D
Deleted member 1
Guest
That's not his point at all.
should the Jon Jones dq loss be overturned?
- Thread starter jimmy boogaloo
- Start date
Post I quoted was about dui at low speed and near home
No luv for jon's Jones here
Good day 2 u sir
M
member 3289
Guest
If you really weren't counting it then you wouldn't have mentioned it at all.
Instead you tried to say it indirectly and I called you out on it.
Get over it.
M
member 3289
Guest
Too many of you are missing the point or providing false analogies, so let me educate you:
Imagine a guy gets charged with a crime. The judge in the case incorrectly applies sentencing statutes and the guy is found guilty. But the law at the time doesn't allow for an appeal so it is what it is - AN INJUSTICE.
Years later that judge is disbarred because of the mistakes he's made (possibly or possibly not including the mistake referenced above). So that judge is no longer allowed to rule on cases, ever.
If you're the original guy's legal team, wouldn't you explore every avenue possible to get the original conviction thrown out/changed?
Imagine a guy gets charged with a crime. The judge in the case incorrectly applies sentencing statutes and the guy is found guilty. But the law at the time doesn't allow for an appeal so it is what it is - AN INJUSTICE.
Years later that judge is disbarred because of the mistakes he's made (possibly or possibly not including the mistake referenced above). So that judge is no longer allowed to rule on cases, ever.
If you're the original guy's legal team, wouldn't you explore every avenue possible to get the original conviction thrown out/changed?
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
*Goes on to post false analogy*
M
member 3289
Guest
Insightful post
Comparing juicys loss to hammer to a crime is untenable. Being convicted of a crime has detrimental, life altering consequences. Juicy losing to a technicality had no adverse effects on his career whatsoever. The UFC treated it as a win and continued to match him with higher ranked fighters.
M
member 3289
Guest
He is an undefeated fighter and should be able to market himself as such.
How many endorsement deals has he lost out on because of this? How many more PPV buys would he have had? These questions are rhetorical.
The right thing to do is correct Mazzagatti's fuck up.
USADA defeated him
Then he defeated USADA and avenged his loss and continues to defeat them via "Pulsing"
He's a drug cheat that has tested positive multiple times.
He slammed his car into another vehicle containing a pregnant woman, did not check on her, fled the scene, returned for his money and weed then fled again.
After being at a strip club all night, while intoxicated he and a couple of strippers jumped in his bentley and he proceeded to wrap it around a telephone pole.
You claim that a loss everyone but the UFC promotional team had written off is the problem with his endorsement issues?
M
member 3289
Guest
Besides the fact that not all of this is true and that everyone makes a few mistakes growing up, not one thing in this post has anything to do with the fact that his fight vs Hamill had an incorrect application of the rules and should be changed from a loss to a NC.
You used his loss of income as your primary argument as to why the decision should be overturned.
Changing your argument when challenged is a bitch move, a sloppy bitch move.
M
member 3289
Guest
Even with the problems he has faced in his personal life, he would be making more money if he were able to be marketed as an undefeated fighter.
Try to stay on topic.
He was dominating the fight and clearly was on the way to a finish, but he also broke the rule. Refs have discretion to take points or DQ. This ref saw fit to DQ. Right or wrong that’s how it ended and it’s in the books. He isn’t an undefeated fighter. Nothing to see here.
If we are gonna argue the fact about that refs decision and give Jon the win then i also want to over turn his judges decision gift over Gus.
If we are gonna argue the fact about that refs decision and give Jon the win then i also want to over turn his judges decision gift over Gus.
sounds about right...ya just can't go rewriting every bad ref call/DQ to loss/bad judging
and didn't Hammil get a broken facial bone from that fight? I could be wrong but I thought it broke face
If I were that guy's legal team I'd think really, long and hard before going down the "incorrectly applied" sentence road. An "L" on his record his better than a 6 year suspension, 2 TKO losses, and God knows how many potential losses due to eyepoke point deductions.
the lawyers will have it overturned since it aint literally 12-6, its not vertical, nor is it a straight line down.
At the time it should have probably been overturned into a No Contest because Steve Mazzagatti was dumb enough to ask Matt Hamill if he was wished to continue when he had blood in his eyes, after Jon Jones hammered him with illegal elbows (everyone agrees the rule is stupid, but that's immaterial). Hamill did not respond because he is deaf and did not hear him, so he had no way of knowing what Mazzagatti was asking. How would he have responded? We'll never know. He's on record saying while he considers it a loss, he'd have continued, because "I'd die before I tap [to strikes]".
The thing is, it was ten fucking years ago. The NSAC turned down the appeal. It was a poor decision, sure, but this wasn't a malicious one, not by the ref, the promoter, or the commission.
The only situations where an ancient fight decision should be overturned in any record book is when there were bad faith actions that made the fight basically pre-determined. I can literally only think of two examples, and in both cases there wasn't even a sanctioning body. In one case in Japan, someone someone armbarred her opponent then was declared the loser because she had missed weight the day before (why even have a fight?). In the other, in Costa Rica, a fighter won on all three judge's scorecards, and then the promoter got on the microphone and declared the other person the winner (she first asked the ref to raise that person's hand, but he refused).
Moderate incompetence, especially in a case that's merely borderline, isn't a reason to overturn a decision a decade after the fact. It's like complaining about a bad umpire call that cost a team the game in the middle of a season but waiting a full year to do it, and the team that got screwed still went on to win the World Series that year. Fuck that noise.
The thing is, it was ten fucking years ago. The NSAC turned down the appeal. It was a poor decision, sure, but this wasn't a malicious one, not by the ref, the promoter, or the commission.
The only situations where an ancient fight decision should be overturned in any record book is when there were bad faith actions that made the fight basically pre-determined. I can literally only think of two examples, and in both cases there wasn't even a sanctioning body. In one case in Japan, someone someone armbarred her opponent then was declared the loser because she had missed weight the day before (why even have a fight?). In the other, in Costa Rica, a fighter won on all three judge's scorecards, and then the promoter got on the microphone and declared the other person the winner (she first asked the ref to raise that person's hand, but he refused).
Moderate incompetence, especially in a case that's merely borderline, isn't a reason to overturn a decision a decade after the fact. It's like complaining about a bad umpire call that cost a team the game in the middle of a season but waiting a full year to do it, and the team that got screwed still went on to win the World Series that year. Fuck that noise.
M
member 3289
Guest
The things you mention, most of which are either blatantly false or wildly inaccurate, have nothing to do with the topic presented in the OP
Trying to hold the results in a sports contest to the same threshold we use for determining whether someone should be imprisoned is problematic, to say the least. We don't even do that in civil lawsuits, if we're talking about revisiting judgements 10 years after the fact. Sorry but Jones' appeals were already exhausted. It was a borderline case to begin with. Jones certainly didn't "win" the fight that ended when he broke a rule, it would have been a No Contest at best. A No Contest means the fight was fucked and there was no outcome worth recording. There is no criminal judicial equivalent, because unless a defendant dies mid-trial, someone's either guilty or innocent, and even if there's a mistrial that process continues until it's all been sorted out.
Of course they do. With were hopping in the Hot Tub Time Machine to go back and right the reffing wrongs, him not intelligently defending himself from an armbar, or having a compound fracture in the middle of a round are both definitely things that should be TKO's on his record.
Man, "Former Light Heavyweight Champion Chael P Sonnen" sure sounds weird to say.
if u read the rules like a lawyer, u see its very hard to throw an illegal 12-6 elbow as its defined. u could try to do it and it still wouldnt be a perfectly straight line or perfectly vertical, so it would be therefore legal