Jon Jones to protest loss to NSAC [update: no bones]

Discussion in 'MMA - Mixed Martial Arts' started by speeds, Dec 8, 2009.

Moderators: 2

Moderators

  1. Mamba
  2. speeds
  1. speeds

    speeds $2.50 highball, $1.50 beer Staff Member Administrator GFX Team

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2007
    Messages:
    39,366
    Likes Received:
    3,383
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Calgary, AB
    [​IMG]

    Jon Jones and his management team are protesting his disqualification loss to Matt Hamill at the TUF 10 Finale last weekend. Jones was disqualified following a series of 12-to-6 elbows, a banned maneuver, which exacerbated cuts on Hamill's face and caused blood to blur his vision.

    The situation turned abnormal when it was revealed that Hamill had a separated shoulder and was unable to defend himself or continue fighting whether or not the elbows did damage. Some speculate that oft-criticized referee Steve Mazzagatti did a poor job of officiating the fight because he infamously verbally asked Hamill, who is deaf, if he could continue fighting, when the action was broken up--a point at which it seemed Hamill (his vision obscured by blood) could not differentiate between a foul being called or the fight being stopped--yet others, including NSAC Commissioner Keith Kaizer, suggest that Mazzagatti did an excellent job of consulting the instant replay and deeming the fight a DQ loss rather than a TKO win for Jones.

    Jones' camp is looking for the fight to be ruled a no contest--thus retaining Jones' unbeaten record--due to the fact Hamill couldn't continue not as a result of the fouls, but instead because of the condition of his shoulder.

    http://www.bloodyelbow.com/
     
    speeds, Dec 8, 2009
    #1
  2. speeds

    speeds $2.50 highball, $1.50 beer Staff Member Administrator GFX Team

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2007
    Messages:
    39,366
    Likes Received:
    3,383
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Calgary, AB
    Re: Jon Jones to protest loss to NSAC

    As Joe Rogan noted on the broadcast, 12-to-6 elbows (coming vertically downward with the point of the elbow) were banned under the unified rules of mixed martial arts as a result of one of the rule-makers viewing karate ice-breaking competitions and deciding/proposing that the maneuver could crack a skull of a prone opponent. I could see if the reason was that it could severely damage the eye or eye socket of the grounded opponent, I mean, imagine getting the point of an elbow full-force into your eyeball (not that you can't from a horizontal or angled elbow, knuckle, toe, finger, heel, or knee), but the notion that one of these guys will split the skull of his opponent like a block of ice is preposterous.
     
    speeds, Dec 8, 2009
    #2
  3. dpc

    dpc BBF refugee

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,838
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Minneapolis,Fargo
    Re: Jon Jones to protest loss to NSAC

    I have no problem with the call in the fight. He may have had his shoulder dislocated, but he never tapped out due to that or quit. Yes if Jones didn't deliver those elbows the fight would have been stopepd anyway in a matter of seconds but thats not how it played out. I have no problem with the call being a dq, as it was a dq.
     
    dpc, Dec 8, 2009
    #3
  4. oldmangrouch

    oldmangrouch persona non grata

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2008
    Messages:
    12,403
    Likes Received:
    6,325
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Re: Jon Jones to protest loss to NSAC

    Terrible rule, terrible call.

    Fighters from Couture to Rumble Johnson have lost fights due to illegal eye pokes. If being on the receiving end of an illegal eye poke = TKO loss, how can being on the receiving end of a meaningless elbow = DQ victory? How many fighters have taken hard groin shots without a DQ?
     
    oldmangrouch, Dec 8, 2009
    #4
  5. Celtic Fan

    Celtic Fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,290
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Re: Jon Jones to protest loss to NSAC

    eye pokes and groin shots are an accident from a thrown strike, downward elbow strikes is an intentional strike as you intentionall point the elbow down in a vertical strike rather than using your forearm/elbow in a horizontal strike.
     
    Celtic Fan, Dec 8, 2009
    #5
  6. speeds

    speeds $2.50 highball, $1.50 beer Staff Member Administrator GFX Team

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2007
    Messages:
    39,366
    Likes Received:
    3,383
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Calgary, AB
    Re: Jon Jones to protest loss to NSAC

    ^ Ignorance of the law/rule is no excuse, but Jones claimed he didn't know it was a foul.
     
    speeds, Dec 8, 2009
    #6
  7. dpc

    dpc BBF refugee

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,838
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Minneapolis,Fargo
    Re: Jon Jones to protest loss to NSAC

    This.

    I've heard many fighters don't know the full rules on elbows, and also the whole back to the head thing. There needs to be some giant email that says exactly that is both of those, but whether there is or not, its still an illegal shot. Jones did perform the illegal shot on purpose, although he didn't know it was illegal. I can't see how anyone can argue that he shouldn't have been DQed.
     
    dpc, Dec 8, 2009
    #7
  8. speeds

    speeds $2.50 highball, $1.50 beer Staff Member Administrator GFX Team

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2007
    Messages:
    39,366
    Likes Received:
    3,383
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Calgary, AB
    Re: Jon Jones to protest loss to NSAC

    ^ He wasn't DQ'd for the illegal elbows. He had a point deducted. He was DQ'd because Hamill couldn't continue, largely because of his shoulder, but at the time it was thought that he couldn't continue due to damage from the illegal shots. So there is a point of contention there.
     
    speeds, Dec 8, 2009
    #8
  9. bbwtrench

    bbwtrench BBW Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Messages:
    5,425
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Re: Jon Jones to protest loss to NSAC

    Those elbows came straight down twice. If its about the elbows they were definitely ILLEGAL and the DQ should stand. If its regarding the shoulder, maybe rule a NO CONTEST?
     
    bbwtrench, Dec 8, 2009
    #9
  10. dpc

    dpc BBF refugee

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,838
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Minneapolis,Fargo
    Re: Jon Jones to protest loss to NSAC

    Idk, technically Hammill never tapped out I believe due to his shoulder, so he never said he wanted to stop. The ref saw him and stopped him due to just the way he looked (if any of you saw it you know waht I'm talking about). But then again the ref would probably stop it if he knew about his shoulder, so I'm not sure. Tricky situation. But I'm not against it staying as it is. It may go as a loss on Jones career, but not the UFC or the fans are holding anything against him.
     
    dpc, Dec 8, 2009
    #10
  11. speeds

    speeds $2.50 highball, $1.50 beer Staff Member Administrator GFX Team

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2007
    Messages:
    39,366
    Likes Received:
    3,383
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Calgary, AB
    Re: Jon Jones to protest loss to NSAC

    http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2009/12/22/1213449/report-jon-jones-loses-appeal-on

     
    speeds, Dec 22, 2009
    #11

Share This Page