GDT: UFC 247: Jones vs. Reyes

[pistolpete11]

That still means 1/3 thought he won. It's just an antiquated scoring system. Reyes threw more volume, but Jones walked forward. Depends on how you look at fights, Joe Rogan is pretty bias on commentary a lot. Dominick thinks he knows everything under the sun in regards to fighting. I really don't even mind the decision even though I had it for Reyes. If you take Octagon control in to consideration equally with the rest of what they judge rounds on... It's not entirely crazy to think that could have won him the fight + takedowns as Jones said. Jones isn't going to last very long being a point fighter though. I wish he would fight Romero. That's my dream fight.

Luke Thomas broke this down very well, so I'd recommend to listen to his post fight special (the one @CDJ posted above, not the one with the messed up mic.). Effective striking and grappling should be considered first. If it is determined to be even, then you go to aggression and octagon control.

So in this case, you'd have to say the striking was even in rounds 2 or 3. There's still a lot on interpretation on what's a more effective strike and whatnot, so I guess it's possible, but I'd disagree. I thought Reyes won rounds 1, 2, and 3.


Edit: Also, the takedowns have no effective in this fight. His only takedowns were in rounds 4 and 5 which nobody is disputing he won. The questionable rounds are 2 and/or 3. He didn't land a takedown and got outstruck. I'm open to hearing why Jones won round 2 or 3, but I haven't seen or heard a convincing argument yet. The only thing people can say is that it was close so it's not a robbery, which I agree with, but that doesn't mean it's right either.

 

[Deen]

Luke Thomas broke this down very well, so I'd recommend to listen to his post fight special (the one @CDJ posted above, not the one with the messed up mic.). Effective striking and grappling should be considered first. If it is determined to be even, then you go to aggression and octagon control.

So in this case, you'd have to say the striking was even in rounds 2 or 3. There's still a lot on interpretation on what's a more effective strike and whatnot, so I guess it's possible, but I'd disagree. I thought Reyes won rounds 1, 2, and 3.


Edit: Also, the takedowns have no effective in this fight. His only takedowns were in rounds 4 and 5 which nobody is disputing he won. The questionable rounds are 2 and/or 3. He didn't land a takedown and got outstruck. I'm open to hearing why Jones won round 2 or 3, but I haven't seen or heard a convincing argument yet. The only thing people can say is that it was close so it's not a robbery, which I agree with, but that doesn't mean it's right either.

I pretty much agree with all of that. Well said. Luke Thomas isn't my go to on fight analysis though.

 

[Kevin27NYI]

Luke Thomas would be ok if he didn't take 5 minutes to say something that takes 30 seconds.

He's one of those people that would order coffee and explain that despite ordering coffee, tea is a good choice as well but just doesn't want it at this time. I don't need any extra BS.

 

[I am not exposed]

DC is my favorite because of the mix of knowledge and personality, but when it comes down to talking about the fight and technique, Dom is the best. If he says something, everyone should at least consider what he's saying.

Luke Thomas talks very highly of Dom, too. I think everybody does, though.

I really like Dom as well. Although he does get a little obsessed with talking about underhooks!

 

[I am not exposed]

That still means 1/3 thought he won. It's just an antiquated scoring system. Reyes threw more volume, but Jones walked forward. Depends on how you look at fights, Joe Rogan is pretty bias on commentary a lot. Dominick thinks he knows everything under the sun in regards to fighting. I really don't even mind the decision even though I had it for Reyes. If you take Octagon control in to consideration equally with the rest of what they judge rounds on... It's not entirely crazy to think that could have won him the fight + takedowns as Jones said. Jones isn't going to last very long being a point fighter though. I wish he would fight Romero. That's my dream fight.

I'm not too sure how the takedowns are relevant, as they were successfully defended. And they happened in rounds 4 & 5. Rounds which everyone agrees than Jones won.

And if takedowns are that important, then Latifi definitely beat Lewis. Latifi didn't do that much damage in his takedowns, but he did way more than Jones did.

 

[pistolpete11]

Luke Thomas would be ok if he didn't take 5 minutes to say something that takes 30 seconds.

He's one of those people that would order coffee and explain that despite ordering coffee, tea is a good choice as well but just doesn't want it at this time. I don't need any extra BS.

Where do you listen to him? I've never really listened to his radio show, but he's got to fill 3hrs of MMA talk 5 days a week. He's got to drag shit out.

The various shows/live chats/breakdowns he puts on YouTube I feel are about as concise as they could be. He does provide the counter point to his opinion sometimes, but I appreciate that.

 

[Kevin27NYI]

Where do you listen to him? I've never really listened to his radio show, but he's got to fill 3hrs of MMA talk 5 days a week. He's got to drag **** out.

The various shows/live chats/breakdowns he puts on YouTube I feel are about as concise as they could be. He does provide the counter point to his opinion sometimes, but I appreciate that.

YouTube, been a while since I've heard so maybe he has done a better job? Couldn't have been too long ago. They were breakdowns though.

I guess it's just nature of the job, he has content to fill and I'm not his target. It's probably the counter point stuff that gets to me where I feel like he goes in circles, maybe I don't find that he's too organized? I don't know man, he just doesn't grab me.

I like to listen to Hardy's breakdowns coming up to a fight where he breaks it down on a big screen, to the point and analytical, showing what each fighter does best and what not, patterns etc.

 

[m9]

I like Cruz the best. He knows what he's talking about and doesn't seem to be biased or pushing narratives. He also has a great voice so he's able to get his points across well.

I actually really like Bisping as well. Anthony Smith has also been very good on Sirius.

 

[pistolpete11]

YouTube, been a while since I've heard so maybe he has done a better job? Couldn't have been too long ago. They were breakdowns though.

I guess it's just nature of the job, he has content to fill and I'm not his target. It's probably the counter point stuff that gets to me where I feel like he goes in circles, maybe I don't find that he's too organized? I don't know man, he just doesn't grab me.

I like to listen to Hardy's breakdowns coming up to a fight where he breaks it down on a big screen, to the point and analytical, showing what each fighter does best and what not, patterns etc.

That's fine. I don't care if you like or listen to Luke.

Hardy's breakdowns are good and they are much more succinct than Luke's. I like Luke more for the weekly news stuff, though.

 

[pistolpete11]

I like Cruz the best. He knows what he's talking about and doesn't seem to be biased or pushing narratives. He also has a great voice so he's able to get his points across well.

I actually really like Bisping as well. Anthony Smith has also been very good on Sirius.

But how can you trust what Bisping is seeing? He's only got one eye!

I like Bisping when he's talking shit. I think he's got some work to do when it comes to calling fights.

 

[chicagoskycam]

Where do you listen to him? I've never really listened to his radio show, but he's got to fill 3hrs of MMA talk 5 days a week. He's got to drag **** out.

The various shows/live chats/breakdowns he puts on YouTube I feel are about as concise as they could be. He does provide the counter point to his opinion sometimes, but I appreciate that.

I've been listening to Josh and Big John's podcasts, it's under "Weighing In" They usually do one after UFC events, Big John has a ton of knowledge obviously. Rogan is really good when he has a MMA show or the actual fighters on. Usman was on a week ago and I was really impressed with him.

 

[Kevin27NYI]

That's fine. I don't care if you like or listen to Luke.

Hardy's breakdowns are good and they are much more succinct than Luke's. I like Luke more for the weekly news stuff, though.

I know man, all good. Was just trying to convey that I don't think he's bad/shitty, just not for me.

 

[BGDDYKWL]

This was not a robbery. A case could definitely be made for Reyes, but a case could also be made for Jones. It was a close fight with no significant damage inflicted by either fighter. I'm a little surprised by all the outrage. I can only assume part of it is what m9 talks about with people mistaking an underdog who's doing better than we thought as winning, and the other part simply being a lot of people want to see Jones lose.

I've always believed you have to convincingly beat the champ to take their belt, and that simply did not happen here IMO.

Someone mentioned GSP, I think that's a very apt comparison. The gap between him and his top challengers was narrowing so much you could argue he lost to Hendricks. Same is happening with Jones. GSP got out on top but obviously Jones isn't going that route. It's bound to catch up to him, and likely sooner than later.

Jones thinks the takedowns got him the win. I disagree. It was his pressure. Those could barely be considered takedowns and he did absolutely nothing with them. That shouldn't/doesn't carry much weight.

I had no issue with the Lewis decision. I don't like to see guys rewarded for essentially trying to win a fight by running out the clock. I had Lee winning her fight but again, it was too close to really take issue with it.

What can you say about Shevchenko? They've hyped up a lot of women over the years, but she's the one IMO who truly deserves it. She's the most skilled female fighter of all-time.

I once heard it said by someone like Rogan, or possibly Sonnen, that Cruz is an encyclopedia of fighting

There's a reason he's on the mic

Personally, I think he's the best analyst in the game today

I think he likes to hear himself talk.

You're both right. Lol.

 

[CDJ]

This was not a robbery. A case could definitely be made for Reyes, but a case could also be made for Jones. It was a close fight with no significant damage inflicted by either fighter. I'm a little surprised by all the outrage. I can only assume part of it is what m9 talks about with people mistaking an underdog who's doing better than we thought as winning, and the other part simply being a lot of people want to see Jones lose.

I've always believed you have to convincingly beat the champ to take their belt, and that simply did not happen here IMO.

Someone mentioned GSP, I think that's a very apt comparison. The gap between him and his top challengers was narrowing so much you could argue he lost to Hendricks. Same is happening with Jones. GSP got out on top but obviously Jones isn't going that route. It's bound to catch up to him, and likely sooner than later.

Jones thinks the takedowns got him the win. I disagree. It was his pressure. Those could barely be considered takedowns and he did absolutely nothing with them. That shouldn't/doesn't carry much weight.

I had no issue with the Lewis decision. I don't like to see guys rewarded for essentially trying to win a fight by running out the clock. I had Lee winning her fight but again, it was too close to really take issue with it.

What can you say about Shevchenko? They've hyped up a lot of women over the years, but she's the one IMO who truly deserves it. She's the most skilled female fighter of all-time.




You're both right. Lol.

my outrage isn’t the decision, 48-47 Jones is understandable. I disagree with it but the case can at least be made

my outrage is with the incompetence of the judging all night including in the main event. One scored it 49-46 Jones. There is zero possible justification for that scoring and goes to show that unless Dominick was gonna KO him it would be impossible for him to win in his eyes

 

[Neutrinos]

That's fine. I don't care if you like or listen to Luke.

Hardy's breakdowns are good and they are much more succinct than Luke's. I like Luke more for the weekly news stuff, though.

I also really like Hardy

Very articulate, and as you say, succinct in his analysis

Way better than Cormier!

 

[I am not exposed]

This was not a robbery. A case could definitely be made for Reyes, but a case could also be made for Jones. It was a close fight with no significant damage inflicted by either fighter. I'm a little surprised by all the outrage. I can only assume part of it is what m9 talks about with people mistaking an underdog who's doing better than we thought as winning, and the other part simply being a lot of people want to see Jones lose.

I've always believed you have to convincingly beat the champ to take their belt, and that simply did not happen here IMO.

Someone mentioned GSP, I think that's a very apt comparison. The gap between him and his top challengers was narrowing so much you could argue he lost to Hendricks. Same is happening with Jones. GSP got out on top but obviously Jones isn't going that route. It's bound to catch up to him, and likely sooner than later.

Jones thinks the takedowns got him the win. I disagree. It was his pressure. Those could barely be considered takedowns and he did absolutely nothing with them. That shouldn't/doesn't carry much weight.

I had no issue with the Lewis decision. I don't like to see guys rewarded for essentially trying to win a fight by running out the clock. I had Lee winning her fight but again, it was too close to really take issue with it.

What can you say about Shevchenko? They've hyped up a lot of women over the years, but she's the one IMO who truly deserves it. She's the most skilled female fighter of all-time.




You're both right. Lol.

Tell that to Mighty Mouse!

And champions advantage is not an actual thing.

Pretty good article imo:

Robbery Review: Jon Jones vs. Dominick Reyes at UFC 247

 

[pistolpete11]

I've been listening to Josh and Big John's podcasts, it's under "Weighing In" They usually do one after UFC events, Big John has a ton of knowledge obviously. Rogan is really good when he has a MMA show or the actual fighters on. Usman was on a week ago and I was really impressed with him.

Talk about an encyclopedia of MMA knowledge. He might not be as knowledgeable about technique as Cruz, but in terms of history of the sport, is there anyone better than Big John? I also thoroughly enjoyed Josh Thompson on Rogan's podcast. I was tempted to give their podcast a listen but 1) the amount of podcasts and entertainment I am already consuming is overwhelming 2) both being Bellator guys, I imagined their podcast focuses a lot on Bellator which I don't really follow or care about.

I listen to a lot of Rogan's podcasts, MMA or otherwise, but I skip a lot, too. I can't stand Usman, so that was one I easily skipped. He's just so fake. He plays up this tough, gangster thing and then also plays up this humble, respectful martial artist thing. Just be yourself, dude, or at the very least, pick one of the sides of the coin. It's one of the big reasons I don't like Jon Jones either.

 

[m9]

my outrage isn’t the decision, 48-47 Jones is understandable. I disagree with it but the case can at least be made

my outrage is with the incompetence of the judging all night including in the main event. One scored it 49-46 Jones. There is zero possible justification for that scoring and goes to show that unless Dominick was gonna KO him it would be impossible for him to win in his eyes

For me there shouldn't be any outrage, and it comes down to probability/luck. I do not believe "there is zero possible justification for that scoring" as it happens all the time in this sport, especially during 3 round fights.

I think everyone watching agreed that there were 3 very obvious rounds in 1, 4, and 5. Based on that and there being no fouls or 10-8 rounds, the only possible scores should be:
48-47 Reyes
48-47 Jones
49-46 Jones

.. and hey, we got there. So based on what happened earlier in the night with these judges, that's a good start.

Now onto Round 2. I think most people (but not all) had the round for Reyes. This is where it gets a bit tricky, but I am going to roughly guess that 80% of people think Reyes won that round.

Now onto Round 3. This one obviously much closer, but I do think a slight majority had it for Reyes. We'll say 60%.

For Reyes to win the fight, he needs both of those to hit. You can argue with either of those percentages, it doesn't really change what I'm trying to say.

Based on those numbers, these are the probabilities for the 3 potential scores:
48-47 Reyes - 48%
48-47 Jones - 44%
49-46 Jones - 8%

So yeah, Jones winning 49-46 is an unlikely outcome but it's still a potential outcome.

 

[CDJ]

After rewatching it I think 2 was a pretty obvious round, I do not trust anybody’s judgement who said Jones won round 2

 

[member 51464]

I felt like it was clearly a fight drifting from Reyes to Jones in each round. Even live I felt like it came down to who won 3.

Anyone rewatch three in a vacuum and have an opinion?

 

[pistolpete11]

I don't want to seem like I'm picking apart your post, but there's just a lot here and I truly mean this to just be a conversation, so...

This was not a robbery. A case could definitely be made for Reyes, but a case could also be made for Jones. It was a close fight with no significant damage inflicted by either fighter. I'm a little surprised by all the outrage. I can only assume part of it is what m9 talks about with people mistaking an underdog who's doing better than we thought as winning, and the other part simply being a lot of people want to see Jones lose.

I agree it wasn't a robbery, but that doesn't mean it was the right decision either. It was a close fight, but I also think it is kind of hand wavy to say, "It was a close fight so nothing to see here". As others have said, the judging was an issue all night.

Maybe I'm misremembering something here, but I think Reyes had Jones literally running away from him in the second and/or third round. One judge gave Jones round 2, the other gave him round 3, and one gave him both. So in a round where Reyes out struck Jones, stuffed all of Jones take downs, and had Jones retreating, 2 of the judges gave that round to Jones. That needs to be explained to me. On top of the other issues with the judging, it just brings into question the competency of the judging.

I've always believed you have to convincingly beat the champ to take their belt, and that simply did not happen here IMO.

But that's not in the rule book. You might hope that's the case, but that can't (or shouldn't) be considered by the judges.

Someone mentioned GSP, I think that's a very apt comparison. The gap between him and his top challengers was narrowing so much you could argue he lost to Hendricks. Same is happening with Jones. GSP got out on top but obviously Jones isn't going that route. It's bound to catch up to him, and likely sooner than later.

I thought going into this fight that Jones just wasn't getting up for these fights, but I'm starting to come around to this idea now. I mean, in his most recent fights, he KO'ed one of the GOAT in DC, smashed the 3rd or 4th best LHW of the last decade in Gus, and smashed Smith, but even though I thought he beat Santos, it wasn't a convincing win considering Santos was on one leg. Now he, in my opinion, lost to Reyes, maybe the long career and hard life he's lived is starting to catch up to him.

I'd still like to see him fight Reyes again, at HW, or against Izzy before I say the end of Jon Jones is nigh, but it's more questionable now than ever.

Jones thinks the takedowns got him the win. I disagree. It was his pressure. Those could barely be considered takedowns and he did absolutely nothing with them. That shouldn't/doesn't carry much weight.

Pressure doesn't count as much as damage, though. In what rounds did Jones inflict more damage? 4 and 5 for sure, but which other round?

I had no issue with the Lewis decision. I don't like to see guys rewarded for essentially trying to win a fight by running out the clock. I had Lee winning her fight but again, it was too close to really take issue with it.

This was a tough one to score. Lewis clearly won round 1 and Latifi clearly won round 2. The third was almost a perfect split between rounds 1 and 2. A takedown with control has to count for something, but compared the damage? Who knows? I'd have given it to Lewis as well, but this one was really up for interpretation.

What can you say about Shevchenko? They've hyped up a lot of women over the years, but she's the one IMO who truly deserves it. She's the most skilled female fighter of all-time.

Tough to argue against her, but unfortunately, she will be a victim of the no competition thing like Mighty Mouse and she'll also be a victim of having to fight above her natural weight for so long. The FGOAT is unquestionably Nunes, though. Nobody can match wins against Cyborg, Ronda, Meisha, Holly, and Valentina (x2, although I know some people say Valentina won the second one). Plus GDR (x2), Budd, and Pennington. She has a couple of losses, but that's way better than beating up some girls in a newly formed division.

 

[CDJ]

I felt like it was clearly a fight drifting from Reyes to Jones in each round. Even live I felt like it came down to who won 3.

Anyone rewatch three in a vacuum and have an opinion?

I lean Reyes but honestly I can see how the judges cage side would go Jones too.

 

[pistolpete11]

For me there shouldn't be any outrage, and it comes down to probability/luck. I do not believe "there is zero possible justification for that scoring" as it happens all the time in this sport, especially during 3 round fights.

I think everyone watching agreed that there were 3 very obvious rounds in 1, 4, and 5. Based on that and there being no fouls or 10-8 rounds, the only possible scores should be:
48-47 Reyes
48-47 Jones
49-46 Jones

.. and hey, we got there. So based on what happened earlier in the night with these judges, that's a good start.

Now onto Round 2. I think most people (but not all) had the round for Reyes. This is where it gets a bit tricky, but I am going to roughly guess that 80% of people think Reyes won that round.

Now onto Round 3. This one obviously much closer, but I do think a slight majority had it for Reyes. We'll say 60%.

For Reyes to win the fight, he needs both of those to hit. You can argue with either of those percentages, it doesn't really change what I'm trying to say.

Based on those numbers, these are the probabilities for the 3 potential scores:
48-47 Reyes - 48%
48-47 Jones - 44%
49-46 Jones - 8%

So yeah, Jones winning 49-46 is an unlikely outcome but it's still a potential outcome.

Why or how people get to those scores is an important factor, though. 20% and 40% of people can be wrong.

Reyes outstruck Jones in each of those rounds and Jones didn't land any of his take downs. As I mentioned above, Jones was literally running away from Reyes at points, so I can't even buy the pressure/octagon control argument. Definitely not for both rounds, but not even one of those rounds from my memory. I see no way 49-46 is justifiable. I strongly, strongly disagree with 48-47 Jones, too.

Also, according to that handy MMA Decisions website you told me about, 14 media members had it 48-47 for Reyes and 7 had it 48-47 for Reyes. No one had it 49-46 for Jones. Fans might not mean much, but 87.7% had round 2 for Reyes. 85.2% had round 3 for Reyes. That's based on 1700 submissions, so not bad. I don't know how those percentages effect the probability and I know it's not entirely your point, but I'd imagine that bumps the 48-47 for Reyes over 50% which means it's a bad decision. Not a robbery, but a bad decision.

 

[chicagoskycam]

On Shevchenko, I really enjoy watching her fight. She’s so good and similar to this Jones fight, I felt she won the last fight against Amanda.

wouldn’t mind her going back up

 

[chicagoskycam]

Talk about an encyclopedia of MMA knowledge. He might not be as knowledgeable about technique as Cruz, but in terms of history of the sport, is there anyone better than Big John? I also thoroughly enjoyed Josh Thompson on Rogan's podcast. I was tempted to give their podcast a listen but 1) the amount of podcasts and entertainment I am already consuming is overwhelming 2) both being Bellator guys, I imagined their podcast focuses a lot on Bellator which I don't really follow or care about.

I listen to a lot of Rogan's podcasts, MMA or otherwise, but I skip a lot, too. I can't stand Usman, so that was one I easily skipped. He's just so fake. He plays up this tough, gangster thing and then also plays up this humble, respectful martial artist thing. Just be yourself, dude, or at the very least, pick one of the sides of the coin. It's one of the big reasons I don't like Jon Jones either.

He didn’t come like that at all in the podcast. Yeah, I listen to a ton of Rogan regardless of who’s on.

I think these guys are all about the act sometimes