I think some of us here forget this. I think some of the judges forget this. Effective striking and grappling are the dominant factor. There was very little grappling so that's not a factor. Reyes had the striking advantage in almost every round in terms of quantity and damage. I would call "effective aggressiveness" as meaningful pushing of the pace and willingness to do damage. Piddly jabs and knee taps are not significant enough to be considered effective aggression in my opinion and Reyes landed the more shots with aggressive intentions. But if Reyes was ahead on effective striking then aggressiveness isn't taken into account when judging. This was a close fight and not a blowout so I think we could allow for aggressiveness. Now the big one: control of the fighting area. This one is WAAAAY overplayed when it comes to determining a winner. I would say this is where a lot of the problems come from when judging matches. It is not to be considered unless striking is even and both fighters are trying to take it to each other evenly. It's called Plan C for a reason. Not plan A(c). Jones being in the center of the cage more does not mean he's the one winning. I don't see how Jones won the second round. Maybe people judge each round in a chronological order where Reyes' hard strikes at the beginning of the round mean nothing because Jones might have landed some decent jabs later in the round. That's not how it works though but it seems that's what happens on occasion. Yet again Jones wins a decision that plenty of people thought he lost because he's barely doing enough while his opponent is landing more and/or harder shots. TL;DR Reyes won.