clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Morning Report: Jon Jones Takes the Bait, Says 'Cheater' Chael Sonnen 'Fought Like a Child'

Jonathan Ferrey, Getty Images
Jonathan Ferrey, Getty Images
Getty Images

Love him or hate him, you've got to hand it to Chael Sonnen. The man knows how to get people to bite.

This time it was UFC light heavyweight champion Jon Jones who couldn't resist chomping down on the "Gangster from West Linn's" verbal bait, tweeting that Sonnen "fought like a child" against Anderson Silva, while goading him to "earn a title shot" instead of talking his way into one. Of course, Sonnen responded with a few of his own jabs, namely recommending Jones hire new writers with his Nike money before lobbing a parting shot at the champ's recent DUI arrest.

And you know what? We all ate it up.

For Sonnen, it's a genius ploy. After losing so handily to Silva, the man had to reinvent himself if he wanted to avoid going down the path of Rich Franklin. And reinvent himself is exactly what he just did. By moving up to 205 pounds, hand-picking himself a beatable but name opponent, while simultaneously catching the attention of another big-time champion, Sonnen reclaimed relevance all in one fell swoop. Now the seeds for a Jones-Sonnen title blockbuster have been planted, and in a division where viable challengers for "Bones" are hard to come by, it doesn't seem far-fetched to see a scenario where Sonnen bests Forrest Griffin, then waltzes his way into another massive championship fight.

It's really pretty incredible how easy this guy makes this look. Again, regardless of what you think of him, you've got to give the man credit where credit is due.



Jones, Sonnen verbally collide. UFC light heavyweight champion Jon Jones and perennial trash talker Chael Sonnen engaged in a mid-afternoon war of words on Twitter, with Jones saying the Oregonian "fought like a child" and Sonnen taking a crack at the champ's recent DUI.

UFC on FOX 5 gets mega-trio. The blockbuster trio of Benson Henderson vs. Nate Diaz, Mauricio "Shogun" Rua vs. Alexander Gustafsson, and B.J. Penn vs. Rory MacDonald has been booked for the final UFC on FOX show of the year, UFC on FOX 5.

Curran injured. A fractured orbital bone caused Bellator featherweight champion Pat Curran to withdraw from his Bellator 73 title defense against Patricio Freire on August 24, 2012.

Aoki, three championship fights booked for ONE FC 6. Former DREAM titleholder Shinya Aoki and the first trio of championship fights in ONE FC history will highlight ONE FC 6.

Invicta FC to crown first champion. Invicta Fighting Championships' inaugural championship match will pit Jessica Penne against Naho Sugiyama for the atomweight (105 pounds) belt on Saturday, October 6, 2012.



In case you were wondering what provoked Jon Jones' Twitter spat with Señor Chael, take a look.


Luke Rockhold: Strikeforce middleweight champion and noted pioneer for the lost art of ear-puss graffiti.

(HT: CagePotato via MMA Mania)


Junior dos Santos mounting an Australian woman and reenacting his TKO of Frank Mir? Check.

(HT: MiddleEasy)


MMA impersonator extraordinaire Prebek is back at it, and this time it's Canada's favorite son who's in his sights.













Announced yesterday (Wednesday, August 15, 2012):

- UFC on FOX 5: Ben Henderson (17-2) vs. Nate Diaz (16-7)

- UFC on FOX 5: Shogun Rua (21-6) vs. Alexander Gustafsson (14-1)

- UFC on FOX 5: B.J. Penn (16-8-2) vs. Rory MacDonald (13-1)

- Bellator 73: Pat Curran (17-4) out with injury against Patricio Freire (17-1)

- ONE FC 6: Shinya Aoki (30-6, 1 NC) vs. Arnaud Lepont (10-1)



Today's Fanpost of the Day comes courtesy of AnnieAgee, who proposes a tweak to fix MMA judging: Counterpoint: The Ten Point Must System IS the Problem

It's become an accepted truth that the problem with MMA judging is the judges and not the system. If we could only get judges who knew how to score an MMA match, all our problems would be solved. I think this is a fantasy. The judges that we MMA fans dislike are decried as boxing judges who only know that sport. But ask boxing fans how they feel about the exact same judges and see what they say. No one is satisfied with the judging in their fights, no matter if the judges have tons of experience or none. What if the problem wasn't only the judges (though I think that it does contribute), but the ten point must system itself?

The problem with the ten point must system is that it asks judges to make decisions about discrete rounds, but then only compares the three judges' scores at the fight level. What I mean is that each of the three judges decides who they think won a round, but the system does not care whether there was unanimous agreement about who won that round. Instead, we wait until the fight is over and each judge totals his rounds to assign a winner. Each of those judges counts as a single vote and the majority wins producing either a split or unanimous decision.

But what if we did care about how the judges saw individual rounds? Why shouldn't we treat each judged round as a discrete entity that should earn points for the fighters? It makes the greatest use of the judging resources available to us and might help minimize the effects of some bad judging.

Here is the proposal:

1. Forget the ten point thing. It's overly confusing and doesn't make any sense anyway. Go to a simple model where a judge awards one point to the fighter he thinks wins a round. If it's a dominant round (what we'd call 10-8), he gives two points. If neither fighter wins (what we'd call 10-10) he gives neither fighter any points. In the case of a point deduction, a fighter can get a negative score in a round.

2. Add up all the points from all the judges at the end of the fight and the fighter with the higher score wins.

3. Drink beer


The terminology becomes clearer. We've all had to sit there trying to explain to a novice why 30-27, 30-27, 30-27 is a perfect score. How bad could a fighter have done if he got 27 points? Imagine instead that the winning fighter wins by a score of 9-0. That's a shutout and a lot easier to understand.

Fewer possible screw ups with basic math. We've seen a few instances where commissions can't do math and announce the wrong winner. We'd be making it easier on them by adding up 1's and 2's rather than 10's and 9's.

The real benefits are in the way decisions are granted. Let's take this past weekend's Henderson vs. Edgar 2 fight as an example. The scores were 49-46 Edgar, and 48-47, 48-47 for Henderson. Translated into points, that means 4-1 Edgar, 3-2 Henderson, 3-2 Henderson. Total those up and you get 8 points for Edgar and 7 points for Henderson. The reason why is because all three judges were unanimous in giving Edgar rounds 2 and 5 and were unanimous in giving Henderson round 1. But the other two rounds were split. And since Edgar got two unanimous rounds and Henderson got only one unanimous round and two split rounds, we give the decision to Edgar.

Let's look at another decision, the split decision Leonard Garcia earned over Nam Phan at the TUF 12 Finale. This was widely considered to be one of the worst decisions of all time. The scores in that one were 30-27 Phan, and 29-28, 29-28 for Garcia. In points, that means 3-0 Phan, 2-1 and 2-1 for Garcia, or in total, 5-4 in favor of Phan. He earned the only unanimous round of the fight, plus one split round. Garcia had no unanimous rounds and two split rounds and loses this decision.

Found something you'd like to see in the Morning Report? Just hit me on Twitter @shaunalshatti and we'll include it in tomorrow's column.

Sign up for the newsletter Sign up for the MMA Fighting Daily Roundup newsletter!

A daily roundup of all your fighting news from MMA Fighting