—> Simply landing more strikes doesn't automatically secure a round.... According to the UFC's judging criteria:
1) Effective striking and grappling (immediate impact matters most)
2) Effective aggression (if striking/grappling are equal, aggression becomes relevant)
3) Octagon control (only becomes relevant if striking/grappling and aggression are equal)
So what does that mean for round 3? It means that while Reyes had a slight edge in quantity (this is important) of strikes landed, not all strikes are equal. The criteria explicitly values strikes based on impact (damage or clear visible effect), effectiveness (disrupting opponent's actions)...
... JJ's strikes in R3, although fewer, were cleaner, more impactful and more disruptive... Reyes' momentum was visibly slowing, his output was being affected... JJ's oblique kicks, body shots, clean counters had higher significance than Reyes' higher amount but lower visible effect strikes.
Plus, as Reyes' output started to drop mid round 3 JJ began to exert more octagon control and dictate the pace... While control isn't the primary factor, it reinforces the visual impact of JJ's strikes, which makes the overall effectiveness and score of the round clear in his favor... This is all viewed as closely and as objectively as it can be...
Tl;dr
... Higher strike totals alone does not equal winning a round
... Judges prioritize the immediate impact and effectiveness of strikes
... JJ had fewer but more effective strikes in round 3, which clearly meets the UFC primary judging criteria.
Heck, in round 2 it was also a close optic as Reyes had more volume, but impact? JJ had the moments of more visible impact. However, in round 2 I'd still agree the volume of strikes difference is big enough that Reyes should have won that, but it's not a sure thing either.
Therefore, Jon Jones clearly won Rounds 3 when applying official UFC judging criteria rigorously, not simply looking at the stats. The same way that Ankalaev won round 3 vs Alex Pereira despite Alex out-landing Ankalaev by 20-14... Same different as JJ vs Reyes (26 -20) but the optics favoured Ankalaev much like they favoured Jon Jones.
Impact of strikes > number of strikes landed...
Round 1 — clearly Reyes
Round 2 — a close round... But Reyes' volume was significantly ahead to avoid the more impact from JJ taking control, but it was still close
Round 3 — a close round... Reyes had volume edge, but Jones' impact, disrupting Reyes' pace, JJ's own pace dictating most of the round... It all swings it his way. Close like round 2, but this one is more on JJ's side, just like R2 was slightly on Reyes' side
Rounds 4 and 5 — clearly JJ's rounds by all metrics —> effective striking, grappling, volume... Reyes was on shaken legs and on survival mode by the end of rounds 4 and 5...
Jon Jones : 48
D. Reyes : 47
To me, this is as clear as it gets. Not only is that the official decision, it is not even controversial, much less a robbery... If Reyes were given a 3-2, it'd be way more controversial than vice-versa. When people watch the fight looking closely, really analysing it while having read all the rules, with the PDF showing exactly how fights are judged, it is as clear of a 48-47 for Jon Jones as it could be. Close? Yes. Controversial? Not really, just close, but not a "flip a coin" scenario, it was a classic 2-0 ... Then momentum shifts and 3-2 classical...
—> Simply landing more strikes doesn't automatically secure a round.... According to the UFC's judging criteria:
1) Effective striking and grappling (immediate impact matters most)
2) Effective aggression (if striking/grappling are equal, aggression becomes relevant)
3) Octagon control (only becomes relevant if striking/grappling and aggression are equal)
So what does that mean for round 3? It means that while Reyes had a slight edge in quantity (this is important) of strikes landed, not all strikes are equal. The criteria explicitly values strikes based on impact (damage or clear visible effect), effectiveness (disrupting opponent's actions)...
... JJ's strikes in R3, although fewer, were cleaner, more impactful and more disruptive... Reyes' momentum was visibly slowing, his output was being affected... JJ's oblique kicks, body shots, clean counters had higher significance than Reyes' higher amount but lower visible effect strikes.
Plus, as Reyes' output started to drop mid round 3 JJ began to exert more octagon control and dictate the pace... While control isn't the primary factor, it reinforces the visual impact of JJ's strikes, which makes the overall effectiveness and score of the round clear in his favor... This is all viewed as closely and as objectively as it can be...
Tl;dr
... Higher strike totals alone does not equal winning a round
... Judges prioritize the immediate impact and effectiveness of strikes
... JJ had fewer but more effective strikes in round 3, which clearly meets the UFC primary judging criteria.
Heck, in round 2 it was also a close optic as Reyes had more volume, but impact? JJ had the moments of more visible impact. However, in round 2 I'd still agree the volume of strikes difference is big enough that Reyes should have won that, but it's not a sure thing either.
Therefore, Jon Jones clearly won Rounds 3 when applying official UFC judging criteria rigorously, not simply looking at the stats. The same way that Ankalaev won round 3 vs Alex Pereira despite Alex out-landing Ankalaev by 20-14... Same different as JJ vs Reyes (26 -20) but the optics favoured Ankalaev much like they favoured Jon Jones.
Impact of strikes > number of strikes landed...
Round 1 — clearly Reyes
Round 2 — a close round... But Reyes' volume was significantly ahead to avoid the more impact from JJ taking control, but it was still close
Round 3 — a close round... Reyes had volume edge, but Jones' impact, disrupting Reyes' pace, JJ's own pace dictating most of the round... It all swings it his way. Close like round 2, but this one is more on JJ's side, just like R2 was slightly on Reyes' side
Rounds 4 and 5 — clearly JJ's rounds by all metrics —> effective striking, grappling, volume... Reyes was on shaken legs and on survival mode by the end of rounds 4 and 5...
Jon Jones : 48
D. Reyes : 47
To me, this is as clear as it gets. Not only is that the official decision, it is not even controversial, much less a robbery... If Reyes were given a 3-2, it'd be way more controversial than vice-versa. When people watch the fight looking closely, really analysing it while having read all the rules, with the PDF showing exactly how fights are judged, it is as clear of a 48-47 for Jon Jones as it could be. Close? Yes. Controversial? Not really, just close, but not a "flip a coin" scenario, it was a classic 2-0 ... Then momentum shifts and 3-2 classical...
Last edited:
