Read on Twitter
The manner in which people evaluate Jon Jones& #39;s career is a powerful insight into the capacity for narratives and how people digest them through the media.
Consider: Jones is sold as an almost mythical "rematch fighter", with endless capacity to evolve/learn.
Consider: Jones is sold as an almost mythical "rematch fighter", with endless capacity to evolve/learn.
With the exception of a more analytically inclined component of the community, this narrative is generally bought wholesale. The idea that the rematches might be displaying the limitations of his opponents rather than brilliance on his part is rarely discussed.
This is a remarkably optimistic take. Yet - If Jones was this type of fighter, how does one explain the degree to which the quality of his wrestling entries, clinch control and even striking tools have shown comparatively little evolution, and even regressed in some ways?
This isn& #39;t to say that Santos or Reyes didn& #39;t offer something new or different. But much of what they did show challenged Jones by attacking vulnerabilities we knew about back a long time ago, and he has done little to address.
I would posit therefore that a significant component of Jones& #39;s success as a "rematch fighter" is because of the paucity of depth within the fighters he& #39;s rematched so far. Certainly, I can& #39;t see an argument for any fighter Jones has rematched showing Mendes& #39;s technical growth.
Nor as Jones ever responded to a challenge on the level of Mendes by making fundamentally sound adjustments mid-fight that almost few, if any top-level fighters effectively leverage (e.g. Aldo& #39;s hooking off the jab).
Some might argue that "Jones was never forced to". My response to that is to partially remind you that the Reyes fight exists, and to partially thank you for making my point for me.