Jones/Reyes wasn't a robbery

applesbananas

Brown Belt
@Brown
Joined
Dec 29, 2014
Messages
3,111
Reaction score
337
I had Reyes winning 3 rounds to 2 but it was definitely close. Jon had the octagon control and takedowns. I though his fight against Santos was more of a robbery.
 
I had Reyes winning 3 rounds to 2 but it was definitely close. Jon had the octagon control and takedowns. I though his fight against Santos was more of a robbery.

No need to try and justify the win. The "robbery" narrative is just the latest excuse in a long line of excuses to marginalize the GOATs greatness.

You'll notice that the same people saying it was a robbery, were saying that GSP/Hendricks wasn't a robbery. That's all you need to know about what their real reason is for hating Jones.


And Still the GOAT...
DoPv2M7.gif
 
Last edited:
It was. Reyes was robbed of the LHW title. A robbery doesn't have to be a landslide fuck up. I don't know where that notion came from.
 
For some reason, people think just becdause you land more means you outstruck them. Even though there is countless examples where this doesnt matter, this is what people truly believe.
 
Jones fan.

I thought that was a robbery.

Also thought GSP was gifted against Hendricks.
 
I had Reyes winning 3 rounds to 2 but it was definitely close. Jon had the octagon control and takedowns. I though his fight against Santos was more of a robbery.
To be clear, I dislike Jones.

That being said, I find it comical that sherdog demands that both the Santos fights and Reyes fights were robberies.

The logic for the santos fight is "theres more to fights than just striking numbers, santos landed harder shots"

The logic for the reyes fight is "Reyes clearly won because he landed more shots than jon in rounds 1-3".

At the end of the day, when fights are that close, I'm not upset either way. Dont want to get screwed by judges? Dont point fight.
 
Judges were giving homer decisions all night. Reyes won the first 3 rounds

In the past I have always been honest when Jon won a decision. Like he beat Thiago Santos for example. So I don't feel it's hate making me see what I want to see.

With the McGregor/Cerrone stuff and these "un-decisionable" champs the UFC is losing credibility here.
 
No it wasn't. It was close. I had it for Reyes, but only by a round that I thought was close and could've gone either way. I could've seen a draw, and I could've seen how they might've scored it for Jones. Such is life. Shit happens.
 
No need to try and justify the win. The "robbery" narrative is just the latest excuse in a long line of excuses to marginalize the GOATs greatness.

You'll notice that the same people saying it was a robbery, were saying that GSP/Hendricks wasn't a robbery. That's all you need to know about what their real reason is for hating Jones.


What does GSP vs Hendricks have to do with anything? Two completely different fights, not related at all.

you fucking egg.
 
Its just the salt speaking.

If it was anyone they liked, they would be arguing it otherwise
 
No need to try and justify the win. The "robbery" narrative is just the latest excuse in a long line of excuses to marginalize the GOATs greatness.

You'll notice that the same people saying it was a robbery, were saying that GSP/Hendricks wasn't a robbery. That's all you need to know about what their real reason is for hating Jones.
Why are so many jones fans are saying that it was a robbery?
 
I had Reyes winning 3 rounds to 2 but it was definitely close. Jon had the octagon control and takedowns. I though his fight against Santos was more of a robbery.
I agree that robbery isn't the right word, it was a very close fight if viewed as a whole, but I think the round by round scoring it's a pretty clear 48-47 for Reyes, round 2 is the closest round but Reyes out-landed him and also landed the harder/cleaner strikes so for me it would be generous to give Jones a draw never mind the round.
 
No need to try and justify the win. The "robbery" narrative is just the latest excuse in a long line of excuses to marginalize the GOATs greatness.

You'll notice that the same people saying it was a robbery, were saying that GSP/Hendricks wasn't a robbery. That's all you need to know about what their real reason is for hating Jones.
I had it 3-2 Reyes, but it was far from a robbery. It could have gone either way, and it did. I'm not even trying to make sense of a card reading 49-46 though. It technically didn't make a difference in the outcome of the fight, so I'm not that bothered by it in this particular fight. As far as judging a fight in general, a judge giving any fighter four rounds should have a better reason than that his scores were based mostly on forward movement, because you're not winning a fight if you're moving backwards.
 
I had Reyes winning 3 rounds to 2 but it was definitely close. Jon had the octagon control and takedowns. I though his fight against Santos was more of a robbery.

I agree that it was not a robbery, though I too had Reyes winning, but I would not call the Santos fight a robbery either.

49-46 was ridiculous though...and not that judge's first sketchy card that night. It would be nice to see commissions take this level of incompetence seriously.
 
If one guy won 3 rounds, and other one won 2 rounds, and you agree with that, it is pretty much a robbery.
 
What does GSP vs Hendricks have to do with anything? Two completely different fights, not related at all.

you fucking egg.

It’s his agenda to mention GSP and use the race card
 
Jones won the fight. I said it during and after.

Simply put, Reyes did not do enough. Reyes won some battles in there but he ultimately lost the war and he did not end the fight even close to on top.

Close fight though, he gained everyones respect and will make a great rematch
 
Back
Top