View Full Version : Better striker, Jones or Machida?


the traveler
11-25-2011, 11:01 AM
There's this belief going around on some sites that Machida is so much better than jones technically. Striking comes to the discussion and most people I've seen are of the opinion that Machida's striking is light years better. But, I'm not so sure.

Statistics show that Jones gets hit less than Machida(Bones only gets hit with 33 percent of strikes people throw at him) and has taken literally little to no damage striking. I don't believe his offensive striking is as good as Machida's yet, but a lot of his striking is done for defensive purposes. We saw how Shogun was able to break through Machida's striking game. However, when Shogun faced Jones he was only able to land 11 strikes in 3 rounds.

Without being a *****, actually take time and think about who has the better striking.

I'd have to go with Jones because I don't ever see anyone doing any damage to him striking. He can outpoint anyone striking.

Harry Balls
11-25-2011, 11:20 AM
machida.
People are too high on jones. It's mostly his athleticism and physical abilities that makes him so awkward to fight.
Hes not an elite striker in my opinion. But hes a very good striker for being a wrestler.

With that said, Jones will beat machida easily. It's really bad style matchup for machida.

Jones don't take dmg because he can stay at such an absurd range. It's like if Williams actually knew how to fight to his height at ww.

the traveler
11-25-2011, 11:25 AM
The problem is that people seem to want to detach his physical attributes when discussing him as a fighter. It's almost like he'll never get credit for anything he does because of it. "Oh, he has long arms so he's really not that good just physical." That doesn't make sense. In a sport that requires sharp timing and knowledge and in a sport where you're going against people that have been training for decades, you can't just get by just because you have long arms and are tall.

His physicality is part of who he is as a fighter. You can't take it away from him and try to make impartial judgements on him.

Jones has never taken any damage striking yet people act as if he's a ****ty striker. I don't get it.

Harry Balls
11-25-2011, 02:12 PM
It's not only about his reach. I'm saying it is a large factor combined with being probably the best athlete in the division (in the ufc, yoel romero is still a better athlete).

His punching technique is somewhat mediocre in my opinion. But so is most of mmafighters.

The thing with him being so effective is due to people not wanting to get close and clinch because he will just manhandle them and throw them to the ground.
For example, if he fought Anderson Silva i have no doubt jon jones murders him. But in a striking match with no takedowns i would heavily favor silva.

Also in my world, being called a worse striker than machida =/= being a ****ty striker. Be less dramatic.

F l i c k e r
11-25-2011, 03:10 PM
More efficient: Machida

More versatile: Jones

Most damage causing: Jones


So it depends on what you think defines great striking. Efficiency doesn't always mean great damage or many moves. While causing a **** load of damage and being able to do many things doesn't mean your always efficient.

-Swizzy-
11-25-2011, 03:18 PM
Jones has some unique skills, but those skills without his over baring size(for LHW) and athleticism would not work. Jones needs his height, length and size to get away with all the things that he does.

We'll only truely know what he is capable of when he starts fighting guys his own size at hw.

Machida on the other hand actually has striking skills and its not based on his athleticism.

Marchegiano
11-25-2011, 03:46 PM
I agree with Kswizzy. Jone appears better than he actually is due to making up for gaps in skill with raw traits like strength and constitution. Will Machida cause any more trouble for Jones then anyone else has? I doubt it. Is Jones a high skilled athlete? Nope, he's a got excellent genes to make up for it. The only thing I'm really impressed skill wise with Jonny is his greco-roman or upper-body take downs. They do rely on his strength as much as anything else he does, but the movements are fluid and not without text book structure.

Marchegiano
11-25-2011, 03:51 PM
More efficient: Machida

More versatile: Jones

Most damage causing: Jones


So it depends on what you think defines great striking. Efficiency doesn't always mean great damage or many moves. While causing a **** load of damage and being able to do many things doesn't mean your always efficient.

For the sake of argument. Does skill not refer to refinement? I agree Bones is effective, but hardly refined. He's very raw. A more refined Jones would beat our present one. He does get away with mistakes by being long and strong....and down to get the friction on.

Boxingtech718v2
11-25-2011, 05:09 PM
I think Machida is overrated as a striker his one trick is to be elusive and backpedal until the opponent overreaches then he counters. He can't do that against Jones so he will most likely get pwned. Jones is pretty raw but already his striking is at a pretty high level. Once he starts ingraining it into his skill st and it becomes second nature he will be almost unbeatable. I would love to see a hulked up HW Jones fighting at HW though against JDS.

F l i c k e r
11-25-2011, 06:04 PM
For the sake of argument. Does skill not refer to refinement? I agree Bones is effective, but hardly refined. He's very raw. A more refined Jones would beat our present one. He does get away with mistakes by being long and strong....and down to get the friction on.


Well, true. I think it's subjective really.

Machida is very polished and although he can't do a billion things, he gets the job done while take very little damage.

Jones on the other hand does so much that he sometimes picks the wrong shot or makes a mistake but when/if it lands, someone is going down.

I prefer a pin-point style like Machida's but can't rely deny the usefulness of a versatile offense like Jones'.

elgranluchadore
11-25-2011, 08:46 PM
im picking machida

photomane
11-25-2011, 10:50 PM
There's this belief going around on some sites that Machida is so much better than jones technically. Striking comes to the discussion and most people I've seen are of the opinion that Machida's striking is light years better. But, I'm not so sure.

Statistics show that Jones gets hit less than Machida(Bones only gets hit with 33 percent of strikes people throw at him) and has taken literally little to no damage striking. I don't believe his offensive striking is as good as Machida's yet, but a lot of his striking is done for defensive purposes. We saw how Shogun was able to break through Machida's striking game. However, when Shogun faced Jones he was only able to land 11 strikes in 3 rounds.

Without being a *****, actually take time and think about who has the better striking.

I'd have to go with Jones because I don't ever see anyone doing any damage to him striking. He can outpoint anyone striking.

Machida is gonna expose Jones bad!
http://h-3.abload.de/img/machida_coutureicol.gif (http://www.mma-core.com/gifs/GifDetails.aspx?gid=10001833&tid=100)

Someone88
11-26-2011, 12:11 AM
I think Machida is overrated as a striker his one trick is to be elusive and backpedal until the opponent overreaches then he counters. He can't do that against Jones so he will most likely get pwned. Jones is pretty raw but already his striking is at a pretty high level. Once he starts ingraining it into his skill st and it becomes second nature he will be almost unbeatable. I would love to see a hulked up HW Jones fighting at HW though against JDS.

Just like Jones Dos Santos is a phenom as well, he only started training when he was 20-21 and he is already the best heavyweight in MMA. A fight between them would be great I think Dos Santos would win

Virgil Caine
11-26-2011, 12:28 AM
Machida is clearly the more technically proficient striker, by a lot. But Jones is a phenomenal athlete and a physically imposing fighter. His reach too presents a lot of problems for his opponents. He'll be a difficult nut for Machida to attempt to crack. I think Jones is a big favorite in this fight. But, you never know what kind of looks Machida might give him. For one thing, Machida is, it would seem, entering the fight in more or less his physical prime and as a guy who has not taken too much punishment in his career (i.e. unlike Shogun or Rampage), so while I do think he's in for a tough outing, we can expect him to show up in good form, which should only add to the intrigue of this fight.

the traveler
11-26-2011, 10:48 AM
Jones has some unique skills, but those skills without his over baring size(for LHW) and athleticism would not work. Jones needs his height, length and size to get away with all the things that he does.

We'll only truely know what he is capable of when he starts fighting guys his own size at hw.

Machida on the other hand actually has striking skills and its not based on his athleticism.

You honestly can't believe this is true. You guys honestly think that all you need is athletic talent to outstrike guys like Page and Shogun, guys that have been practicing striking arts for decades?

Bones gets no credit. His athletic talent is only a foundation, he would not be where he is now as far as being able to strike with people if he did not have the skills necessary to build on that foundation.


Also, why do people like to remove his physical attributes when discussing him as a striker? Ok, it's cool to want to be a hater and all, but does that **** really help you in a fight? Do you go into a fight saying, oh, Jones isn't a great striker that he only has athletic talents and expect that to somehow make you outstrike him?

His physical talents cannot be seperated from his striking because it's part of it. Having longer reach, being really athletic, whatever the **** excuse you want to use to not give dude credit, they still exist and they still pose problems to fighters. No one has touched this kid in 15 fights.

the traveler
11-26-2011, 10:56 AM
For the sake of argument. Does skill not refer to refinement? I agree Bones is effective, but hardly refined. He's very raw. A more refined Jones would beat our present one. He does get away with mistakes by being long and strong....and down to get the friction on.

Effectiveness should be the only determining factor of skill. Skill is your ability to do something. When it comes to oustriking opponents, Jones does this better than even Machida. Machida has been kod before and has been hit way more than Jones. Take aside your gay, nostalgic notions of striking and rate effectiveness, which is all that matters in the end. It's clear as day that Jones is more effective as a striker than Machida.

Boxingtech718v2
11-26-2011, 02:25 PM
Effectiveness should be the only determining factor of skill. Skill is your ability to do something. When it comes to oustriking opponents, Jones does this better than even Machida. Machida has been kod before and has been hit way more than Jones. Take aside your gay, nostalgic notions of striking and rate effectiveness, which is all that matters in the end. It's clear as day that Jones is more effective as a striker than Machida.

This right here I'm certain that Jones will use his striking to abuse Machida and end the fight. Moving backwards against Jones will get Machida KTFO. But the scenario I see happening though is Jones taking Machida down and GnP for the win.

Ether
11-26-2011, 02:50 PM
Jones is a HW already, sorry it's true.

He will overpower and dominate all these LHWs like nothing.

Virgil Caine
11-27-2011, 12:48 AM
Effectiveness should be the only determining factor of skill. Skill is your ability to do something. When it comes to oustriking opponents, Jones does this better than even Machida. Machida has been kod before and has been hit way more than Jones. Take aside your gay, nostalgic notions of striking and rate effectiveness, which is all that matters in the end. It's clear as day that Jones is more effective as a striker than Machida.

Not true at all.

There are a variety of factors. Speed. Reach. Power. Technical skill. Etc.

JibbaJabber
11-27-2011, 12:51 AM
thread starter!?... my balls.. your jaws.. :crying::crying::crying::crying:

Marchegiano
11-27-2011, 07:43 AM
Effectiveness should be the only determining factor of skill. Skill is your ability to do something. When it comes to oustriking opponents, Jones does this better than even Machida. Machida has been kod before and has been hit way more than Jones. Take aside your gay, nostalgic notions of striking and rate effectiveness, which is all that matters in the end. It's clear as day that Jones is more effective as a striker than Machida.

I understand what your saying, and understood this point of view before I posted. Homie, my favorite fighter is the man in that pic. possibly the epitome of athletics over skill. We don't mean to say what he's doing is easy. I dunno how else to word it other than refinement, and that didn't land for you. Basically, sign up for a gym. Watch raw people hit a heavy bag and watch vets hit it. a 300lb raw untrained no skill juice head's gonna likely move the bag more than your 110 sixteen-year-old girl who has been in the gym since she was six. However, p4p I bet you'd be much more impressed with the chick's skill than the juice-head's raw strength. Jon Jones is obviously very raw and very natural.

Where the hell's that coming from? I don't care if you wanna insult me, but do you seriously think the old way of thinking about striking has much to do with "skill" you silly, silly lad. read a book.

the traveler
11-27-2011, 01:48 PM
Not true at all.

There are a variety of factors. Speed. Reach. Power. Technical skill. Etc.

What's the purpose, though? The purpose is to outstrike, to win. Why judge single categories when the outcome is what is desired? The outcome is the most important thing to look at.

Let's say you got a guy with a lot of speed, power and technical skill but then you got another guy with just a lot of power and not that much speed.
The first guy prob has a couple of losses on his record, but showcases a wide variety of striking categories while the second guy is blowing people away with one shot kos and only power and has never lost.

At the end of the day, if you were to face either opponent, who would you honestly say would be the harder striker to beat?

the traveler
11-27-2011, 02:02 PM
I understand what your saying, and understood this point of view before I posted. Homie, my favorite fighter is the man in that pic. possibly the epitome of athletics over skill. .

I don't get this. Rocky beat everyone he faced. He was skilled at beating *****z asses with his hands. Isn't that what boxing is, beating people up with your hands. So as far as boxing skill, the dude had it. What the hell is athletics over skill? Once again, skill is your ability to do something. If someone got a lot of power and is strong and part of that helps them win, you don't discount their skill at what they're doing by bringing up their athletic talent.

[B]We don't mean to say what he's doing is easy. I dunno how else to word it other than refinement, and that didn't land for you.
It doesn't land with me, because you can be refined as you want. If you can't do what the other person can do, you aren't as skilled, period. You might be more refined, but refinement alone will not allow you to win if you don't have the skill to do so.

Basically, sign up for a gym. Watch raw people hit a heavy bag and watch vets hit it. a 300lb raw untrained no skill juice head's gonna likely move the bag more than your 110 sixteen-year-old girl who has been in the gym since she was six.

The no skilled juice head is going to move the bag more. Ok, so let's say the purpose of the excercise is to move the bag. Who then would you say is more skilled at moving the bag? P4P is an argument with no basis in reality. P4p is for people who like to deal in fantasy and hypotheticals rather than reality.

$BloodyNate$
11-27-2011, 06:21 PM
Jon Jones just meshes everything into mma perfectly like GSP so hes damn hard to beat. Machida adapts karate perfectly but never thought of him as some sick striker because i think any boxer or kickboxer would smash him in a squared ring where hed get cut off where he has perfect footwork in a octagon. Jon jones uses his size and reach perfectly tho. If machida was the same size he could be better but he isnt, Its jones who will leg kick the ***** outta him and eventually follow it with a straight shot that puts him to sleep.

Marchegiano
11-27-2011, 09:57 PM
I don't get this. Rocky beat everyone he faced. He was skilled at beating *****z asses with his hands. Isn't that what boxing is, beating people up with your hands. So as far as boxing skill, the dude had it. What the hell is athletics over skill? Once again, skill is your ability to do something. If someone got a lot of power and is strong and part of that helps them win, you don't discount their skill at what they're doing by bringing up their athletic talent.


It doesn't land with me, because you can be refined as you want. If you can't do what the other person can do, you aren't as skilled, period. You might be more refined, but refinement alone will not allow you to win if you don't have the skill to do so.



The no skilled juice head is going to move the bag more. Ok, so let's say the purpose of the excercise is to move the bag. Who then would you say is more skilled at moving the bag? P4P is an argument with no basis in reality. P4p is for people who like to deal in
fantasy and hypotheticals rather than reality.

well, ok but lets say it like this if you weight 300lbs and I weigh 100lbs. If you simply fall into me with a closed fist your generating 300lbs+ gravity into however many square inches your hand is. If I were to do the same my answer would only be 100lbs. Now if I leap into the punches my punches I can generate more power and level the field, but that would be an improvement on my means to achieve the desired. At 100lbs there is no way for me to simply fall forward and create equal force. You can all it whatever you like, but you'd have to be pretty stupid to not see there is something a bit more special in someone simply weighing 100lbs and generating force like 300lber. Equally special is someone who's got less reach and makes up for it with speed and so on. There is a certain level everyone starts at, but it isn't the same for everyone. How much you've improved on this natural level is what is meant by skill, or refinement. Bones is a natural fighter, that doesn't make him skilled. I really can't think of a more basic way of saying it, and i'm starting to get the impression your more here to argue then discuss to be honest. I used to get upset when folks said Rocco's got no skill. It seems like they're saying it's easy to be a Marciano. Not at all, but Rocky worked mostly on hitting hard and lasting. In those specific categories he's pretty much king, but how the hell are you gonna rate his head movement, speed, blocking over Archie Moore? So Archie has three boxing skills over Marciano's two. Who's the more skilled boxer? Simple Archie's more skilled because he's got more tools. By your own "effectiveness" rule Archie is more skilled. The purpose of the fight is to win yeah, but the purpose of a block is to stop a blow. The purpose in Marciano's punches was to knock out. The purpose behind Archie's was to disorientate. If you watch that fight and count how many times Rocky tried to do something and failed while Archie succeeded it's ridiculous how much more skilled Archie really is. Same for Jon. Count his tiny failures. Hell, he's so raw and new to the game his one loss was due to a lack of understanding of the rules mate.

Virgil Caine
11-28-2011, 12:00 AM
What's the purpose, though? The purpose is to outstrike, to win. Why judge single categories when the outcome is what is desired? The outcome is the most important thing to look at.

Let's say you got a guy with a lot of speed, power and technical skill but then you got another guy with just a lot of power and not that much speed.
The first guy prob has a couple of losses on his record, but showcases a wide variety of striking categories while the second guy is blowing people away with one shot kos and only power and has never lost.

At the end of the day, if you were to face either opponent, who would you honestly say would be the harder striker to beat?

You just sound very very ignorant, quite frankly.

The point, as far as I tell, that this all stems from is people seeking to comment on the different attributes of Jon Jone's striking game, and saying that he is an athletic guy who uses his size and, despite not being the most technically sound, or alternatively not going about things completely in a by-the-book way and instead employing unorthodox striking, gets the job done. You are trying to make it into an argument over semantics, but actually people are just commenting about his particular striking style.

Virgil Caine
11-28-2011, 12:02 AM
And where it concerns the little argument, have you ever heard of Pernel Whitaker? Willie Pepp? For that matter, Floyd Mayweather Jr.?

the traveler
12-12-2011, 11:43 AM
honestly, I stopped replying to this thread and posting on this board because I got bored with arguing with you idiots. Bones just dropped Machida in an exchange and actually landed more strikes...per fight metric, than Machida.

I'm sure you dumbass are still somewhere arguing about how Machida and Shogun are still the better strikers.

the traveler
12-12-2011, 11:46 AM
anyone just reading this thread now, I made this thread way before the fight. I argued that Jones was the better striker. Machida has now been dropped by Jones and Shogun. Jones has yet to leave his feet from strikes yet. Go kill yourselves.

Harry Balls
12-12-2011, 12:00 PM
so despite losing the striking for 1.5 rounds before scoring a takedown and brutal GNP (which left Machida dazed and confused), you still come to the conclusion that Jones is the better pure striker?

Result orientation at it's finest.

Jones proved hes the better mma-fighter, not the better striker.

the traveler
12-12-2011, 12:04 PM
so despite losing the striking for 1.5 rounds before scoring a takedown and brutal GNP (which left Machida dazed and confused), you still come to the conclusion that Jones is the better pure striker?

Result orientation at it's finest.

Jones proved hes the better mma-fighter, not the better striker.

Man, give me a break with the excuses, you dumb****s. So, because he got hit with one elbow he suddenly forgot how to strike?

Check fightmetric. Jones landed the same amount of strikes that Machida landed in the 1st round. The problem is that you all are lack knowledge and are too short sighted. With Machida you have to be patient because he runs all the time and runs in and out with flurries. Jones was patient the whole fight. Machida was the aggressor so it seems like he was winning by pace, but in actuality he wasn't doing much of anything.

Machida landed maybe one good punch on Jones in the ENTIRE fight, and that was the flurry that sent jones back. Jones landed the cleaner, more significant shots in the fight. He had a solid overhand right before taking MAchida down and out timed, out countered Machida on the knockdown.

It's funny when they both squared off, swinging at the same time, it was jones timing and accuracy that prevailed.

the traveler
12-12-2011, 12:12 PM
Result orientation at it's finest.

Jones proved hes the better mma-fighter, not the better striker.

So the guy that landed the most significant strike in a striking contest that he was actually winning based on fight metric is not the better striker?

Machida never once made jones fall from his strikes. Machida faceplanted from a jones strike. I was specifically waiting till after the fight to bump this thread because I knew jones would outstrike MAchida and that at the same time you retards would argue that Machida is still the better striker.

Fight metric:

rd 1: Jones 8 of 27
Machida 8 of 25

rd 2 Jones 16 of 26
Machida 5 of 13

http://hosteddb.fightmetric.com/fights/index/3678

Check for yourself, but I don't expect your brain to be able to process the information and make a rational judgement from it. You all lack the ability to reason.

Harry Balls
12-12-2011, 12:14 PM
Man, give me a break with the excuses, you dumb****s. So, because he got hit with one elbow he suddenly forgot how to strike?
1) Giving into throwing insults only make you look like a moron.

2) You don't think getting dazed and seemingly discouraged effects how you fight? Is this even possible to rationalize?

Check fightmetric.
How about you check the fight.

Jones landed the same amount of strikes that Machida landed in the 1st round. The problem is that you all are lack knowledge and are too short sighted. With Machida you have to be patient because he runs all the time and runs in and out with flurries. Jones was patient the whole fight. Machida was the aggressor so it seems like he was winning by pace, but in actuality he wasn't doing much of anything.
1) i would happily debate you on most any topic regarding mma. I'm confident in my ability to analyze this sport.

2) How about clean effective strikes? Were they equally significant?
This is not like amateur boxing where you potshot your way to win points.

3) Machida was NOT the aggressor, what are you talking about?

Machida landed maybe one good punch on Jones in the ENTIRE fight, and that was the flurry that sent jones back. Jones landed the cleaner, more significant shots in the fight. He had a solid overhand right before taking MAchida down and out timed, out countered Machida on the knockdown.
Machida landed more, and cleaner punches throughout the fight until he got taken down mid round 2.

It's funny when they both squared off, swinging at the same time, it was jones timing and accuracy that prevailed.
Against a hurt, severely cut and discouraged (almost desperate) fighter.

Did that prove him to be a better striker, despite him losing almost every exchange in the fight, and the deciding factor was his gnp? Oh ok, gotcha.

the traveler
12-12-2011, 12:26 PM
Which exchanges did he lose? Machida landed a total of 13 strikes in the fight. One of them stunned jones, the others had no affective on jones. Jones overhand right and the knockdown were more affective shots than anything Machida landed in the fight.


Machida was the aggressor. Though he remained elusive he rushed in with several flurries. Also, fightmetric is good to post because it is an unbiased calculation of strikes landed in the fight. If you want to debate about strikes in the fight, then fightmetric is a good source rather than biased fans such as yourself. Also, you keep saying that he was landing the better strikes, ye

Almost desperate fighter? According to you, Machida was winning the fight so how was he almost desperate after being on the ground for less than 2 minutes? Also, the knockdown exchange was about timing. Machida getting hit with one elbow did not throw him off so badly that he had no timing at all in the exchange. Machida was up and dancing around after being on the ground.

the traveler
12-12-2011, 12:28 PM
How about you check the fight.




Translation: The facts don't back up what I say so I'll say "watch the fight" so I can make up my own. gotcha

the traveler
12-12-2011, 12:33 PM
also, the gnp was not the decisive factor in the fight as Machida was standing after it occured. Jones' outstriking Machida in the final sequence was what caused the finishing move.

Nice try, though. I didn't expect anymore from you idiots.

Harry Balls
12-12-2011, 12:37 PM
Which exchanges did he lose? Machida landed a total of 13 strikes in the fight. One of them stunned jones, the others had no affective on jones. Jones overhand right and the knockdown were more affective shots than anything Machida landed in the fight.
How about you go watch the fight? It seems like you rely on arbitrary numbers from fight metric.

Why do you feel every major site scored the first round for Machida?

The knockdown were obviously the best shot of the fight. I explained why i feel that shot didn't prove hes a better striker than Machida.
The overhand right connected 10 seconds prior to the takedown were NOT the second best attack of the fight. Maybe it felt like that if you base everything on how loud Joe rogan screams.


Machida was the aggressor. Though he remained elusive he rushed in with several flurries. Also, fightmetric is good to post because it is an unbiased calculation of strikes landed in the fight. If you want to debate about strikes in the fight, then fightmetric is a good source rather than biased fans such as yourself. Also, you keep saying that he was landing the better strikes, ye
No, Machida was the counterpuncher. He exploded in attacks when he reacted to Jones.
He was not the aggressor, and if you think thats how that criteria is judged, maybe you should re-educate yourself before scoring fights.

If this was an amateur boxing match, amount of strikes counts. As it is, if both land an equal amount of punches, they clear and significant punches scores higher. This must be intuitive surely?

Fight metric counts grazing blows. But they do not score the same as a clean punch.

Almost desperate fighter? According to you, Machida was winning the fight so how was he almost desperate after being on the ground for less than 2 minutes?
Machida for sure was not winning the second round after being brutalized on the ground. He was visibly hurt, and hes mentioned he has little recollection of the fight events post the takedown.

He was dazed. He was confused.

Also, the knockdown exchange was about timing. Machida getting hit with one elbow did not throw him off so badly that he had no timing at all in the exchange. Machida was up and dancing around after being on the ground.
Against a dazed fighter. Yeah, and how does that prove Jones to be the better striker?

I see. Jones couldn't manage to time Machida for the entire fight, but he suddenly solved the riddle after he took him down and hurt him. Yeah i agree.

Boxingtech718v2
12-12-2011, 12:41 PM
I have to agree Jones proved he is the better all around fighter AND striker.

He checked Macida's chin with that crisp short right HOOK when Machida was attempting a wide overhand left and dropped him before the choke.

The guillotine decapitated the dragon. Now Bones is the dragonslayer and haters gonna hate.

Virgil Caine
12-12-2011, 01:47 PM
so despite losing the striking for 1.5 rounds before scoring a takedown and brutal GNP (which left Machida dazed and confused), you still come to the conclusion that Jones is the better pure striker?

Result orientation at it's finest.

Jones proved hes the better mma-fighter, not the better striker.

Yeah, what he said pretty much (especially the bold part).

And that isn't to take anything away from Jones, either. He is a very talented fighter and a very good athlete.

-Swizzy-
12-12-2011, 01:54 PM
honestly, I stopped replying to this thread and posting on this board because I got bored with arguing with you idiots. Bones just dropped Machida in an exchange and actually landed more strikes...per fight metric, than Machida.

I'm sure you dumbass are still somewhere arguing about how Machida and Shogun are still the better strikers.

go ask Jones if he thinks he's a better striker than Machida

Even he would laugh at your post.

Virgil Caine
12-12-2011, 02:01 PM
Seriously, this sh.it is not rocket science.

Machida's game is striking.

He is a very good striker.

He is also a shotokan stylist, the concentration of which is basically counter striking. Shotokan is also considered to be the most effective school of karate, for the most part.

Machida was able to show his class in spots during the fight, though especially during the first 1.5-2 rounds, before he was overwhelmed and overcome.

Technically speaking, Machida is obviously the superior striking, although there is a lot of things which go in to an MMA fight, indeed there are a lot of things which go into the striking aspects of an MMA fight, besides pure striking. One example is that takedowns change the dynamics of the fight itself.

This conversation is slightly boring, so let me just give an example. There are many examples available, but for instance, just have a look at a fight like Wanderlei Silva-Dan Henderson 2. Henderson knocked Wanderlei out. So Henderson is clearly the better striker. Right? Not really. Henderson used his wrestling a lot in that fight, simply in order to set up strikes. And, I am one of Hendo's biggest fans, I love the guy. But this is sort of thing just goes with the dynamics of the sport.

N!GGALAS CAGE
12-12-2011, 07:48 PM
honestly, I stopped replying to this thread and posting on this board because I got bored with arguing with you idiots. Bones just dropped Machida in an exchange and actually landed more strikes...per fight metric, than Machida.

I'm sure you dumbass are still somewhere arguing about how Machida and Shogun are still the better strikers.

So we're all idiots even though almost everyone on this board disagrees with your opinion in this thread?

If Jones didn't have wrestling skills or grappling skills in general, he would have lost the fight. You're acting like he beat Machida with strikes alone. His leg leg kicks were sloppy and he looked clumsy when they exchange punches.

That elbow was awesome, but he had to take him down to be in that position. He did stagger Machida who already couldn't see straight after being cut, got him in a clinch and finished him with a guillotine.

Machida proved he was the better striker in the 1st round, but this is MMA not boxing or K-1. Jones proved he was the better mixed martial artist and that's really all that matters at the end of the day, so why as that so hard for you to accept?

Then again, you're an extremely bias Jones fan who will throw an online tantrum whenever someone doesn't wanna suck his balls as hard as you do.

Marshall89
12-13-2011, 12:03 AM
Machida all day. Rogan said he's been training in Karate since the age on 3 lol. Whereas Bones has always been a wrestler n a grappler n dat. Bones has been striking since he was what 19?
You saw on Saturday who has the better striking anyway, Jones just has the better reach...

the traveler
12-13-2011, 11:12 AM
So we're all idiots even though almost everyone on this board disagrees with your opinion in this thread?

If Jones didn't have wrestling skills or grappling skills in general, he would have lost the fight. You're acting like he beat Machida with strikes alone. His leg leg kicks were sloppy and he looked clumsy when they exchange punches.

That elbow was awesome, but he had to take him down to be in that position. He did stagger Machida who already couldn't see straight after being cut, got him in a clinch and finished him with a guillotine.

Machida proved he was the better striker in the 1st round, but this is MMA not boxing or K-1. Jones proved he was the better mixed martial artist and that's really all that matters at the end of the day, so why as that so hard for you to accept?

Then again, you're an extremely bias Jones fan who will throw an online tantrum whenever someone doesn't wanna suck his balls as hard as you do.

Don't agree. For one, Machida only landed one significant punch the entire fight. In the second round, Jones won both striking exchanges. He hit Machida with a solid overhand right before taking Machida down, and he won the final exchange in which Machida was floored.

Also, the fact is that Jones floored Machida with strikes. Everything else is your perception. Some people would like to discredit Jones knocking down Machida as just a result of gnp, but I think that's foolish and shortsighted. For one, if you look at Machida after he got up, he was moving around as well as he did before being taken down.

Infact, if you look at the knockdown, Machida threw that left hook with as much power and speed as he threw the right hook in the exchange that he lost to Jones before being taken down.


So, in the only two exchanges that they had in the entire fight, in which both swung at close to the same time, Jones outstruck Machida.

Bones outstruck Machida when it counted and proved that he was the better striker. Of course, you can't expect idiots that are driven by hate, to be able to comprehend what the hell happened, but there you have it.

the traveler
12-13-2011, 11:18 AM
Seriously, this sh.it is not rocket science.

Machida's game is striking.

He is a very good striker.

He is also a shotokan stylist, the concentration of which is basically counter striking. Shotokan is also considered to be the most effective school of karate, for the most part.

Machida was able to show his class in spots during the fight, though especially during the first 1.5-2 rounds, before he was overwhelmed and overcome.

Technically speaking, Machida is obviously the superior striking, although there is a lot of things which go in to an MMA fight, indeed there are a lot of things which go into the striking aspects of an MMA fight, besides pure striking. One example is that takedowns change the dynamics of the fight itself.

This conversation is slightly boring, so let me just give an example. There are many examples available, but for instance, just have a look at a fight like Wanderlei Silva-Dan Henderson 2. Henderson knocked Wanderlei out. So Henderson is clearly the better striker. Right? Not really. Henderson used his wrestling a lot in that fight, simply in order to set up strikes. And, I am one of Hendo's biggest fans, I love the guy. But this is sort of thing just goes with the dynamics of the sport.

How is his striking game better when he was the one that was floored with strikes? You said it yourself, it's not rocket science. The problem is that for so long people have wanted to not believe in Jones skills, so much so that it has clouded your thinking. I can understand if Machida was stumbling and was so hurt after being on the groudn that he could barely punch, but it's undeniable that he threw that left hook that was countered by Jones with the same force as he looked to have thrown his other strikes in the fight.

Jones just out timed machida and outsmarted him. Whether you choose to accept that is up to you. One thing is for sure, though, you all will continue to doubt jones and he'll continue proving you wrong, only for you to continue doubting him by using excuses to discredit his accomplishments. Perhaps the day will come when you guys finally wake up and exit the fantasy world you live in and join reality.


Reality is that jones has outstruck Machida, Shogun and Rampage per fightmetric and every other organization that calculates strikes. Excuses are what you create to try to formulate your own reality.

Wake up from your fantasy world.

Machida did nothing but somewhat control the pace of the fight.

the traveler
12-13-2011, 11:25 AM
You want to talk about timing, these are the only two exchanges they had in the fight. Jones won both of them. Also, his timing was so precise on the knockdown that he was able to block Machida's left hook in the second pic after landing a left of his own. Notice how he ducked his head out of Machidas line of fire in the first pic, also. Continue to hate and make excuses. Keep trying to distance yourself from the truth and reality.


http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/2050/vlcsnap2011121113h53m48.png


http://i977.photobucket.com/albums/ae260/AceNguyen1988/UFC140MachidavsJones10thDec2011HDTVx264-SirPaul21042722-16-07.jpg

Virgil Caine
12-13-2011, 11:28 AM
****ing fanboys.

It is clear that you are simply incredibly biased and not a person who is engageable in any sort of debate or discussion. So, I will say good day to you and instead talk to people who are.

the traveler
12-13-2011, 11:33 AM
Dude, how am I biased? I admit I'm a huge Jones fan, but the facts are there man. Jones floored Machida with a strike. Machida never really hurt jones. You guys seem like more so the biased ones with the way you're trying so hard to discredit jones knockdown, acting as if Machida was a walking corpse after being elbowed on the ground.

It's sad and silly you all try to discredit everythinng jones does. And, it's also the idiots of you that are so much pawns that you don't try and think for yourselves but rather listen to the haters as if their word is true.

Stop being so scared. It's ok to admit that Jones might have some skills.

For Christ sakes, the dude has been striking for 4 years and just floored a dude that has been training striking for nearly 30 years. Show some respect.

the traveler
12-13-2011, 11:39 AM
****ing fanboys.

It is clear that you are simply incredibly biased and not a person who is engageable in any sort of debate or discussion. So, I will say good day to you and instead talk to people who are.

Dude, I understand this aint what you want to hear. You want to hear people say jones has no skills and only wins because of reach. That's what you haters want to believe to make you feel better. I understand that reality hurts.

Virgil Caine
12-13-2011, 11:46 AM
Just keep trying. I think you will convert everyone in no time.

The only biased one is you, and it is so blatant that it is not even funny. Most people are just presenting their views on a fight.

the traveler
12-13-2011, 11:50 AM
I'm not out to convert people. Most people like to create their own, reality, like you all do with your use of excuses. Everyone is free to believe what they want. I'm just going by the facts. Facts show that not only did Jones land more strikes than Machida and at a higher percentage than Machida, he also had the only knockdown from strikes in the fight. This is hardly something I made up. Hardly something that is a product of bias or delusion. What is a product of delusion is the attempts you all have made to try and skew the facts.

You can barely attempt to explain to me how I am wrong here without resorting to such tactics.

Virgil Caine
12-13-2011, 11:58 AM
You are certainly entitled to your own opinions. You are not however entitled to your own "facts."

But rather than going around in circles, let me just suggest to you that you re-read some of the other posts in this thread, as I have explained my positions with the respects to the dynamics of striking in MMA, and why I, and some others, consider a guy like Machida to be a more technically proficient striker. I'm not interested with this back and forth bickering. You already admitted that you are biased, which is obvious from your posts anyway.

-Swizzy-
12-13-2011, 01:23 PM
who cares about the punch stats. Jones' strikes were nothing. Just weak pot shots.

As far as I'm concerned, this was a 9 minute fight and 7 of those minutes belonged to Machida.

Marshall89
12-13-2011, 01:49 PM
Dude, I understand this aint what you want to hear. You want to hear people say jones has no skills and only wins because of reach. That's what you haters want to believe to make you feel better. I understand that reality hurts.

Bruv, i'm faaar from being a Jones hater, and i'm telling yu Machida is a much better striker than Jones, ask anyone that knows anything about MMA, ask Rampage, ask Bones himself, ask any UFC fighter...
Tem pics you pulled up, Machida was obviously wary of Jones' striking just because of the power andspeed he gets behind them elbows, And if Machida was able to land as flush as Jones was do yu really think Jones would stay standing like Machida was? He already wobbled him n never connected as flush as Jones eh.... Bones never wobbled Lyoto in the slightest...
Noone is saying Bones has no skills and only wins because of reach you muppet, but if Bones and Machida were the same size with the same reach, Machida would knock Jones the f*** out if he could connect properly. Machida's been training in karate and striking since the age of 3, that tells you all you need to know bruv.

Now i probably understand why Jones' fanboys like you make the 'haters' switch.
Right now with your bulls*** talk you r turning more heads against Bones. I never will but i can see what the 'Haters' mean now when they say his fans make them switch. You can't get a standard conversation out of you, you just talk s*** fam.

the traveler
12-13-2011, 03:33 PM
who cares about the punch stats.

Realistic fans that give unbiased judgement, which you obviously arent

Jones' strikes were nothing. Just weak pot shots.

A Jones strike was the only knockdown of the fight, which is the most impactful thing a strike can do, other than completely ko a guy. So as far as saying someones strikes were nothing, you'd probably be more accurate relating to Machida with that. Machida did not have many clean strikes ,infact, he had a worse striking percentage than Jones, and he did not land a single strike that did that much damage.



As far as I'm concerned, this was a 9 minute fight and 7 of those minutes belonged to Machida.


Yeah, as far as you're concerned is right. Keep on living in that fanstasy world of yours.

the traveler
12-13-2011, 03:52 PM
Bruv, i'm faaar from being a Jones hater, and i'm telling yu Machida is a much better striker than Jones, ask anyone that knows anything about MMA, ask Rampage, ask Bones himself, ask any UFC fighter...


Dude, there's such a thing called perception and then there is reality. People perceived that Shogun is a better striker than Jon Jones based on what he did in Pride and based on the fact that Jones has been striking for such a short time and somewhat looks akward doing so, akward I say because no one has seen someone that strikes like him and so it's assumed that since he isn't following traditional form that he must be doing it wrong. That was the perception, the reality is that Shogun landed 11 strikes compared to about a billion by Jones in the fight. What insued after that were excuses about Shogun being unhealthy, Jones only having reach, jones only doing what he did because he rocked shogun with a knee early on the fight. There's people out there that still believe that Shogun is the better striker after all the **** that went down.

How is it that Jones, the lesser striker is able to consistently get the better of Shogun, Rampage and Machida if he is such a lesser striker. Literally, in all 3 fights against those guys he had one strike that hit him flush while landing flying knees, Anderson Silva/Vitor Belfort upkicks, spinning elbows, superman punches in southpaw and a bunch of other devastating strikes.

Sit down and ask yourself that. How can everything be explained with excuses?


Tem pics you pulled up, Machida was obviously wary of Jones' striking just because of the power andspeed he gets behind them elbows, And if Machida was able to land as flush as Jones was do yu really think Jones would stay standing like Machida was? He already wobbled him n never connected as flush as Jones eh.... Bones never wobbled Lyoto in the slightest...




Bolded part: What the hell does that even mean or have to do with anything?
You're speaking in hypotheticals again, man. Talk in reality, not in what ifs. Machida stood standing after the overhand right, but he was on the receiving end of a power shot that had some affect on him. Wobbled him is not very accurate at all. How was Bones wobbled when he immediately clinched Machida and was able to block all of his subsequent attacks? ****, Jones even stared Machida down, tucking his chin in, after the barrage, as if to say "Respect" and that "I'm still here, bring on some more." If that was a wobble, it was the slightest wobble I've ever seen as it didn't even look to stun Jones besides him losing his footing as Machida starte to rush in.

He never wobbled Machida in the slightest. Yeah, he just made him fall flat on his face with of all things, a superman punch from southpaw. Talk about striking.


Right now with your bulls*** talk you r turning more heads against Bones. I never will but i can see what the 'Haters' mean now when they say his fans make them switch. You can't get a standard conversation out of you, you just talk s*** fam.

Whatever, dude. Get mad because I'm not a sheep like you, paying attention to the general consensus on jones which is sometimes shaped by the haters, and can actually see things for myself.

-Swizzy-
12-13-2011, 04:20 PM
Realistic fans that give unbiased judgement, which you obviously arent
A Jones strike was the only knockdown of the fight, which is the most impactful thing a strike can do, other than completely ko a guy. So as far as saying someones strikes were nothing, you'd probably be more accurate relating to Machida with that. Machida did not have many clean strikes ,infact, he had a worse striking percentage than Jones, and he did not land a single strike that did that much damage.

Yeah, as far as you're concerned is right. Keep on living in that fanstasy world of yours.

so I'm biased now? biased for machida or hating on Jones? cuz I'm neither. I can bring up old posts that would prove that I've been saying Jones is gonna be the next champ for a long time. I don't hate the guy nor am I a big fan of his.

I could care less about who won between Machida and Jones. It was a good and interesting fight and I enjoyed it.

My opinion is far less biased than yours. Keep thinking that Jones is a better striker.

the traveler
12-13-2011, 04:55 PM
My opinion is far less biased than yours. Keep thinking that Jones is a better striker.

Yeah,

Jones: Landed more strikes, had better striking percentage, won the only striking exchanges in the fight, landed the cleanest power shot in the fight, had the only strike that caused a knockdown

Machida: Landed less strikes, had worse striking percentage, no strikes thrown resulted in a knockdown, did not land any power shots.

Better Striker: Machida?

Yeah..... lol

the traveler
12-13-2011, 05:10 PM
http://cdn2.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/230711/jonchokemac.gif

Konstantin
12-13-2011, 06:14 PM
Yeah,

Jones: Landed more strikes, had better striking percentage, won the only striking exchanges in the fight, landed the cleanest power shot in the fight, had the only strike that caused a knockdown

Machida: Landed less strikes, had worse striking percentage, no strikes thrown resulted in a knockdown, did not land any power shots.

Better Striker: Machida?

Yeah..... lol

Didn't see the fight but in general the better strikers usually win the striking battle...

Marshall89
12-13-2011, 07:15 PM
Dude, there's such a thing called perception and then there is reality. People perceived that Shogun is a better striker than Jon Jones based on what he did in Pride and based on the fact that Jones has been striking for such a short time and somewhat looks akward doing so, akward I say because no one has seen someone that strikes like him and so it's assumed that since he isn't following traditional form that he must be doing it wrong. That was the perception, the reality is that Shogun landed 11 strikes compared to about a billion by Jones in the fight. What insued after that were excuses about Shogun being unhealthy, Jones only having reach, jones only doing what he did because he rocked shogun with a knee early on the fight. There's people out there that still believe that Shogun is the better striker after all the **** that went down.

How is it that Jones, the lesser striker is able to consistently get the better of Shogun, Rampage and Machida if he is such a lesser striker. Literally, in all 3 fights against those guys he had one strike that hit him flush while landing flying knees, Anderson Silva/Vitor Belfort upkicks, spinning elbows, superman punches in southpaw and a bunch of other devastating strikes.

Sit down and ask yourself that. How can everything be explained with excuses?






Bolded part: What the hell does that even mean or have to do with anything?
You're speaking in hypotheticals again, man. Talk in reality, not in what ifs. Machida stood standing after the overhand right, but he was on the receiving end of a power shot that had some affect on him. Wobbled him is not very accurate at all. How was Bones wobbled when he immediately clinched Machida and was able to block all of his subsequent attacks? ****, Jones even stared Machida down, tucking his chin in, after the barrage, as if to say "Respect" and that "I'm still here, bring on some more." If that was a wobble, it was the slightest wobble I've ever seen as it didn't even look to stun Jones besides him losing his footing as Machida starte to rush in.

He never wobbled Machida in the slightest. Yeah, he just made him fall flat on his face with of all things, a superman punch from southpaw. Talk about striking.




Whatever, dude. Get mad because I'm not a sheep like you, paying attention to the general consensus on jones which is sometimes shaped by the haters, and can actually see things for myself.

Okay, lets end this thread right here right now. Lets ignore this crazed Bones fan.
I actually find myself lookin to diss Jones Lol. And i'm a Jones fan. Bruv you are the reason fans switch on Jones eh. Your twisted fam, straight up tiwsted and hell bent on Bones. You'd f*** him if you could no?


Now, i've never thought Shogun was a better striker h, but i can understand the Normal, sane mma fans' opinins on whythey believe it is for his size, body and frame...

Silva is the best striker in the world no question, just watch his fights and you will see, he also has no reach advantage whereas Bones has a 5-8 inch reach advantage over every LightHeavyWeight. He even has a reach advantage over most Heavyweights.

So, you base the better striker on the fighter that lands the most punches!!!!!
Tell me, is it harder for Bones to land punches on Machida than it is for Machida to land on Jones??? Haha, NO!

The bit in BOLD means that Machida would have thrown more when he got up close to Jones had he not been wary of Bones' elbows or knees. So Machida would have landed even more than he did.

I ent paying attention to the general consensus on Jones fam. I watch all of his fights tyou ****ing muppet, and he's a wrestler, not a striker. His opponent has not been dropped many times at all in all of his fights...
He dropped Machida cos his arm reached Lyoto before Lyoto's met Bones!!!
Andersons dropped more people in his last fight against Okami than your man has in his career pretty much eh.

If your basing the best striker on punches landed alone then the holder of the record for the most punches landed in a UFC fight - Chael Sonnen is the best striker in the World!!!! even better than Silva who In REALITY is considered the best.
D***head

Anyone that faces Bones will 99% of the time be worse off in the stats department for landing punches!!! This is true. But landing punches does not mean you are the better striker when you have a 5-8 inch reach advantage over your opponent.
Noone has ever had a frame like Bones' in UFC LightHeavyweight history, so he is incomparible.

Konstantin
12-13-2011, 08:35 PM
Silva is the best striker in the world no question, just watch his fights and you will see, he also has no reach advantage whereas Bones has a 5-8 inch reach advantage over every LightHeavyWeight. He even has a reach advantage over most Heavyweights.

So, you base the better striker on the fighter that lands the most punches!!!!!
Tell me, is it harder for Bones to land punches on Machida than it is for Machida to land on Jones??? Haha, NO!

The bit in BOLD means that Machida would have thrown more when he got up close to Jones had he not been wary of Bones' elbows or knees. So Machida would have landed even more than he did.

I ent paying attention to the general consensus on Jones fam. I watch all of his fights tyou ****ing muppet, and he's a wrestler, not a striker. His opponent has not been dropped many times at all in all of his fights...
He dropped Machida cos his arm reached Lyoto before Lyoto's met Bones!!!
Andersons dropped more people in his last fight against Okami than your man has in his career pretty much eh.

If your basing the best striker on punches landed alone then the holder of the record for the most punches landed in a UFC fight - Chael Sonnen is the best striker in the World!!!! even better than Silva who In REALITY is considered the best.
D***head

Anyone that faces Bones will 99% of the time be worse off in the stats department for landing punches!!! This is true. But landing punches does not mean you are the better striker when you have a 5-8 inch reach advantage over your opponent.
Noone has ever had a frame like Bones' in UFC LightHeavyweight history, so he is incomparible.

It seems like you are taking Bones physical strengths and saying that they shouldn't count when deciding who's a better striker, which is pretty f#cking stupid.

Taking ones physical assets and using them to win the fight is what fghting is about.

N!GGALAS CAGE
12-13-2011, 08:50 PM
Of course, you can't expect idiots that are driven by hate, to be able to comprehend what the hell happened, but there you have it.

Whatever man, there are some haters on here, but opinions are just on this fight alone. Your admiration for Jones heavily, I repeat heavily outweighs any hate people have for Jones on this board.

I was a doubter of Jones, but never a real hater and I give him props for beating Rampage and the way he beat Machida. I still don't like his fake attitude and arrogance, but I don't have much doubt that Bones is for real and he proved he's worth all the hype he's been getting.

But to say he is a better striker than Machida is just delusional. You must've been watching a different fight than the rest of us.

I'll leave it at that.

Marshall89
12-13-2011, 10:05 PM
It seems like you are taking Bones physical strengths and saying that they shouldn't count when deciding who's a better striker, which is pretty f#cking stupid.

Taking ones physical assets and using them to win the fight is what fghting is about.

Naah i'm saying his striking is not as good as it could be for his body and frame. I love Bones man, his wrestling, ground and pound, elbows, knees, flying backfists is all Sick!!! His striking could be much better.
If Machida had his frame and reach, Machida would put Jones to sleep with a quick combo like you saw Saturday. He was to wary to stay in close throwing combos. So no, Jones is not better than Machida.

What a pointless title to a thread fam. Should just be 'Jones is the best striker in the sworl, no discussion'

Marshall89
12-13-2011, 10:36 PM
11.5 inch reach advantage over Rampage.....

Boxingtech718v2
12-14-2011, 12:22 PM
Jones' haters think they are some sort of MMA experts or something.
When he is too good for his competition they always find something to make up to take away from his performance. Against Shogun they say Shogun was shot or out of shape. Against Rampage they say Jones ran away. Against Bader they say he was overhyped. Against Machida they say Jones is just too big. I guess Stephan Struve should be the GOAT of MMA following their logic. Also Cain Velasquez should have had no shot at beating Lesnar. The punch Jones droped Machida with wasn't even one that utilized his reach it was a short hook counter to Machidas attack that dropped him and Jones finished him with a choke. The butt hurt is real amusing guys, somebody call a Waaahmbulance for these fellas.

Marshall89
12-14-2011, 10:49 PM
Jones' haters think they are some sort of MMA experts or something.
When he is too good for his competition they always find something to make up to take away from his performance. Against Shogun they say Shogun was shot or out of shape. Against Rampage they say Jones ran away. Against Bader they say he was overhyped. Against Machida they say Jones is just too big. I guess Stephan Struve should be the GOAT of MMA following their logic. Also Cain Velasquez should have had no shot at beating Lesnar. The punch Jones droped Machida with wasn't even one that utilized his reach it was a short hook counter to Machidas attack that dropped him and Jones finished him with a choke. The butt hurt is real amusing guys, somebody call a Waaahmbulance for these fellas.

Read my posts in this thread boss http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=526431
Does dat stink of a Jones hater? Lol
hey, Bones' striking has improved 100% since his first UFC fight. But i personally i think Machida has the better, more powerful and quicker striking than Jones, period. Jones has always been a wrestler, he started striking at what 19? Machida has been striking since the age of 3...
But Bones is already real close to Machida if you forget the reach

-Swizzy-
12-17-2011, 02:53 AM
Jones' haters think they are some sort of MMA experts or something.
When he is too good for his competition they always find something to make up to take away from his performance. Against Shogun they say Shogun was shot or out of shape. Against Rampage they say Jones ran away. Against Bader they say he was overhyped. Against Machida they say Jones is just too big. I guess Stephan Struve should be the GOAT of MMA following their logic. Also Cain Velasquez should have had no shot at beating Lesnar. The punch Jones droped Machida with wasn't even one that utilized his reach it was a short hook counter to Machidas attack that dropped him and Jones finished him with a choke. The butt hurt is real amusing guys, somebody call a Waaahmbulance for these fellas.
lol @ "Jones haters'"

can't have a rational opinion against a fighter without being called a hater.

Virgil Caine
12-17-2011, 04:11 AM
lol @ "Jones haters'"

can't have a rational opinion against a fighter without being called a hater.
Not if that fighter is the venerable and exalted Jon Jones.