Jon Jones vs Reyes — biggest misconception

Luffy said:
The scoring criteria was the one I posted in the thread for God's sake... That's the NEW scoring criteria. It says "effective striking/grappling" comes first. Effective means causing impact, visually, slowing the opponent, making them sidestep, snapping their heads, making them show signs of pain. You confused that with sheer number of strikes. It doesn't say "damage" (because what is damage? You look at someone's face to see it? Lol), it says effective / impact striking and grappling.

If someone lands 8 jabs in a round but they don't cause any change in pace, or pain, or posture, or momentum shift vs another someone who lands a single hook and the opponent fall, being knocked down and rocked at the last second of the round, the single hook wins the round... The 8 jabs had no visible effect, were to the body... The hook dropped the opponnent and, although it was one single hook vs 8 jabs, it had way more effect visually vs 8 jabs that caused nothing visual...

An example so you understand what effective/impact striking means...
Click to expand...

Youre literally making the argument against yourself. Jones was the only one getting knocked down and around by strikes.
 
As somebody who was rooting for Jon to win that fight, I didn't think he did.

1-3 were Reyes rounds imo. I guess on round 3 it could be debated. It is worth pointing out though that literally all 3 judges scored that fight for Jon.
 
J'Ghasta said:
Strike totals are objective. "Effective" striking is left to your total subjective arbitration. The strike totals(only objective scoring metric) have Reyes winning 3-2. You lose.
Click to expand...
No, it's not subjective. Someone can literally see when a punch draws more reaction from an opponent, causes posture changes, causes pain grimaces, discomfort vs when it doesn't. That's like saying "someone showing signs of pain is subjective"... Well no it's not, we just need to know what we are seeing.

Or it's like saying "which punch had more visual effect is subjective". No, it's not... If a punch snaps an opponents' head, or break their posture, vs a punches that doesn't change posture, doesn't knock the opponent off balance, one is visually more effective. Unless you say only numbers are objective, not reactions. Nah
 
J'Ghasta said:
Youre literally making the argument against yourself. Jones was the only one getting knocked down and around by strikes.
Click to expand...
He wasn't. Show me. In round 2 and 3, show the exact moments.
 
The scoring criteria for the Jones/Reyes fight were non-existant. Texas does not use the unified rules. In Texas the scoring "criteria" are:
(d) Scoring Techniques.
(1) Using the 10-Point Must Scoring System, judges are required to determine a winner of a contest that ends after the scheduled number of rounds have been completed. Ten points must be awarded to the winner of each round and 9 points or less must be awarded to the loser, except for a rare even round, which is scored a 10-10.
(2) Judges must evaluate mixed martial arts techniques, such as effective striking, effective grappling, fighting area control, and effective aggressiveness/defense.
Click to expand...
That's it. Those criteria may as well not exist for how much guidance they give to judges.

That said, while the first three rounds were individually close (the last two rounds Jones clearly landed with both more frequency and power; the first three rounds Reyes landed a bit more often while Jones landed the slightly better shots), it's very clear that Jones did more cumulative damage over the course of the first three rounds and that Reyes gassed hard over the course of the first three rounds. If you give all three of the first three rounds to Reyes then there's something wrong with the scoring criteria you're using.
 
Only Here for Attachments said:
View attachment 1106896
Click to expand...
That shows exactly the point. Rounds 2 and 3 were swing rounds. Watching at the time, they were close rounds. Reyes had more strikes, but the impact, it was with JJ in both rounds. However, in round 2 the impact from JJ was arguably bigger than even round 3, but Reyes volume was like 33 vs 23... So does the impact bypass the # of strikes? It is debatable. Many strikes from Reyes were jabs to the body while retreating that had no visible reaction. They are counted as significant strikes. Whatever they deem significant can be a leg kick that doesn't break posture, a jab to the body that causes no reaction. They still show that in the stats as significant strike. Jon Jones had fewer but an elbow that snapped Reyes' head, as well as an over hand after catching a kick that sent Reyes to the ropes. JJ retreated in moments Reyes had his flurries, but he dodged most of those attacks when Reyes had him against the ropes. He rolled his head, shoulders and avoided most of them... Those were one retreat moments when Reyes went into flurries. Otherwise, Reyes' strikes came in moments JJ didn't really react, didn't slow down, hadn't his posture broken, didn't limp like Reyes did, wasn't slowing down... That all shows visuals that JJ strikes were more effective, even though Reyes landed more...

So rounds 2 and 3 are hard due to that... Which explains why the judges were split, with one of them giving JJ round 3, the other giving JJ round 2 and Reyes round 3... They were swing rounds... I can't blame the judge who gave JJ both rounds either. It's not like they're watching the fight as a whole. Inc lose rounds, they make their call. I'd say that in 2 close rounds, 2 swing rounds, the best, like a referee famous in the UFC , not Herb Dean but a famous one, said, the wisest choice is to always split that between the fighters... So rounds 2 and 3 swing rounds, 1 to each. 2 clear rounds for JJ? Then JJ has 3 rounds. Reyes has 1 clear round + 2 swing rounds? Then Reyes get 2 round... Answer, JJ 3 - 2 Reyes...

Always been the most fair score, which is why 2 judges scored that, JJ 3 - 2 Reyes... The score that fits it all the best, 0 controversies...
 
jon won that fight like gsp beat hendricks. close fights could have went either way but in the end i felt it was definitive enough for there to be a clear winner. in both cases. and guess what happened to hendricks and reyes after the fight. they didnt go on to become goats . they fell off hard
 
Jones clearly WON that fight and it was due to Reyes inability to take it TO and FROM the champ.

Reyes looked good in the beginning but Joe Rogan just like in the GUS fight, hypes up the opponent and he gets a bias that interfers with him judging the ACTUAL fight.
 
ThaiSexPills said:
I thought it was very clearly Reyes 1,2 & 3.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Luffy said:
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...
Click to expand...
Good take.
 
Media scorecards 14-7 in favor of Reyes. And the Jones sycophants come in and say "who care about media scores??" All the while having no clue that the judges appointed by the AC's are boxing judges that don't know MMA very well. Chris Lee was a judge for that fight and he's been absolutely clueless numerous times in judging fights.

Was the fight close? Yes. Is "robbery" too strong a word? Yeah, maybe. Did the wrong guy probably get the nod? Yep.
 
TLDR; but I’m a Jones fan and he was hooked up for Gus & Reyes.
 
i remember thinking at the time (when watching it live) that it was a relatively close fight, but that reyes had done enough early on. and that they would probably give it to jones anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,182
Messages
58,264,403
Members
175,986
Latest member
Dakota DeSousa

Share this page

Back
Top