Media Jones: "I scored takedowns, was the aggressor, controlled the Octagon, and landed more."

[Mamou]

The problem is that Sherdoggers think compubox stats dictate a fight result

Dominick was bleeding out of mouth and was having trouble moving in the final rounds. Jones dealt more damage

Now tell us about the first 3 rounds. You know, the rounds that Jones got out struck in and scored 0 TDs.

 

[PalmStrike]

 

[PalmStrike]

 

[Twixt]

Jones actually did way more in terms of damage. Jones was neither wobbled nor tired.

Nah jones got rocked in the 4th and turned into a panic wrestler.

 

[Mamou]

There was nothing in Round 2 worth a belt exchanging hands for me. I dont believe in barely edging championships unless both fighters beat the shit out of each other. This would have been the weakest edge belt win I may have ever seen if Reyes won

So when you were watching the fight, at the end if round 2 you said "Reyes landed 11 more significant strikes, there were no takedowns, but Jones wins the round because he's there champ"?

 

[Dr Brian Pepper]

It annoys me when fans don’t know the scoring criteria, from a long reigning champ this is inexcusable.

Octagon control, for all practical purposes, is meaningless, it is only to be considered AT ALL in the case of a round where striking was 100% equal, grappling was absolutely 100% even, aggression 100% even.

In reality, striking and grappling should determine the winner of the round, with striking being the #1 criteria in a round which was predominantly striking and grappling being the #1 criteria in a round which was predominantly grappling.

So Jon saying “he outstruck me” means that Reyes should win those rounds, even if the margin was small. Those are the rules.

So if everything is 100%, would that not just be a 10/10?

 

[Dr Brian Pepper]

Then why didn't you say that instead of what you actually said?

It is what I said, judges do not count the strikes.

 

[knock_you_out]

Jones landed more on Reyes' head, body and legs. Reyes landed more on Jones' arms and gloves. All were considered 'significant' strikes, by some bean counter who doesn't even train, LMAO! Thankfully, the judges knew how to score the fight.

 

[IcemanFan75]

As much as I want to see Jon get knocked out, it might be even more satisfying to see him get screwed by judges in a close fight.

 

[jeff7b9]

So if everything is 100%, would that not just be a 10/10?

Per the rules and criteria 10/10 should be extremely rare, which seems to be the case.

In order for a round to be 10/10

Striking 100% even, no discernible advantage of even 1 strike.

Grappling 100% even, no discernible advantage, no one had better positioning, no one inflicted more damage, was closer to a sub, or had more time in an advantageous position, at all, including even the smallest of margin.

Aggression 100% even (only considered if above is all 100% even), no one put in more work towards attempting to do damage or establish dominance.

Octagon control (only considered if all above is 100% even) - no discernible advantage, neither fighter had center control or pushed forward more by any discernible amount, no one cut off angles better, pushed the opponent’s back to the cage, etc.

Basically it is written so as to make 10/10 never happen because it seems that if the judge has an opinion of any of the criteria being even slightly in favor of either fighter, then they win the round. (And as written, lower criteria can not balance out even a microscopic advantage of a higher criteria).


I don’t agree that this is the perfect system, but those are the rules.

 

[storeybuckle]

The problem is that if Jon had Doms performance and it was the other way around, Jon still would have remained champion and he would be writing on twitter how he outstruck Dom by 12 strikes and knocked him down.

It's one of the many reasons why MMA under the UFC will always remain a joke compared to serious A-level sports.

The UFC doesn’t score fights. The commission does. Am I missing something?

 

[seanb1979]

what you or I believe doesn’t matter.
Each round gives the same amount of points.

Yeah I know but it *should* be that way. Kinda wish they would alter the whole scoring system.

 

[LHWBelt]

Cardio is hard when you fight someone who keeps using roids and dick pills

 

[x__stylez__x]

Apparently Jon had nothing to do on Feb 11th between 5:00pm and 6:00pm

 

[Taric]

Jones landed more on Reyes' head, body and legs. Reyes landed more on Jones' arms and gloves. All were considered 'significant' strikes, by some bean counter who doesn't even train, LMAO! Thankfully, the judges knew how to score the fight.

Jones:
29% head strikes
28% body shots
43% leg strikes

Reyes:
36% head strikes
41% body shots
23% leg strikes

Apparently bean counters can't tell the difference between the head and legs.

 

[Dr Brian Pepper]

Per the rules and criteria 10/10 should be extremely rare, which seems to be the case.

In order for a round to be 10/10

Striking 100% even, no discernible advantage of even 1 strike.

Grappling 100% even, no discernible advantage, no one had better positioning, no one inflicted more damage, was closer to a sub, or had more time in an advantageous position, at all, including even the smallest of margin.

Aggression 100% even (only considered if above is all 100% even), no one put in more work towards attempting to do damage or establish dominance.

Octagon control (only considered if all above is 100% even) - no discernible advantage, neither fighter had center control or pushed forward more by any discernible amount, no one cut off angles better, pushed the opponent’s back to the cage, etc.

Basically it is written so as to make 10/10 never happen because it seems that if the judge has an opinion of any of the criteria being even slightly in favor of either fighter, then they win the round. (And as written, lower criteria can not balance out even a microscopic advantage of a higher criteria).


I don’t agree that this is the perfect system, but those are the rules.

But 10/10 have happened, and it was never 100%.

 

[Paynebringer]

OK but who won? If you read the judging criteria it seems pretty obvious the judges screwed this up.

Jones won Reyes did nothing convincing to me fought in bursts got pressured around the cage, landed no real clean shots as did Jon not convincing enough to lose your belt, my opinion.

 

[PEDS Help me Post]

It is what I said, judges do not count the strikes.

It is their job to actually determine who is using more effective striking, part of which would be being cognizant of who is landing more.

Reyes outstruck Jones by 6 strikes in round 1, 11 strikes in round 2 and 7 strikes in round 3.

Jones outstruck him by 7 strikes in round 4 and 5 strikes in round 5.

Judges should be noticing these things. It's their job.

 

[PEDS Help me Post]

Jones won Reyes did nothing convincing to me fought in bursts got pressured around the cage, landed no real clean shots as did Jon not convincing enough to lose your belt, my opinion.

Well Jones did nothing to convince the majority of people watching that he deserved to keep his belt.

That's why every poll and all of the media cards scored in favor of Reyes...


Being "pressured" around the cage does not matter if you're getting outlanded despite your pressure. Pressure isn't even a scoring criteria.

 

[Taric]

It is their job to actually determine who is using more effective striking, part of which would be being cognizant of who is landing more.

Reyes outstruck Jones by 6 strikes in round 1, 11 strikes in round 2 and 7 strikes in round 3.

Jones outstruck him by 7 strikes in round 4 and 5 strikes in round 5.

Judges should be noticing these things. It's their job.

Obviously it's their job to make shit up.