Jon Jones' UFC future might depend on Tom Aspinall fight, claims analyst in eye-opening prediction 

Jon Jones is likely to face Tom Aspinall for a title unification bout in 2025. UFC head honcho Dana White recently made it known that the super fight is what he is looking forward to in the coming year. A fight analyst has now given an eye-opening prediction about the forthcoming Jones vs. Aspinall matchup.

In a MMA Junkie podcast, managing editor Simon Samano and senior reporter Mike Bohn discussed the impending bout. Both experts agreed that 2025 will be the last year that Jones will fight for the promotion unless he has an injury or further personal issues.

Bohn talked about how Jones' future depends on his fight with 'Honey Badger' and stated:

"If he does fight Tom Aspinall is he winning or losing that fight because if he loses I couldn’t imagine how lucrative a potential rematch would be, whether he wants to do it or not and maybe if he wins we talk about a trilogy. I know we are getting way ahead of ourselves like to count three Jon Jones fight.”

Bohn added:

“If he wins most definitely I can’t see him extending it beyond. I think he would ride off on that high especially if he gets his FU money that he said he wanted from the UFC.”

Check out Mike Bohn's comments about Jon Jones's future (0:30):

---

Jon Jones is adamant about fighting Alex Pereira

After a win over Stipe Miocic at UFC 309, Jon Jones expressed his desire to fight light heavyweight kingpin Alex Pereira. However, Dana White has now rejected the possibility of the showdown and is interested to book a clash between Jones and Tom Aspinall.

Jones recently appeared in an interview with Youtuber Alex Gonzalez and said:

"I think we both [he and Alex Pereira] have huge legacies. We both have multiple championships. Alex Pereira won double belt in Glory Kickboxing. He won double belts in UFC. He’s a celebrity, he’s a star all over the world...Tom Aspinall, no one really cares about him right now, you know, outside of the UK..."

Check out Jon Jones' comments below (27:51):