Jon Jones vs Reyes — biggest misconception

[Hotora86]

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...

So You're saying that Reyes won 1 and 2
Jon won 4 and 5
and 3 was close

I agree with that.
So in no way is it "clear" that Jon won.

 

[Portland8242]

It was a night where Jones was very, very lucky to come away with a decision. Much like GSP vs Hendricks.

 

[loisestrad]

View attachment 1107004

It was a night where Jones was very, very lucky to come away with a decision. Much like GSP vs Hendricks.

No. It was a very close fight. As evidenced by the scores yo posted.

It wasn't a fight (or night, as you call it) that left someone very,very lucky. Or someone very very unlucky.

It was a close fight.

 

[GrantB13]

One of the most universally agreed fights where the vast majority thought Reyes won and you claim "it's as clear as it gets, Jones won". Even if you don't think Reyes won, it was still debatable so to call it a clear outcome is not serious.

 

[Gregoire1]

1 Reyes
2 10-10
3 10-10
4 Jon
5 Jon

 

[TJ Dillashank]

I don't know how there are so many people now who think Jon won when it was clear as day then that Reyes won before Jon was getting unending hate.

 

[Bouboumaster]

Reyes 48-47

 

[World eater]

If a discussion topic starts with “nothing to discuss” and is then followed by x paragraphs of AI drivel, you should get carded.

 

[FlowchartRog]

Reyes won 1, 2, 3. Jones won 4, 5. Very easy fight to score.

 

[mkess101]

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.

Luffy, the judges "attending some classes" doesn't make them understand a sport they didn't previously follow. If you want to pretend Adalaide Byrd and Chris Lee understand MMA scoring and then explain some of their myriad of absolutely garbage scores , go ahead. The rest of us will live in reality.

 

[mkess101]

Example #1 hehe

@mkess101

Huh? I've watched every Jones fight since he entered the UFC. I've followed the sport longer, trained, fought, coached, cornered. I know this sport FAR better than you my guy. Why would you use my name of all people LMAO? (And no, don't reply with a thousand words to try to explain why you think you know better. Ya don't).

 

[RemyR]

 

[TITS]

How can you have this many paragraphs about one person in your head at all times, in perpetuity?

I like how this fucking idiot added a "Tl;dr" at the end followed by multiple paragraphs that were more than the original post.

People need to just stop replying to this troll, put him on ignore, mods should wasteland all of his threads.

 

[TITS]

@ReyesWon

Last seen Mar 15, 2021

 

[DiazSlap]

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...

If ANYONE beat Jones it was Gus in their first fight…Reyes point fighting BS did not deserve the victory.

Gus actually fucked Jones up like nobody else has ever.

 

[dildos]

jones lost.

 

[markys00]

When a fighter is 53/47 for the champion, the challenger isn't winning. Even tho the judges and UFC clearly wanted a fresh guy to dethrone JJ, as JJ had been champion forever, ppl were itching to see him beaten, itching for a younger challenger to takeover as JJ wasn't even selling many PPVs despite being the best fighter ever (because no one thought he was gonna lose ever)... The judges still couldn't do the unfair and give the challenger a win that would be a stretch... No matter how much they wanted due to how unpopular JJ was...

No. Ur just exposing ur even more stupid than we originally thought

 

[markys00]

It wasn't that important was it? Jones was already GOAT by then IMO.

Lololol more stupid sherdoggers.

Can't take anyone seriously if they think Jones is GOAT. my man needs to read a book and touch grass.

 

[TankAbbott4Eva]

Lololol more stupid sherdoggers.

Can't take anyone seriously if they think Jones is GOAT. my man needs to read a book and touch grass.

There are two types of people: those who think Jones is the GOAT and those who think his drug suspensions and hit and running pregnant women disqualifies him.

 

[Only Here for Attachments]

3 boxing judges who don't know MMA very well said one guy won. Never question it ever ever ever!!!!!!

The three of them combined have scored over 1000 UFC fights going back to November 2001.