Silverball - That stuff about having to take the title from the champ to become champ, or whatever, comes from boxing. It's never really been the case in MMA, just ask BJ Penn.
This, Edgar took it from Penn in an arguable robbery, then Benson took it from him in a close fight, Forrest took it from Rampage in a close fight too. Pettis despite the big Kick in their first fight took the belt on one move that edged out a round. Thomson took Melendez title in a close fight by UD, Chase Beebee took Wineland's title in the WEC with a close UD. Mike Easton took Chase Beebee's UWC Bantamweight Championship; Sherdog2009 Robbery of the Year, Luke Rockhold took Jacare Souza;s title in Strikeforce in a close fight.
Damn! The fightmetric on UFC.com after the fight had Alex with 71 more strikes for the entire fight. This pic should posted on Brasco's thread. Can't do it with my phone.
if jones didnt land that elbow in the 4th he would have lost.
So true...
I thought it was an amazing fight. Gus was absolutely amazing. His hand speed and general boxing was just a lot better then Jones.I was kind of shocked to see comparatively poor Jones striking looked now that he did not have a reach advantage anymore that was so great.
Still his kicking game looked more then solid and those elbows really saved him.
One of the best fights i ever seen in the Octagon. Such a pleasure to watch.
Fight did wonders for both JBJ and Gus stock in my eyes.
U have to beat the champ to be the champ- is bull shit made up by lying corrupt boxing promoters to cover for rigged fights, this type of judging criteria needs to be stopped in mma along with boxing judges and the 10/9 system, almost everyone I have spoke to or read on line that have experience in martial arts all agree Gus won 3/2. So there's no reason why Gus shouldn't have won a unanimous decision or at worst a majority decision. It sucks cause this how these guys make their money/ supply for their family, these guys on average have about 10 years in their whole career to make money and there is a huge difference between Anderson/lesnar/ jones money then there is for the guys the level below them, jones is with out a doubt top 2 p4p fighters in the world at the moment, and if a rematch happens chances are Gus loses, he had his shot, he grabbed it and it was taken away from him unfairly, that being said I gained more respect for jones after that fight, and cant wait for a rematch
Since all of you guys think that the Champ should not get the benefit of the doubt and that 10-10 rounds are acceptable, that means that the score was 49 - 47 Jones.
Honestly, I had no idea how to score it. The 3rd round was the clincher for me. That round could have gone either way for me. First two for Alex, last two for Jones, third round a toss up, and a pink slip for the idiot that scored it 49 - 46 Jones.
How about score the fight exactly how it unfolds, like a professional?
Agree 100%
That old boxing saying is a neato catch phrase, and that is it. There is no written rule in any AC to this effect.
If a fighter wins a round (or fight), no matter how razor thin the margin is, they should win the round (or fight). Giving the "champ" some sort of unwritten benefit of the doubt is an unfair advantage and silly.
How about score the fight exactly how it unfolds, like a professional?
Agree 100%
That old boxing saying is a neato catch phrase, and that is it. There is no written rule in any AC to this effect.
If a fighter wins a round (or fight), no matter how razor thin the margin is, they should win the round (or fight). Giving the "champ" some sort of unwritten benefit of the doubt is an unfair advantage and silly.
What that statement means more than anything is if there's a close round, it's probably going to the champ. So to be the champ, you have to win convincingly.
Daniel Cormier- 3-2 Jones, very close fight. 2,4,5. Gus had 4 until he got hurt with elbow to end the round.
Gusta by split? Apparently, Luke doesn't understand scoring. Split decision doesn't mean a fighter won 3 rounds and lost 2. It means the judges disagreed on who they scored to be the winner of the fight.
I have it exactly like Cormier did.
What are you talking about? He's saying that he thought Gus was going to win a split decision...
"Gusta by split" means he thinks the fight was a split decision, which is impossible. It's a logical fallacy, if you understand the scoring system predicting a win by split decision is to say that you're predicting that one judge will score it wrong and 2 will score it right. I immediately saw that and it raised my eyebrow too that rock hold doesn't understand the scoring system, but a lot of fans don't either. Tons of times you'll hear "oh man he at least deserved a split decision" it's impossible to deserve a split decision, one fighter always wins, no matter by how tiny of a margin.
split decisions arnt always when a judge scoressm it wrong, it can happen when a fight could go either way.
Jody - Since all of you guys think that the Champ should not get the benefit of the doubt and that 10-10 rounds are acceptable, that means that the score was 49 - 47 Jones.
Honestly, I had no idea how to score it. The 3rd round was the clincher for me. That round could have gone either way for me. First two for Alex, last two for Jones, third round a toss up, and a pink slip for the idiot that scored it 49 - 46 Jones.
JOnes clearly lost the fourth round, he even got taken down in that round
Jones was only taken down once in the first. In the fourth it was close to a td but he never finished it. As for the post above yours calling round 3 a draw is crazy. Gusta going his range that round and lit Jones up
How about score the fight exactly how it unfolds, like a professional?
Agree 100%
That old boxing saying is a neato catch phrase, and that is it. There is no written rule in any AC to this effect.
If a fighter wins a round (or fight), no matter how razor thin the margin is, they should win the round (or fight). Giving the "champ" some sort of unwritten benefit of the doubt is an unfair advantage and silly.
What that statement means more than anything is if there's a close round, it's probably going to the champ. So to be the champ, you have to win convincingly.
I get it. I just don't agree with it. If a round is so close you can't say who won, then the round should be a draw. I don't think any fighter should get the nod from the judges based on past fights or accomplishments.
I don't think the the judges do this anyway, since it is not an actual rule -- it's just a fun catchphrase that fans and fighters like to repeat.
