Jon Jones vs Reyes — biggest misconception

JBJ was here said:
People like to say this, but it's just not true. Jones pretty indisputably did more damage than Reyes did over the course of first three rounds and Reyes absolutely indisputably gassed much harder than Jones over the course of the first three rounds, and this was clear before round four started. On any possible scoring criteria that prioritize damage, effective striking, or making progress towards finishing the fight, Jones must have won at least one of the first three rounds.

Reyes won the vibes of the first three rounds by significantly overperforming expectations, but on any legitimate scoring criteria he lost the fight.
Click to expand...
Agree to disagree. I am not alone in feeling Reyes 1,2,3. Most sports writers and mma fans agree with me.
 
Jones has a loss on his record that he deserves.
 
I thought it was 3-2 for Reyes. Some weird ass scoring. One judge having the first round a draw is wild.
 
Luffy said:
Which educated people? Btw, I'm asking for arguments, not to drop names. Again, what makes you think Reyes won? I addressed that in the OP. Are you going to attempt to counter that or keep dodging the point? Show me where it's said that number of strikes defines who wins a round. I will wait.

Use the rules... Not fan scoring. Educated ppl are ppl like you who doesn't even remember the fight and tags along with whatever you are fed. Bring a point, not "ohh fans said that, the media!"" ... Bring a point.
Click to expand...
1754272008793.png

Those educated people. ANd all of the educated MMA fans on Sherdog, where a landslide thought Reyes won.


And then there's the fact that Jones could have erased any doubt by doing the rematch... and what did he do? He ran away. Then he cherry picked some easy fights and when it came time to fight Tom.... guess what he did? That's right. The bitch ran away again.


And no matter how much you suck his cock on Sherdog with your 10 love letters a day... Jones still gonna be that bitch that ran away from Reyes and ran away from Tom.
 
The solution, as usual, is simple.

Change the terms.

Significant strikes and insignificant strikes.

Insignificant strikes don't gain a point, significant strikes do.

Or perhaps five insignificant strikes = 1 point. Something along those lines.
 
Was a close fight could of gone either way . Because it was close people think it was a robbery same with Gus 1.
 
Epsteins Guard said:
Also,

View attachment 1106958




Apparently its just not controversial to people who want Jones nuts in or around their mouths.
Click to expand...
Nah, it's controversial to media who wants a new champion and wanted to desperate find someone to beat JJ because JJ wasn't a role model. If the champion doesn't sell PPV because he doesn't care about selling fights like silly trash talkers like McGregor, is so dominant that ppl expect he will win and has done bad actions outside of the octagon, the media will rally on that to find someone to beat JJ. Media doesn't override what the judges said. And the point is to discuss the fight, not media opinions. Point at the actual fight what contradicts the OP. You can't apparently. So, as I said, the point stands... JJ won and there was 0 controversy.
 
Ares Black said:
The vast majority of educated people who watched the fight think that Reyes deserved the decision.

You are an admitted Jones fanboy. Your opinion is worthless. No offense.
Click to expand...
Yeah he would deep throat JJ if given the chance 🍆
 
Trabaho said:
Yeah he would deep throat JJ if given the chance 🍆
Click to expand...
Oh look at the "educated analysts who think JJ lost". You're proving more and more the point that JJ won and the biggest misconception is that there was any controversy on his legitimate 3-2...
 
Luffy said:
Oh look at the "educated analysts who think JJ lost". You're proving more and more the point that JJ won and the biggest misconception is that there was any controversy on his legitimate 3-2...
Click to expand...
I only saw the highlights but since 95% of the community says Jon lost I am 98% sure it's true. Unamious global opinion.
 
Luffy said:
Nah, it's controversial to media who wants a new champion and wanted to desperate find someone to beat JJ because JJ wasn't a role model. If the champion doesn't sell PPV because he doesn't care about selling fights like silly trash talkers like McGregor, is so dominant that ppl expect he will win and has done bad actions outside of the octagon, the media will rally on that to find someone to beat JJ. Media doesn't override what the judges said. And the point is to discuss the fight, not media opinions. Point at the actual fight what contradicts the OP. You can't apparently. So, as I said, the point stands... JJ won and there was 0 controversy.
Click to expand...

You just attribute motives to others if they disagree with your view? You think the media scored a fight a different way because of personal feelings with Jones? Media all obviously follow the sport extremely closely. You wanting to dismiss that doesn't change it.

No, it wasn't a "robbery". Acting like there's no case for Reyes winning is just your extreme bias overriding everything. Period.
 
5S4RfCR.png
 
mkess101 said:
You just attribute motives to others if they disagree with your view? You think the media scored a fight a different way because of personal feelings with Jones? Media all obviously follow the sport extremely closely. You wanting to dismiss that doesn't change it.

No, it wasn't a "robbery". Acting like there's no case for Reyes winning is just your extreme bias overriding everything. Period.
Click to expand...
Calling the fight "controversial" when proclaiming JJ as the rightful winner under UFC's judging criteria is misleading, since it completely ignores what "controversy" means. Controversial implies a disagreement over whether the decision was legitimate under the rulebook itself... That was never in genuine dispute under the unified rules...

Coles? Yes. Controversial in the sense of disputing the fairness of the judging? No... The official unified rules place impact > volume, then aggression as a tiebreaker then control only if needed. Volume alone (i.e # of sig. strikes) doesn't win rounds under the rules... The judges score fights live, round by round based on effective striking / grappling —> aggressive output (if equal) —> control (if needed)... Which is the exact hierarchy I showed in my analysis... And the judges applied that, rounds 3-5 swung Jones' way due to more effective, impactful strikes and clear championship rounds control... Two cards reflected that, 48-47 in his favor. That's not controversy, that's being consistent with the rules.

Media opinions and fans are restrsoective opinions, often based on volume and public-facing-visuals, not the performance aligned with the rules. In contrast if you look at The Verdict, which uses the average behavior between judges and media/fans rounds, it put JJ 47.65 vs Reyes 47.38 — a close edge but STILL in JJ's favour. Inglês hand in hand with the reality that under the standard ruleset scoring, JJ won 3-2. There's no bias or personal feelings for JJ lol I'm pointing out a consistent pattern, which is that when a champion doesn't sell big, doesn't play the showman, struggles with public image, there's a rush for his inevitable new challenger (which you saw as they framed Tom in the very press conference JJ was with Stipe there and them asking more questions about Tom than about Stipe...). This all shapes fight coverages, highlights, score projection — even if they are well meaning writers. Like, how many times do you see the media giving platform for Reyes to say that, how many times does YouTube flood with "one of the biggest robberies" in comparison to GSP vs Hendricks? 10x more... Which shows a pattern of pushing a narrative. That doesn't influence how judges core rounds as they don't watch the narrative, they watch with the official scoring as basis.

It's ironic that you point me taking that about the media and fans when you say the same for the judges, when the judges, actually every athletic commission requires judges attend ABC-facts MMA judging seminars (led by John McCarthy, Kevin McDonald). Actually John McCarthy was the judge I was thinking of when bringing the example of # of strikes can be 10x more , if they are strikes that don't add anything vs 2 that show way more of a reaction, numbers don't matter.... And the judges must constantly pass tests, score events and explain round by round decisions before being assigned to fights specially championship fights... That's not "boxer with no MMA exposure" like you falsely claimed...

The fight looked close, that's fine... But CLOSE means that the usage of the judging rules produced a winner. There's nothing controversial about the outcome, calling it controversial implies the rules were broken or the judges misruled... Which didn't happen. That's my overall point.
 
Captain Herb said:
Dude just shut the fuck up
Click to expand...
Dude just stay off my threads if you het all little annoyed over nothing. That's not a place for you, so block yourself from things that raise your blood pressure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,178
Messages
58,264,079
Members
175,987
Latest member
Dakota DeSousa

Share this page

Back
Top