The "You have to decisively beat the champion to be the champion" is flawed logic.

[TheSauce]

You don't crown new champions with unconvincing decisions. If you deserve the belt, then you should prove without a doubt why you deserve it over the guy who already decisively earned the belt.

so champions should never lose close fights?

 

[chinarice]

As I said, this isn't about that particular fight. I scored it a draw, but didn't complain when Jones won (outside of the 49-46 score). What annoyed me was when the fight came up in conversation at work when three of my co-workers were like "Yeah, Gus looked good, but he didn't finish Jones. That's why he lost." or when I go on Twitter and see guys like JDS say "You have to beat the Champion to become Champion."

I don't agree with that. At all. If you performed well, made it a fight, worked your opponent. It shouldn't matter who is and isn't Champion in a close round. What should matter is who was more active, accurate, and in better control.

Your co-workers are just casual fans. 49-46 is not a bad score, for the fight, if you are watching it without wanting to stab Jon Jones in the face, while you watch it.

Just because the rounds were close doesn't necessarily mean the final score needs to reflect it. That is the main problem with a 10-9 system. You can lose a close fight 30-27 but people don't understand it and are like ZOMG EVERY ROUND WAS CLOSE..... SPLIT DECISION AT LEAST!!! HERP TO THE DERP!

 

[chinarice]

so champions should never lose close fights?

Champions shouldn't lose the fight if you felt the champion won said close fight.

Sometimes, when the underdog does better than expected, people give more credit to that guy than the champion because they expect the dominant champion to completely dominate and when it doesn't happen, they seem to put more weight into everything the challenger does.

It really doesn't help that Rogan has this uncanny ability to totally get bias, during a fight.

 

[J180]

Combat sports shy away from giving even rounds, so when you have a round like round 2 where it could go to either way judges are going to lean to giving it to the champ. Of course they take that shit to far in many fights causing real robberies, but this wasn't one of those fights. Some of these rounds were truly close.

 

[EmeliankoFan1]

so champions should never lose close fights?

The decision will usually go to the champion so this is why they say dont leave it in the hands of the judges. As the opponent, you either beat the champion decisively or risk going home.

 

[Janpei]

Your co-workers are just casual fans. 49-46 is not a bad score, for the fight, if you are watching it without wanting to stab Jon Jones in the face, while you watch it.

Just because the rounds were close doesn't necessarily mean the final score needs to reflect it. That is the main problem with a 10-9 system. You can lose a close fight 30-27 but people don't understand it and are like ZOMG EVERY ROUND WAS CLOSE..... SPLIT DECISION AT LEAST!!! HERP TO THE DERP!

So you think Gus lost four rounds? Can't say we're in agreement. This coming from a Jones fan.

 

[chinarice]

So you think Gus lost four rounds? Can't say we're in agreement. This coming from a Jones fan.

I didn't say that. I said they were close and you can make an argument that he did.

This coming from a guy that doesn't like Jones.

I felt like it was a 48-47 or 49-47 fight, for Jones.

 

[J180]

So you think Gus lost four rounds? Can't say we're in agreement. This coming from a Jones fan.

The judge that scored 4 rounds wasnt as out there when you look at the other judges score card.

Judge Chris Lee
Rd. 1: Gustafsson 10-9
Rd. 2: Jones 10-9
Rd. 3: Jones 10-9
Rd. 4: Jones 10-9
Rd. 5: Jones 10-9

Judge Richard Bertrand
Rd. 1: Gustafsson 10-9
Rd. 2: Jones 10-9
Rd. 3: Gustafsson 10-9
Rd. 4: Jones 10-9
Rd. 5: Jones 10-9

Judge Doug Crosby
Rd. 1: Gustafsson 10-9
Rd. 2: Gustafsson 10-9
Rd. 3: Jones 10-9
Rd. 4: Jones 10-9
Rd. 5: Jones 10-9

Chris Lee gave Jones round 2, 3. But so did the other judges, separately though (Bertrand round 2, Crosby round 3). It was a close fight.

I personally think he only won 3 rounds. (2,4,5)

 

[egk]

I remember a year or so ago, Ariel Helwani was doing fight predictions and he ended up saying that an outcome to whatever fight he was on would more than likely end up in a Split Decision. The first thing I thought was how will he know what three different judges will score a fight?

Yup, exactly. You see a lot of people here on Sherdog that obviously don't even know what it means. They seem to think a split decision means the individual judges somehow split their vote.

It's like when people complain about what looks like a lopsided decision saying a judge is retarded for scoring a fight 50-45 when every single round is razor close. Rounds are supposed to be scored in a vacuum so it's very possible you could have a score like that in an extremely close fight. You don't score a round for the other guy just because you gave the previous one to his opponent and need to even it up.

This isn't a defense of judges either. Sometimes they get it wrong. It's just a 50-45 scorecard can be as close as a 48-47. It could just mean the first judge gave a razor thin edge to the same fighter in every round.

 

[chinarice]

The judge that scored 4 rounds wasnt as out there when you look at the other judges score card.

Judge Chris Lee
Rd. 1: Gustafsson 10-9
Rd. 2: Jones 10-9
Rd. 3: Jones 10-9
Rd. 4: Jones 10-9
Rd. 5: Jones 10-9

Judge Richard Bertrand
Rd. 1: Gustafsson 10-9
Rd. 2: Jones 10-9
Rd. 3: Gustafsson 10-9
Rd. 4: Jones 10-9
Rd. 5: Jones 10-9

Judge Doug Crosby
Rd. 1: Gustafsson 10-9
Rd. 2: Gustafsson 10-9
Rd. 3: Jones 10-9
Rd. 4: Jones 10-9
Rd. 5: Jones 10-9

Chris Lee gave Jones round 2, 3. But so did the other judges, separately though. It was a close fight.

It's funny. It's like people think Gus got robbed when it was a super close fight. It's super strange. Must be the over-the-top Jones haters.

I am not a fan but can at least be impartial, while watching him fight.

 

[chinarice]

Yup, exactly. You see a lot of people here on Sherdog that obviously don't even know what it means. They seem to think a split decision means the individual judges somehow split their vote.

It's like when people complain about what looks like a lopsided decision saying a judge is retarded for scoring a fight 50-45 when every single round is razor close. Rounds are supposed to be scored in a vacuum so it's very possible you could have a score like that in an extremely close fight. You don't score a round for the other guy just because you gave the previous one to his opponent and need to even it up.

This isn't a defense of judges either. Sometimes they get it wrong. It's just a 50-45 scorecard can be as close as a 48-47. It could just mean the first judge gave a razor thin edge to the same fighter in every round.

I've called split decisions before because I honestly thought the fights would be close enough that one judge would see it differently from the other 2. As long as you explain why you would call an odd finish like SPLIT decision, you need to at least make everyone aware that you understand what it means because some people here make themselves sound foolish when they say omg robbery. Should have at least been a split decision. That is just dumb.

 

[brapp085]

To people saying it doesn't equate to basketball, Nba superstars get superstar calls.

 

[jmd69]

TS you are spot on and I couldn't agree with you more. The logic is completely flawed (as you already mentioned) and its just downright wrong. It will never make sense and its a cop-out statement for those that are glad their fighter didn't lose.

 

[ncboy]

totally agree. Thankfully it didn't impact this fight. Jones won legitimately.

 

[Kneeuinthenutz]

All it is and ever was, was a way for boxing to not have to admit that they manipulate the outcomes of fights.

The entire premise of doing this is highly illegal.

 

[devilfisted]

It's a really dumb thing to say! The only time you here this is when the champ gets a bs decision!