Overall analysis of Jones - Cormier fight

[RepairManManMan]

People under rate fat. Too much muscle mass and too large of a weight cut are better indicators of a gas-victim (unless we're talking Auschwitz... no one was fat or muscular there)

For any endurance event, lean is the way to be. Its surviving that first 5 minutes against the Lombard's of this world. I know this from our training group because we do such a wide variety of things. The truth is, American sport skews our view of things. Nowhere else in life can you burst for 4 seconds and rest for 30, like in NFL, for 3 sets and then sit for 10 minutes or more. Or get all psyched up for a single lift of a bar. The biggest men in the world needn't be any bigger than the props in rugby, in a functional sense.... still able to go for distance at good pace.... and they are at biggest, as big as Lesnar.

its western cultural perception of muscles = effective. While id say eastern exercise is more about fluidity. Overall, MMA like boxing is long and grueling and should be trained as such.

the days of tank abbot breaking bench records and using that to increase his power are clearly over, thank God. Reem was almost a God and then was exposed by better cardio (so they say, still think the gassing shit is an excuse).

 

[tombombadil]

First three rounds were very competitive. Honestly I'm not sure why everyone seems so sure that Jones took the first; Cormier was applying pressure contantly and I think the take-down (off a caught kick) has been weighed too heavily.

Second round Cormier pretty clearly had the edge; it was a dogfight for sure but Jones looked to be on the ropes at some points. Third was similar, but DC lost momentum after the eye poke.

Fourth round was probably the most decisive looking (although I believe Cormier was closer to actually finishing the fight in the second), with the take-downs against the cage seeming like an even bigger deal han they were because of the context of the fight. (DC the great Olympian, etc. etc.)

Fifth was meh. Neither achieved much, but DC was being frustrated in his offence. The slam was pretty cool, but because it was the fifth round and DC was looking desperate after the fourth, I think it was weighed much less than Jones's (less significant) take-down in round one.

The big problem for DC is that, after the slam, he clearly broke. Just hung on trying to get another take-down, despite the fact that he would obviously not be ending the fight off one even if he had managed it, to prove a point to himself. He should have been flurrying like mad, but had already conceded defeat mentally.

Under the ten-point must system, he could have been given 1, 2, 3 and even 5. Personally, I would have gone have scored the first a draw, the second and third for Cormier, the fourth for Jones, and the fifth a draw as well.

But that's looking at the rounds in isolation and, as with the Hendricks/Lawler 2, it was pretty clear which man broke and the decision was the right one.

I also thought 1 was close. a 10-10 would have been fine with me.

Round 2 was about as dominant for Cormier as 4 was for Jones. 3 and 5 were also close, as I stated before I thought Cormier might have had 5.... 10-10 may have been the best answer again.

If you sided with all the grey area on Cormier's side, he could have been given the win, I agree. But Jones was getting stronger, and Cormier was weakening.... and if you went Jones' way on all the grey area it was 49-46.

interesting analysis, and I agree about the non-mechanical aspects of scoring. The 'feeling' that Jones was winning, so that popping up from that slam in 5 more or less erased the slam itself. I used to feel this way about boxing. Fighter A is clearly winning after 3 rounds. The next 4 are close, really hard to call, Fighter A will get the benefit of the doubt for all of those until Fighter B does something dramatic... then it will be in his court until something big happens again. Its almost like how volleyball was played when I was in high school - you had to have the serve to score a point.

 

[tombombadil]

its western cultural perception of muscles = effective. While id say eastern exercise is more about fluidity. Overall, MMA like boxing is long and grueling and should be trained as such.

the days of tank abbot breaking bench records and using that to increase his power are clearly over, thank God. Reem was almost a God and then was exposed by better cardio (so they say, still think the gassing shit is an excuse).

He truly did gas, and had a history of it. But, you aren't wrong, because he also had no heart or chin!

 

[RepairManManMan]

sounds accurate. I voted for Redhawks.... unless I'm missing the sarcasm that guy's a fucking idiot!!

Can't say I know him. I voted for grindinganarchy because he nominated himself.

Honestly i think a lot of it has to do with the KO's shouldnt count as wins thing which a lot of people really got offended by.Like I said, no sense of sarcasm, as the whole thing was literally a bash against reem and his fans.

 

[tombombadil]

I haven't got a vag, I'm just being reasonable.


Would I be reasonable if I had a vag...?

hehe. Oh man. Ya. They get way more reasonable as they get older.... but it coincides with losing their attractiveness, unfortunately. Less about gender and more about reaction/action. I've been stymied and annoyed by women my whole life. They expect a totally superior treatment. Now I have two girls and I baby the fuck out of them, much more than my son, and there's no wonder why they'll think their shit doesn;t stink. My wife... she's reasonable.... and fat... and I don't wanna fuck her or take her great places.

Less about gender, more about human nature.

 

[tombombadil]

its western cultural perception of muscles = effective. While id say eastern exercise is more about fluidity. Overall, MMA like boxing is long and grueling and should be trained as such.

the days of tank abbot breaking bench records and using that to increase his power are clearly over, thank God. Reem was almost a God and then was exposed by better cardio (so they say, still think the gassing shit is an excuse).

I agree its Western. Magazine-based. Euro's skating and stability on skates has always been amazing in the NHL - even though they are not known for fighting because they come form a different game. Our gyms have, until recent times, been becnhpress heavy. They're gyms have always been deep front squats and olympic lifting. In this internet age, we'll all meld together to whatever works the best. But ya, we've been way to pecs and biceps and not enough posterior chain and legs.

 

[RepairManManMan]

I agree its Western. Magazine-based. Euro's skating and stability on skates has always been amazing in the NHL - even though they are not known for fighting because they come form a different game. Our gyms have, until recent times, been becnhpress heavy. They're gyms have always been deep front squats and olympic lifting. In this internet age, we'll all meld together to whatever works the best. But ya, we've been way to pecs and biceps and not enough posterior chain and legs.

definitely. I do think though that lifting weights the right way can benefit you, as long is it's not just to look the part. I mean look at Cain, dudes plain flabby. Not to disgruntle and brosciencers out there, because I know a lot of bench press heroes and none deny that it's for the look.

 

[tombombadil]

definitely. I do think though that lifting weights the right way can benefit you, as long is it's not just to look the part. I mean look at Cain, dudes plain flabby. Not to disgruntle and brosciencers out there, because I know a lot of bench press heroes and none deny that it's for the look.

This might be too far out there, but its early and I'm already drinking, so here goes - I think about this shit all the time. Last week, I was thinking that muscles can be big without cutting into endurance too much if they're close to the heart. Tons of athletes have big glutes, obliques and lats and still have great cardio. Its when people start workign the extremities for size that the diminishing returns begin. Big calves and biceps don't do much for most sports, but the heart has to get blood there and back, and its far away. Its like adding a few horsepower while cutting your gas mileage in half.

On the subject of benchpress - Bench is an American thing that replace overhead press. It isolates the pectorals and front delts, while diminishing the rear delts and upper back/core stabilizers that the overhead press hits. The pecs themselves' greatest function is to keep your clavicles in place under load. You don't need the load that a benchpress gives - it doesn't exist in the real world, lying on a bench pressing more weight then your core could handle... the bench being your core replacement. The pecs, therefore, go from a safety muscle to an overgrown muscle. Meanwhile your upper posterior chain isn't keeping up, and your posture is dragged forward, leading to injury. If you overhead press, your front delts and pecs still schieve what hey need to for functional support, and your whole body gets stronger in balance.

K, I'm done with talking.

I like tits.

 

[RepairManManMan]

This might be too far out there, but its early and I'm already drinking, so here goes - I think about this shit all the time. Last week, I was thinking that muscles can be big without cutting into endurance too much if they're close to the heart. Tons of athletes have big glutes, obliques and lats and still have great cardio. Its when people start workign the extremities for size that the diminishing returns begin. Big calves and biceps don't do much for most sports, but the heart has to get blood there and back, and its far away. Its like adding a few horsepower while cutting your gas mileage in half.

On the subject of benchpress - Bench is an American thing that replace overhead press. It isolates the pectorals and front delts, while diminishing the rear delts and upper back/core stabilizers that the overhead press hits. The pecs themselves' greatest function is to keep your clavicles in place under load. You don't need the load that a benchpress gives - it doesn't exist in the real world, lying on a bench pressing more weight then your core could handle... the bench being your core replacement. The pecs, therefore, go from a safety muscle to an overgrown muscle. Meanwhile your upper posterior chain isn't keeping up, and your posture is dragged forward, leading to injury. If you overhead press, your front delts and pecs still schieve what hey need to for functional support, and your whole body gets stronger in balance.

K, I'm done with talking.

I like tits.

I read on the internets that the bench press was created to replace the pushup as a strength training excercise as pushups just become endurance after 30 or so. I think it was something like "people started lifting weights because nobody has time to do 1000 pushups" which may be true but tbh I always felt like laying on your back and essentially relaxing while working your chest was counter productive.

 

[RepairManManMan]

also, yeah to the point about bench pressing not existing in real world.

go to any warehouse and you will see "lift with your legs, not your back" signs everywhere.

 

[Gregoire1]

12. I don't think JJ/DC at HW would affect how a fight between them played out. DC's conditioning was less of a problem compared to the body shots he absorbed

And how do you think HW conditions would affect Jones? Is he natural HW?

 

[Chomsky Honk]

I thought that until the eye poke it was fairly even. Jones won round one. DC won round two. Both rounds were highly competitive and contested. Round three was about level until the eye poke, and then, in my mind, Jones took it but I can see a vague case for DC. Jones then won rounds four and five. 4-1 on my card, but I can see 3-2.

agreed

 

[Brockster]

1. How you scored it round-by-round? Jones 1,3,4,5 Cormier 2.
2. Who won striking battle overall? Jones
3. Who do you think won if fight consisted from 3 rounds and would it close? Jones, round 3 is maybe debatable but I still give it to Jon, so 2 rounds against one.
4. Who won wrestling batlle in your opinion and could we do the conclusion from these who is better MMA wrestler? Jones, the clinchgame was close but Jon had better control and landed the more damaging shots, he also got two takedowns.
5. Who won in your opinion the clinch battle? ^
6. Did Jones fight more in the clinch and went for takedowns rather than keeped distance to give the message he is better in wrestling and clinch? Perhaps, Jon likes to beat his opponents at their game but I also think he believed he could outstrike DC from the clinch and wear him out.
7. According to damage done and the conditions at the end of the fight was it close fight or not? Who looked more exausted? less active and in trouble? Who would won 6 round, if it exist? DC was done after round 3.
8. Was these fight more close than Jones- Gus and why? Most certainly not. Gus won two rounds clearly (imo) and had the lead in the fourth round until he got hit with that devastating elbow which gave Jon the round. I do believe Jon won that fight though, 3-2.
9. Would DC chances in rematch better than in the first fight? Who had better chance in rematch Cormier of Gus? Impossible to say, Gus had more success the first time around, DC would have to alter his strategy, Gus not so much.
10. If Jones choosed best possible strategy for these fight? And DC? DC took too much damage, Jon fought a smart fight.
11. Who won the activity battle and octagon control overall? Pretty equal, DC the aggressor for most of the round but Jon had more control.
12. If the odds would be different if they fought in HW? Definitely, would still pick Jon as a favourite, but it would be closer imo.
13. If Jones underestimated Cormier like Gus? Don't think he underestimated either of them but I do believe Cormier lit a fire under his ass.

 

[Gregoire1]

I also thought 1 was close. a 10-10 would have been fine with me.

Round 2 was about as dominant for Cormier as 4 was for Jones. 3 and 5 were also close, as I stated before I thought Cormier might have had 5.... 10-10 may have been the best answer again.

If you sided with all the grey area on Cormier's side, he could have been given the win, I agree. But Jones was getting stronger, and Cormier was weakening.... and if you went Jones' way on all the grey area it was 49-46.

.

Sorry, but I dont see how here Cormier could be given a win? With Jones - Gus fight I can see Gus win, but here...
round 1 was more clear win for Jones than round 2 for Cormier, same with 5, where Bones oustroke, outpaced, outcontrolled DC badly... let alone round 5.... Actually one judge give round 2 to Jones and round 3 for Cormier. Closest round was 3, I agree, and I could see Cormier win, but IMO slight edge to Jones. You think judges so biased that they give all "grey area" to Jones? I agree with judges - most close rounds were 2 and 3 (I honestly would give 10-10 in both). But rounds 1 and 5 to Cormier... its ridiculous I think. And these slam... without second of ground control. It seems not near effective like Jones first TD, let alone 2 and 3. And dont miss 4th takedown of Jones in last second of 4 round. How rd 2 could be near as dominant as rd 4 for Jones??

You seems be very intelligent poster, so maybe you could rewatch the fight and come to other conclusions.

 

[Gregoire1]

Under the ten-point must system, he could have been given 1, 2, 3 and even 5. Personally, I would have gone have scored the first a draw, the second and third for Cormier, the fourth for Jones, and the fifth another draw.

But that's looking at the rounds in isolation and, as with the Hendricks/Lawler 2, it was pretty clear which man broke and the decision was the right one.

It seems like you are DC fan or you was very impressed by his uppercuts and some punches landed at Jones chin with audience commentators noise... I think DC had some good moments, but it were overrated because bones was the favorite.

Jones outstroke Cormier in 1, 3,4 and 5 rounds (4 and 5 badly outsroke), by oustroke I mean more landed sig. strikes, more attempted strikes, better %, ore strikes overall, more strikes in the clinch, more head strikes. And in round 2 the margin for Cormier was miniscule - go watch stats to ESPN). IMO most damaging and sig. strikes were delivered by Bones (clinch in the head, a lot of huge body shots).
Jones outcontrolled DC in every round. And ouwrestled in 1 and 4 rounds. In 5 Cormier outwrestled Jones.
I dont see here any scoring round-by-round aside 49-46, 49-47, 48-47 for Jones.

 

[JKS]

This was a great fight, lets discuss it. I have a couple of questions for whom watched the fight at least one time.

1. How you scored it round-by-round?
2. Who won striking battle overall?
3. Who do you think won if fight consisted from 3 rounds and would it close?
4. Who won wrestling batlle in your opinion and could we do the conclusion from these who is better MMA wrestler?
5. Who won in your opinion the clinch battle?
6. Did Jones fight more in the clinch and went for takedowns rather than keeped distance to give the message he is better in wrestling and clinch?
7. According to damage done and the conditions at the end of the fight was it close fight or not? Who looked more exausted? less active and in trouble? Who would won 6 round, if it exist?
8. Was these fight more close than Jones- Gus and why?
9. Would DC chances in rematch better than in the first fight? Who had better chance in rematch Cormier of Gus?
10. If Jones choosed best possible strategy for these fight? And DC?
11. Who won the activity battle and octagon control overall?
12. If the odds would be different if they fought in HW?
13. If Jones underestimated Cormier like Gus?

1. Jones, Cormier, Cormier, Jones, Jones
2. Jones
3. Cormier
4. Jones won