Jones and Aspinall best wins at HW

[Captain Herb]

Rate their best wins in HW taking into account the level of the opponent at a particular moment (best opponent from the bunch - 10 points)

Gane, Stipe, Spivak, Pavlo, Volkov, Blaydes... If you dont see Tybura and corps or Arlovski as particularly good level, you can exclude them.

My take:

Jones
Gane - 10 points
Stipe 42 years old - 7 points

Aspinall
Blaydes - 8 points
Pavlo - 7 points
Volkov - 7 points
Spivak - 5 points
Tybura - 4 points
Arlovski - 3 points

I wonder, which wins of Aspinall really have a case over Jones wins? Want some objective opinions.

Even with your wildly skewed scoring system it's 34-17 which means Tom would've knocked Jon out in 17 seconds.

 

[mkess101]

Nah I'm good. Ranking Stipe as "7 points" tells me you're a little bit too stupid to be giving any valid opinions on this topic.

Don't go at him too hard here. Last thing we need is him hurting himself because you aren't willing to join his "Madly in love with Jones, fuck Tom Aspinall" cult.

 

[Gregoire1]

Objectively...you're obsessed. You're literally making threads because of how invested you are and because of some bizarre insecurity you have over people you don't (nor ever will) know.

And it's extra funny that you're trying to pretend you have some sort of group alongside you.

Kid...you're all alone. It's just you and your obsession. Nobody else understands why you're so immersed in this.

Doctor, here we're dealing with an absolutely objectively crystal-clear poster in a vacuum with a high IQ. And by the way, with a very interesting fixation on a group (or a desired group). This is truly amusing and funny. Dear colleagues, this was previously unnoticed. That's where the dog is buried.

 

[Gregoire1]

Even with your wildly skewed scoring system it's 34-17 which means Tom would've knocked Jon out in 17 seconds.

Why not 16?

 

[fjodor]

I had Volkov winning against Gane. He is more well rounded and experienced too. I see Toms win over Volkov at least as good as Jons over Gane. But we will see soon.

 

[Captain Herb]

Why not 16?

Because 34-17=17. They're your numbers bud

 

[Gregoire1]

Because 34-17=17. They're your numbers bud

Oh, great maths, congrats, bro!

 

[mkess101]

Doctor, here we're dealing with an absolutely objectively crystal-clear poster in a vacuum with a high IQ. And by the way, with a very interesting fixation on a group (or a desired group). This is truly amusing and funny. Dear colleagues, this was previously unnoticed. That's where the dog is buried.

Oh shit...you're now inventing pretend conversations with make believe people. It's worse than I thought.

I take it all back. You are very sane and stable and not obsessed at all. Please don't harm yourself.

 

[Captain Herb]

Oh, great maths, congrats, bro!

I think you borrowed 9 for the 4 when you should have borrowed 10

 

[Gregoire1]

Oh shit...you're now inventing pretend conversations with make believe people. It's worse than I thought.

I take it all back. You are very sane and stable and not obsessed at all. Please don't harm yourself.

Dear colleagues, this is a very interesting case: a patient is pretending to be a doctor... This is a common occurrence, but very symptomatic... But you've already revealed too much of yourself in your wildness, so there's no point in pretending. The commission will be strict.

 

[Gregoire1]

I think you borrowed 9 for the 4 when you should have borrowed 10

not 11?

 

[mkess101]

Dear colleagues, this is a very interesting case: a patient is pretending to be a doctor... This is a common occurrence, but very symptomatic... But you've already revealed too much of yourself in your wildness, so there's no point in pretending. The commission will be strict.

Dude you likely have jars of piss surrounding you like Howard Hughes. Holy shit, I've seen some delusion here but never anyone concocting make believe conversations with make believe "colleagues".

Oof. No idea why you decided to keep posting and look like this. Really sad.

 

[Gregoire1]

Dude you likely have jars of piss surrounding you like Howard Hughes. Holy shit, I've seen some delusion here but never anyone concocting make believe conversations with make believe "colleagues".

Oof. No idea why you decided to keep posting and look like this. Really sad.

Of course, I'm Howard Hughes, or whatever childhood trauma you have? The main thing is, don't get so fixated on it (and on Jones!!)), no obsession, no obsession. Just don't get nervous, take a deep breath, take a deep breath.
Dear colleagues, for now I'll leave this patient for your consideration. Don't be too hard on him, he's only just getting better.
I might check in on him tomorrow, but I'm not sure.

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

Biggest win is a copout argument to me. We're talking about champs. It's pretty well accepted that a guy becomes champ over the division, not one opponent. Superfights spoiled us into thinking different, but those and short notice change of title challengers who go on to win are the two reasons we've ended up with the suspicion that the champ might not be the best fighter in the division.

How can we prove it? By having a guy beat everyone they can. That knocks out the mat criticism of getting stylistic gifts or favorable matches. A champ is usually the most winningest fighter beating other most winningest fighters challenging for the belt.

Gane was the best opponent Jon could have fought (after Ngannou was out). He was also favorable, regardless of how many people pretended otherwise beforehand.

Let me put it this way. Take an opponent you're totally even against. It's a real 50-50 fight, either of you have the same chance of winning and losing.

Now take 2 opponents you're favored against. You got 2/3rds a chance of winning each, twice as much chance as each opponent has against you.

Face value, who looks like they took more of a risk? The guy fighting the better opponent, right? 2/3 x 2/3 comes out to 4/9. That means you have less than a 50% chance of winning both fights.

Fighting MORE is the risk. That's why a streak matters so much. Now, a streak SHOULD lead you to fighting the best opponents, but you can blame the booking for when that doesn't happen. Fact is, putting it on the line again and again is what we should incentivize, applaud, regard, and reward, because that's the risk, and that's what matters

 

[mkess101]

I think you borrowed 9 for the 4 when you should have borrowed 10

Brother...the guy you're talking to is literally having conversations with make believe people in his replies to me. I think your expectation of him performing even basic arithmetic is probably asking too much.

 

[mkess101]

Of course, I'm Howard Hughes, or whatever childhood trauma you have? The main thing is, don't get so fixated on it (and on Jones!!)), no obsession, no obsession. Just don't get nervous, take a deep breath, take a deep breath.
Dear colleagues, for now I'll leave this patient for your consideration. Don't be too hard on him, he's only just getting better.
I might check in on him tomorrow, but I'm not sure.

Keep going LMAO! Your "colleagues" are really dialed into your analysis here!

 

[Captain Herb]

not 11?

No, not 11. What's up with that fucking russian shit on your av?

 

[Tsuli]

Rate their best wins in HW taking into account the level of the opponent at a particular moment (best opponent from the bunch - 10 points)

Gane, Stipe, Spivak, Pavlo, Volkov, Blaydes... If you dont see Tybura and corps or Arlovski as particularly good level, you can exclude them.

My take:

Jones
Gane - 10 points
Stipe 42 years old - 7 points

Aspinall
Blaydes - 8 points
Pavlo - 7 points
Volkov - 7 points
Spivak - 5 points
Tybura - 4 points
Arlovski - 3 points

I wonder, which wins of Aspinall really have a case over Jones wins? Want some objective opinions.

Blaydes and Gane wins should be roughly on a par. Obviously Blaydes has a couple more losses than Gane, but he's also got more quality wins.

42 year old Stipe is only a slightly better win than 42 year old Arlovski. Stipe was visibly slowing down in the Cormier 2 and 3 fights, and after that he was ko'd by Ngannou and then took three years off before the Jones fight. On your scale, that's probably a four point win.

If you compare:

Gane - 8 points
Stipe - 4 points

to:

Blaydes - 8 points
Pavlo - 7 points
Volkov - 7 points
Spivak - 5 points
Tybura - 4 points
Arlovski - 3 points

then that's reasonably reflective of their respective resumés at HW.

 

[Ibm]

Stipe looked better than he every did and was in the best shape ever. Him being 42 is not a factor. Jones is tricky.

 

[Portland8242]

Blaydes and Gane wins should be roughly on a par. Obviously Blaydes has a couple more losses than Gane, but he's also got more quality wins.

42 year old Stipe is only a slightly better win than 42 year old Arlovski. Stipe was visibly slowing down in the Cormier 2 and 3 fights, and after that he was ko'd by Ngannou and then took three years off before the Jones fight. On your scale, that's probably a four point win.

If you compare:

Gane - 8 points
Stipe - 4 points

to:

Blaydes - 8 points
Pavlo - 7 points
Volkov - 7 points
Spivak - 5 points
Tybura - 4 points
Arlovski - 3 points

then that's reasonably reflective of their respective resumés at HW.

but Pavlovich literally had all the same wins as Gane, and even had a Blaydes win under his belt too. Then Tom KO'd him bad and broke Sergei's fighting spirit.

Gane getting that gift decision over Volkov is the only thing keeping him afloat. Gane's fighting style is tailored and crafted for picking apart HW blobs at distance. When we've seen him against non-blobs his results have been L's across the board, and that's definitely gonna continue when he fights Tom.