Round 1 of Jones v Gustafsson, the takedown and the cut

[Arrrrgh]

So I just rewatched Jones v Gustafsson 1.

The round most people unanimously score for Gus is round 1. Frankly it didn't look that way to me.

Where Jon clearly had the edge: Striking.
Jon outstruck Gus everywhere except strikes to the head and Gus had maybe 1-2 significant strikes up top and a handful of jabs. Jon was way more active all round initiating the action and hitting gus with kicks everywhere at will and pretty much went shot for shot with punches. Gus opened him up above the eye but that was on a punch that basically missed target and the corner of the glove caught him--personally I wouldn't give that any more credit than Jones' eye poke late in the round. However, that cut definitely affected Jon as the fight went on, it was nasty.

Where Alex clearly had the edge: Takedowns.
He stuffed Jon's attempts and got one of his own. However, Jon immediately stood back up taking no damage.​

So, is the takedown and the cut what gave Alex the edge when he was outstruck all round? I think we give way to much credit for takedowns if that's the case. A big slam like old school hughes or rampage is one thing but should a takedown where the other guy stands right back up taking no damage swing a round in which a guy was otherwise outstruck?

 

[One Inch Punch]

Please not this again.
This is a subjective subject with MMA fans.

The only thing that matters from that fight is how the judges scored it.

 

[Grimm911]

Gus landed the first strike of the fight and seemed to be the one delivering the most shots. Jones was hitting the teeps but was eating counters all round.

Round 2 was harder to score imo.

 

[Arrrrgh]

Please not this again.
This is a subjective subject with MMA fans.

The only thing that matters from that fight is how the judges scored it.

Honestly that opinion is crap. There is a lot more to takeaway from the fight then Judges scores otherwise why even bother to watch--just check the fight results the next day or read a wiki page if thats all you care about.

Me, I like watching fights.

Gus landed the first strike of the fight and seemed to be the one delivering the most shots. Jones was hitting the teeps but was eating counters all round.

Round 2 was harder to score imo.

Except that he didn't deliver more shots. And who lands the first shot is just as arbitrary of a reason to score a round as any.

 

[Grimm911]

Honestly that opinion is crap. There is a lot more to takeaway from the fight then Judges scores otherwise why even bother to watch--just check the fight results the next day or read a wiki page if thats all you care about.

Me, I like watching fights.



Except that he didn't deliver more shots. And who lands the first shot is just as arbitrary of a reason to score a round as any.

The counters jones ate > teeps to the leg imo.

 

[One Inch Punch]

Honestly that opinion is crap. There is a lot more to takeaway from the fight then Judges scores otherwise why even bother to watch--just check the fight results the next day or read a wiki page if thats all you care about.

Me, I like watching fights.



Except that he didn't deliver more shots. And who lands the first shot is just as arbitrary of a reason to score a round as any.

Lol I actually think Jones won that fight.
But that does not fucking matter.
You just came on here to to start an argument (an old one at that) with Jones haters or Gus fans.

And about my "opinion being crap", that is ironic.

 

[myjohnson9]

Seeing as the striking was fairly even, i feel Jones 3 failed td attempts and Gus getting the only one he tried is why most people give him the round

 

[SnowBlynd]

Seeing as the striking was fairly even, i feel Jones 3 failed td attempts and Gus getting the only one he tried is why most people give him the round

That's fair to say.

 

[Lito Lapida]

take down with out damage is scored so highly.

 

[Crylo]

Seeing as the striking was fairly even, i feel Jones 3 failed td attempts and Gus getting the only one he tried is why most people give him the round

Pretty much this^

 

[SKITZADACTYL]

baby kicks

 

[Arrrrgh]

Lol I actually think Jones won that fight.
But that does not fucking matter.
You just came on here to to start an argument (an old one at that) with Jones haters or Gus fans.

And about my "opinion being crap", that is ironic.

You are quite easily offended dude. If you think it's an old topic and you aren't interested in an "argument" about it "with Jones haters or Gus fans" then don't reply. The opinion you stated was crap.

Seeing as the striking was fairly even, i feel Jones 3 failed td attempts and Gus getting the only one he tried is why most people give him the round

I just don't agree with that justification at all. Failed takedowns shouldn't score against a fighter or for the fighter that defended them. That's like scoring for a guy that blocks a punch.
So we are left with a takedown that a guy stands right up from taking little to no damage swinging the round. I don't see it. A takedown pretty much just equates to positioning. It's great to advance your position for the ultimate goal of finishing the fight but if the other guy stands right up all you really did was mix up your striking to make him defend the next take down. Right?

 

[MilesAbove]

Oh for christ sakes, Jones had 11 "leg jabs" according to the stats. They considered some ridiculously weak kicks as "significant strikes". Even a jab is more useful than those.

The whole idea of leg kicks being significant is flawed to the core, regardless of who uses them. There are some obvious ones, Aldo for instance. However, we see Jake Shields throw leg kicks that clearly do nothing more than keep him looking busy. Meanwhile, an opponent is much less likely to worry about ANY leg strike he doesn't deem is hurting him. However a jab will always be avoided when possible.

 

[Powerlift]

3/4 of Jones' strikes are those weak ass kicks to the legs.

 

[branchtan]

Lol I actually think Jones won that fight.
But that does not fucking matter.
You just came on here to to start an argument (an old one at that) with Jones haters or Gus fans.

And about my "opinion being crap", that is ironic.

Dude shut the fuck up. You do know this is an MMA FORUM RIGHT? Where people discuss about MMA!??? Start an argument? Seems like he's calmly making points to DISCUSS A TOPIC REGARDING MMA IN AN MMA FORUM. Dense mufuka...

 

[Docile]

You are quite easily offended dude. If you think it's an old topic and you aren't interested in an "argument" about it "with Jones haters or Gus fans" then don't reply. The opinion you stated was crap.


I just don't agree with that justification at all. Failed takedowns shouldn't score against a fighter or for the fighter that defended them. That's like scoring for a guy that blocks a punch.
So we are left with a takedown that a guy stands right up from taking little to no damage swinging the round. I don't see it. A takedown pretty much just equates to positioning. It's great to advance your position for the ultimate goal of finishing the fight but if the other guy stands right up all you really did was mix up your striking to make him defend the next take down. Right?

It's not about the failed takedowns trollboy.

If the striking is going back and forth and one fighter is busier (Jon) but the other is doing more damage (Gus) that makes the striking hard to judge, one might easily score it as even. So the judge check over to the grappling exchanges, and see Gus having 1 clear takedown, and Jon having 0 . making it more likely they're giving the round to Gus.

Hurrdurr I can't follow this justification, hurrdurr. Yeah because instead trying to analyze the attacked areas and determining whos strikes were more effective is a way more accurate way to determine who won, and Jones clearly outstruck gus!! sure trollboy. If he won clearly to you, I have nothing more to say