Talk:Jon Jones

Comments of the Klitschkos

I added a section under Personal Life about his comments regarding the Klitschko brothers. I also added a line on Joe Rogan's rebuttal to Jones' desire to one day fight a Klitschko. I believe the references are solid (mostly MMA Mania and SBNation). I welcome any polishing that can be done to it. QOlivieri 19:43 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2025

in Other legal troubles section second line its written as DWI(driving under the influence), it must be DUI Hiteshiscoolll (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

One of or 'the' greatest?

Hi. There is a disagreement as to whether sources support the claim that JJ is unarguably 'the' greatest. I don't believe sources are unanimous in this, although he is definitely in the conversation. Starter for 10 - Tapology. https://www.tapology.com/rankings/top-ten-all-time-greatest-mma-and-ufc-fighters NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Sources don’t have to be unanimous in the claim, I don’t know where you got that from. If that were the case, Tom Brady wouldn’t be called the greatest quarterback of all time in his lead. There are several reliable sources listed and all of them claim he is the greatest. Also wondering why you lied in your initial edit summary. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

As a point of order, I didn't 'lie', I wrote that sources don't support the claim. I didn't say that the given/cherrypicked sources didn't, I wrote that sources in general are not nearly unanimous enough to state the claim that he is 'the' greatest. They are, however, clearly in support of the far simpler and less disputable claim that he is 'one of', as the article has stated for a long time. NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

As for the Tom Brady comparison, I think in that case sources do support that assertion. A better comparison in this case would be Michael Jordan. NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I don’t get how you can actually call Michael Jordan a better comparison, when after checking his page, there are only three sources listed and one of them is the NBA 75th Anniversary Team which doesn’t specifically call him "the greatest". Jon literally has a similar amount of sources as Brady (which is plenty btw) and all of them name him "the greatest", that’s the difference. Not sure why you are creating a problem where there is none. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

That's a very odd comment. There was no problem with it before you changed it to your preferred, and very arguable, version. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Anyway - if there is CONSENSUS that he should be called it from editors, no one can stand in your way. I doubt that many editors will agree with your reverted version, but that's irrelevant, of course. Let's see what others think... NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

If that’s the case, then I guess you win. I doubt anyone is going to care to respond. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

It was changed based on the multitude of accompanying reliable sources listed which all call him "the" greatest. I’m sorry it bothers you. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Trivial information being forced into lead

@GOAT Bones231012 - Since you are not willing to provide explanations for why you are continually forcing trivial information into the lead, I am going to explain why your edits are trivial.

"He is the eighth UFC fighter to win titles in two different weight classes and the fourth to defend titles in two different divisions." - If there were seven fighters before him to win titles in two different weight classes and three fighters before him to defend titles in two different divisions, this is nothing new. It's not notable enough for the lead when it's been done multiple times in the past.

"He is also the only fighter ever to beat five former UFC champions consecutively." - This is completely random trivia. It's not notable, it's not an accomplishment to defeat former champions who weren't what they used to be.

"later defending it against Stipe Miocic" - Title defenses are not notable enough for the lead - you add one, you open the door for all of them being added, which would bloat the lead. Notice how this is the only title defense mentioned? It looks bizarre by itself.

You also removed for how long Jones was the Light Heavyweight Champion, which is important context for the reader. And it's inconsistent with the rest of the lead since you left in for how long Jones was Heavyweight Champion and interim Light Heavyweight Champion.

And finally, you restored a grammatical error. There should be a semicolon in the sentence about Jones' only professional loss, not a colon. Bluerules (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the rarity of winning titles in two weight classes should be in the lead, maybe not defending them. The former champs is trivia. Killashaw (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2026 (UTC)