Jeff Curran got robbed

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » General MMA Talk » Jeff Curran got robbed
Next Page »
bjj1605
4/6/09 3:14:36AM
Any one else feel like Jeff Curran got robbed? I was there and everyone around me felt that way. When I went home I watched it on my DVR hoping to see something different than the first time around but I think he won rounds 1 and 2 hands down. I think this shows the problem with judges in MMA. They don't understand the game so they end up scoring the fighter on top as winning.

Jeff out boxed him on the feet and landed some really good kicks. On his back he threatened with submissions and had some great up kicks. If you watch carefully almost every punch Joe throws misses because Jeff kicks his legs when he throws. After the fight my girlfriend yelled at Benevides "You lost that fight." And he said "I thought so too."
NatedawgThaM
4/6/09 8:08:30AM
I didn't see how Curran outboxed him. He got hit hard quite a few times and he kept getting taken down which showed great control. He had a few sub attempts but I don't think it was anything to steal the fight. I thought he did well in rounds 1 & 2 also, even had good moments and 3 but I think the other guy had too much control. It was close and I can see your argument, I wouldn't argue if Curran got the nod. Real close, but unlike the Kampman/condit fight, it's not like he was getting laid on and the other guy wasn't doing anything while Curran & Condit tried submissions all night. His opponent actually worked so I think he controled the fight enough to win. Real close fight definitley, but I wouldn't say he got robbed.
Franklinfan47
4/6/09 9:09:17AM

Posted by NatedawgThaM

I didn't see how Curran outboxed him. He got hit hard quite a few times and he kept getting taken down which showed great control. He had a few sub attempts but I don't think it was anything to steal the fight. I thought he did well in rounds 1 & 2 also, even had good moments and 3 but I think the other guy had too much control. It was close and I can see your argument, I wouldn't argue if Curran got the nod. Real close, but unlike the Kampman/condit fight, it's not like he was getting laid on and the other guy wasn't doing anything while Curran & Condit tried submissions all night. His opponent actually worked so I think he controled the fight enough to win. Real close fight definitley, but I wouldn't say he got robbed.



Reminded me of the recent Kampmann vs Condit fight. It was really close to call, but I dont think anyone got "robbed". To me, Benavidez seemed like the aggresor for most of the fight and landed the better strikes. Keep in mind, I picked Curran too. Sure your not biased? The illinois crowd seemed pretty behind Curran.
gartface
4/6/09 9:21:52AM
Fight definitely was not a 30-27...
kopower
4/6/09 9:50:56AM
Maybe according to Mir but I saw it as Curran losing a UD. It was a close fight but JB outscored him standing and on the ground
thefyn
4/6/09 10:07:17AM
You can't be knocked down that often, and win. Simple as that.
Wolfenstein
4/6/09 11:21:54AM
I thought it was pretty clear-cut. I gave Benevidez every round. It was a very close fight, but I think it would be difficult to argue giving Jeff any of the three rounds.
Jesse_Canadian_MMA
4/6/09 11:22:02AM
Benavidez definitely won that fight, great fight but... No arguments here
Ben99901
4/6/09 11:35:39AM
I agree, atleast a split descision.
Big Frog Will be back
babytater03
4/6/09 11:50:20AM
I thought the fight was much more deserving of a 29-28 UD, rather than 30-27. But hey what do i know
fizzle
4/6/09 12:52:24PM

Posted by Wolfenstein

I thought it was pretty clear-cut. I gave Benevidez every round. It was a very close fight, but I think it would be difficult to argue giving Jeff any of the three rounds.



Yeah same, Jeff was mixing it up and in the fight the whole time. But Benevidez was too strong and aggressive for Curran to get a sub or out strike. Benevidez simply landed more often and more meaningful, no one was in danger of being tko'd but some heavy shots were landed on both side and I think Benevidez was on the winning side of most of them.
bjj1605
4/6/09 1:02:47PM
Ya I'm definitely biased. Jeff is the head instructor where I train so... ya. But I just wanted to see what everyone else thought. I think its possible that benevides was being sarcastic. He knew it was a home town crowd. But I still think Jeff won. He landed more and was dangerous off his back. I didn't see benevides land any meaningful strikes except one right hand in the first (which was glancing and more of an off balance). And ya the crowd was biased and I've heard that it looks different on tv than in person. But people around me were genuinely shocked.

To me this fight was more clear cut than Condit/Kampman. I thought Condit won that fight too but when its that close you can't complain. I just didn't think this fight was that close. I saw Jeff winning two rounds easy. And 30-27? Come on. Chicago judges suck. There hasn't been a lot of top MMA shows here except for one UFC and one WEC (i was at both) so maybe thats why.

Or maybe I'm just frustrated because my jiu jitsu instructor (jeff) and my muay thai instructor (bart) both lost at home.
postman
4/6/09 5:08:38PM
I thought he won round 1 but the knock down hurt him. 2 and three I thought he lost but not by much.
EvenFlow
4/6/09 6:59:52PM

Posted by bjj1605

Any one else feel like Jeff Curran got robbed? I was there and everyone around me felt that way. When I went home I watched it on my DVR hoping to see something different than the first time around but I think he won rounds 1 and 2 hands down. I think this shows the problem with judges in MMA. They don't understand the game so they end up scoring the fighter on top as winning.

Jeff out boxed him on the feet and landed some really good kicks. On his back he threatened with submissions and had some great up kicks. If you watch carefully almost every punch Joe throws misses because Jeff kicks his legs when he throws. After the fight my girlfriend yelled at Benevides "You lost that fight." And he said "I thought so too."



No, in fact everyone here that I've seen write about it on the playground was upset by it, I even posted at how angry I was that Mir even gave Curran round 1, Benavidez won every round handidly. If you listen to his words carefully he dosnt awknowledge Jose at all like hes a ghost landing shots then when Jeff gets one Mir goes crazy and talks about how awesome Jeff is then Jeff gets dominated for the rest of the time.

You were suckered in by the dumb fans who have no idea how to judge and some did by Mir's commentating, theres no freakin way Jeff won that fight. Jeff got the nod against Raphael Asuncao in which Raph dominated and when they gave Jeff the split the entire crowd boo'd after Raph was robbed. Not saying this is relevant but something to think about in terms of whos actually winning and who you want to win.
FrankTheTank1181
4/6/09 7:31:27PM
Benavidez clearly won that fight. Sitting in a crowd rooting for Curran may have influenced your opinion.
nickcuc547
4/6/09 7:50:45PM
thought the decision was just. curran was game and threw a lot at him but benevidez had an answer for everything. curran was kind of close to locking in a triangle at the end of the fight but other than that he didn't really come close to slapping on a sub, and benevidez controlled position and did more damage, great fight though.
AnDeRsonDaSiLvA
4/6/09 10:51:51PM

Posted by EvenFlow


Posted by bjj1605

Any one else feel like Jeff Curran got robbed? I was there and everyone around me felt that way. When I went home I watched it on my DVR hoping to see something different than the first time around but I think he won rounds 1 and 2 hands down. I think this shows the problem with judges in MMA. They don't understand the game so they end up scoring the fighter on top as winning.

Jeff out boxed him on the feet and landed some really good kicks. On his back he threatened with submissions and had some great up kicks. If you watch carefully almost every punch Joe throws misses because Jeff kicks his legs when he throws. After the fight my girlfriend yelled at Benevides "You lost that fight." And he said "I thought so too."



No, in fact everyone here that I've seen write about it on the playground was upset by it, I even posted at how angry I was that Mir even gave Curran round 1, Benavidez won every round handidly. If you listen to his words carefully he dosnt awknowledge Jose at all like hes a ghost landing shots then when Jeff gets one Mir goes crazy and talks about how awesome Jeff is then Jeff gets dominated for the rest of the time.

You were suckered in by the dumb fans who have no idea how to judge and some did by Mir's commentating, theres no freakin way Jeff won that fight. Jeff got the nod against Raphael Asuncao in which Raph dominated and when they gave Jeff the split the entire crowd boo'd after Raph was robbed. Not saying this is relevant but something to think about in terms of whos actually winning and who you want to win.



100 % agree evenflow , bjj1605 you need to watch the fights instead of listening to mir's commentating , even cecil peoples is laughing .
bjj1605
4/7/09 12:03:35AM

Posted by AnDeRsonDaSiLvA


Posted by EvenFlow


Posted by bjj1605

Any one else feel like Jeff Curran got robbed? I was there and everyone around me felt that way. When I went home I watched it on my DVR hoping to see something different than the first time around but I think he won rounds 1 and 2 hands down. I think this shows the problem with judges in MMA. They don't understand the game so they end up scoring the fighter on top as winning.

Jeff out boxed him on the feet and landed some really good kicks. On his back he threatened with submissions and had some great up kicks. If you watch carefully almost every punch Joe throws misses because Jeff kicks his legs when he throws. After the fight my girlfriend yelled at Benevides "You lost that fight." And he said "I thought so too."



No, in fact everyone here that I've seen write about it on the playground was upset by it, I even posted at how angry I was that Mir even gave Curran round 1, Benavidez won every round handidly. If you listen to his words carefully he dosnt awknowledge Jose at all like hes a ghost landing shots then when Jeff gets one Mir goes crazy and talks about how awesome Jeff is then Jeff gets dominated for the rest of the time.

You were suckered in by the dumb fans who have no idea how to judge and some did by Mir's commentating, theres no freakin way Jeff won that fight. Jeff got the nod against Raphael Asuncao in which Raph dominated and when they gave Jeff the split the entire crowd boo'd after Raph was robbed. Not saying this is relevant but something to think about in terms of whos actually winning and who you want to win.



100 % agree evenflow , bjj1605 you need to watch the fights instead of listening to mir's commentating , even cecil peoples is laughing .



Don't tell me I need to watch the fights buddy. I think there are a lot of problems with judging in MMA, especially in Chicago. Benevides didn't land a single significant shot and jeff landed many. Jeff out boxed him on the feet landing cleaner shots and way more kicks. In the second jeff hit him with a solid head kick and many side kicks. Because he was losing the stand up Joe took it down. Once he got there he spent all of his time missing punches and defending submissions while jeff up-kicked him and got close to some triangles and an omoplata. The only reason Benevides won is because judges and most MMA fans are idiots.

The judging criteria is Effective Striking, Grappling, aggression, and octagon control. Benevides had aggression and control but Jeff won the striking and grappling. And Jeff was way closer to finishing the fight.

Oh by the way bud I was at the event, I was practically cage side. I saw things clearer than you and I didn't hear any of Mir's comments till I watched it again at home. But you know more than a professional MMA fighter, announcer, and champion with a black belt in brazilian jiu jitsu right? I bet you think you do.
AnDeRsonDaSiLvA
4/7/09 1:32:46AM

Posted by bjj1605


Posted by AnDeRsonDaSiLvA


Posted by EvenFlow


Posted by bjj1605

Any one else feel like Jeff Curran got robbed? I was there and everyone around me felt that way. When I went home I watched it on my DVR hoping to see something different than the first time around but I think he won rounds 1 and 2 hands down. I think this shows the problem with judges in MMA. They don't understand the game so they end up scoring the fighter on top as winning.

Jeff out boxed him on the feet and landed some really good kicks. On his back he threatened with submissions and had some great up kicks. If you watch carefully almost every punch Joe throws misses because Jeff kicks his legs when he throws. After the fight my girlfriend yelled at Benevides "You lost that fight." And he said "I thought so too."



No, in fact everyone here that I've seen write about it on the playground was upset by it, I even posted at how angry I was that Mir even gave Curran round 1, Benavidez won every round handidly. If you listen to his words carefully he dosnt awknowledge Jose at all like hes a ghost landing shots then when Jeff gets one Mir goes crazy and talks about how awesome Jeff is then Jeff gets dominated for the rest of the time.

You were suckered in by the dumb fans who have no idea how to judge and some did by Mir's commentating, theres no freakin way Jeff won that fight. Jeff got the nod against Raphael Asuncao in which Raph dominated and when they gave Jeff the split the entire crowd boo'd after Raph was robbed. Not saying this is relevant but something to think about in terms of whos actually winning and who you want to win.



100 % agree evenflow , bjj1605 you need to watch the fights instead of listening to mir's commentating , even cecil peoples is laughing .



Don't tell me I need to watch the fights buddy. I think there are a lot of problems with judging in MMA, especially in Chicago.. Benevides didn't land a single significant shot and jeff landed many Jeff out boxed him on the feet landing cleaner shots and way more kicks. In the second jeff hit him with a solid head kick and many side kicks. Because he was losing the stand up Joe took it down. Once he got there he spent all of his time missing punches and defending submissions while jeff up-kicked him and got close to some triangles and an omoplata. The only reason Benevides won is because judges and most MMA fans are idiots.

The judging criteria is Effective Striking, Grappling, aggression, and octagon control. Benevides had aggression and control but Jeff won the striking and grappling. And Jeff was way closer to finishing the fight.

Oh by the way bud I was at the event, I was practically cage side. I saw things clearer than you and I didn't hear any of Mir's comments till I watched it again at home. But you know more than a professional MMA fighter, announcer, and champion with a black belt in brazilian jiu jitsu right? I bet you think you do.


when you start your argument with that, its hard to take you seriously , maybe you should watch it a 3rd time ,
Playground_Samurai
4/7/09 2:28:46AM

Posted by bjj1605
The only reason Benevides won is because judges and most MMA fans are idiots.



I know you have to realize how bitter you sound.

I picked Curran to win a UD, but I scored it for Benevides. He controlled the fight pretty much from beginning to end, and he landed just as many, if not more clean strikes than Jeff.

Sour grapes.
Franklinfan47
4/7/09 10:29:18AM

Posted by gspfan


Posted by bjj1605
The only reason Benevides won is because judges and most MMA fans are idiots.



I know you have to realize how bitter you sound.

I picked Curran to win a UD, but I scored it for Benevides. He controlled the fight pretty much from beginning to end, and he landed just as many, if not more clean strikes than Jeff.

Sour grapes.



Exactly. Guys, I'm dissapointed Curran lost a close decision too because I picked him, but alot of your arguments are obviously biased.
bjj1605
4/7/09 12:42:03PM
I'm not denying that I'm biased. In fact I came right out and admitted it. I just don't want some guy telling me that i need to watch the fight closer or that I was swayed by Mir cause I couldn't even hear his commentary. I'm stating anything. Notice that this thread was posted as a question.

Because I am biased I wanted the opinion of an educated MMA community. Most of you don't agree so I can chalk it up to Jeff being a friend of mine. Still, there is no way in hell that fight was 30-27. And I still think Jeff won rounds one and two. Problem is that the way MMA is scored (which isn't how it should be scored) Benevides apparently did enough.

I also think it is very arrogant for everyone to assume they are better at judging than Mir. The guy is a professional commentator, fighter and champion.
StorminYourman
4/7/09 12:51:44PM

Posted by bjj1605



I also think it is very arrogant for everyone to assume they are better at judging than Mir. The guy is a professional commentator, fighter and champion.



He may be all of that but he is clearly very bias to a point of nuthuggery. This is very clear to anyone who watched these fights oon the versus network.
EvenFlow
4/7/09 2:21:26PM

Posted by bjj1605


Posted by AnDeRsonDaSiLvA


Posted by EvenFlow


Posted by bjj1605

Any one else feel like Jeff Curran got robbed? I was there and everyone around me felt that way. When I went home I watched it on my DVR hoping to see something different than the first time around but I think he won rounds 1 and 2 hands down. I think this shows the problem with judges in MMA. They don't understand the game so they end up scoring the fighter on top as winning.

Jeff out boxed him on the feet and landed some really good kicks. On his back he threatened with submissions and had some great up kicks. If you watch carefully almost every punch Joe throws misses because Jeff kicks his legs when he throws. After the fight my girlfriend yelled at Benevides "You lost that fight." And he said "I thought so too."



No, in fact everyone here that I've seen write about it on the playground was upset by it, I even posted at how angry I was that Mir even gave Curran round 1, Benavidez won every round handidly. If you listen to his words carefully he dosnt awknowledge Jose at all like hes a ghost landing shots then when Jeff gets one Mir goes crazy and talks about how awesome Jeff is then Jeff gets dominated for the rest of the time.

You were suckered in by the dumb fans who have no idea how to judge and some did by Mir's commentating, theres no freakin way Jeff won that fight. Jeff got the nod against Raphael Asuncao in which Raph dominated and when they gave Jeff the split the entire crowd boo'd after Raph was robbed. Not saying this is relevant but something to think about in terms of whos actually winning and who you want to win.



100 % agree evenflow , bjj1605 you need to watch the fights instead of listening to mir's commentating , even cecil peoples is laughing .



Don't tell me I need to watch the fights buddy. I think there are a lot of problems with judging in MMA, especially in Chicago. Benevides didn't land a single significant shot and jeff landed many. Jeff out boxed him on the feet landing cleaner shots and way more kicks. In the second jeff hit him with a solid head kick and many side kicks. Because he was losing the stand up Joe took it down. Once he got there he spent all of his time missing punches and defending submissions while jeff up-kicked him and got close to some triangles and an omoplata. The only reason Benevides won is because judges and most MMA fans are idiots.

The judging criteria is Effective Striking, Grappling, aggression, and octagon control. Benevides had aggression and control but Jeff won the striking and grappling. And Jeff was way closer to finishing the fight.

Oh by the way bud I was at the event, I was practically cage side. I saw things clearer than you and I didn't hear any of Mir's comments till I watched it again at home. But you know more than a professional MMA fighter, announcer, and champion with a black belt in brazilian jiu jitsu right? I bet you think you do.



You might be the most biased fan I've heard in awhile, there is no way Jeff won that fight, did you see Jeff arguing the decision? no. Watch how much more Joseph does and learn how MMA is scored before you tell 99% of the ppl who disagree with you that they're wrong.

Oh and your title shouldnt be stated as a fact when in fact Joseph won 30-27 thus not robbed, your title should state, "Did Jeff Curran Get Robbed?" and have a poll in it, in which case you'd probably be the only one who votes yes.
slapshot
4/7/09 3:18:25PM

Posted by bjj1605
Oh by the way bud I was at the event, I was practically cage side. I saw things clearer than you and I didn't hear any of Mir's comments till I watched it again at home. But you know more than a professional MMA fighter, announcer, and champion with a black belt in brazilian jiu jitsu right? I bet you think you do.



What dose being a pro fighter and BJJ black belt have to do with being biased and giving a inaccurate account of the fight? Sorry but Mir did a poor job because he went into a fight commentary assuming the fighter he liked would win and his favor was not subtle at all.

Its not like this was the only fight or fighter that he did this to that night, I hope he learns from his mistakes because I like his commentating.

P.S. 30-27 looks right to me, all that means is he lost every round 10-9 and IMO he did.
bjj1605
4/7/09 7:53:08PM
I understand perfectly how MMA judging works. I know what 30-27 means and I think its absurd. And I've talked to jeff and he doesn't agree with the decision at all. Like I said already I wanted to know what everyone else thought. If it looked to you guys like he lost, maybe he did. I'll say it for maybe the third or fourth time now. I AM BIASED AND I KNOW IT.

That doesn't mean that I don't have a point. Whether Jeff won or lost i think judging in MMA sucks. You'll have a wrestler getting picked apart on his feet so he takes the guy down. Once there he spends the entire time in guard landing no significant ground and pound and defending submissions. I have to let you know (because it doesn't seem like you do) that guard isn't an advantageous position for either fighter, any more than standing is. Its usually scored that way because the guy on top wanted to be there. By that logic any one who wants it to be a stand up fight (whether he wins the stand up or not) is winning if it stays on the feet.

What I'm tired of is the fact that MMA judges is general are uneducated about fighting and biased towards wrestlers. Its natural that to some one who doesn't know a lot about MMA the aggressive guy on top looks like he's winning. Thats not the case if coming forward means you get picked apart and spend the whole time defending what the other guy is throwing.

Maybe Jeff's fight doesn't fit the equation like i thought. Again (4th or 5th time now?) I know I'm biased so you can stop telling me that. But regardless of how many times you tell me it or insult my knowledge of MMA while defending your own, I still think it is a problem.

Not sure of a solution yet. Perhaps they need to spend time educating the judges in the intricacies of stand up (not just boxing) and the ground game (not wrestling).

What we have right now is a pure form of competition heading in the direction of professional boxing (a corrupt and dying sport.) I'm not suggesting we go back to unlimited rounds or no time limits. But I'll say if we have judging it should be informed. I'm a purist. I love jiu jitsu and I loved the no-rule days. We had to sacrifice some of that to get the sport accepted but I think the path we're on now is that the sport will turn in to a watered down form of competition that no longer accurately represents fighting or the martial arts.

I'm not a fan of wrestling. I'm a fan of mixed martial arts.
Pookie
4/7/09 8:16:17PM
What they need to do(as judges) is understand how they should be judging fights - because honestly on paper wrestlers shouldnt have an advantage in the UFC, but they do.

Takedowns are valued as much as getting up from the takedown, just like Submissions are valued as much as escaping the sub. IMO i dont think alot of judges are aware of this, even though its their job to be.

It seems to be a wrestler when they get top position wins control and grappling on the judges scorecard, which is enough for a draw in the round since theirs only 4 criteria.

lohmann
4/7/09 8:31:24PM

Posted by Pookie

What they need to do(as judges) is understand how they should be judging fights - because honestly on paper wrestlers shouldnt have an advantage in the UFC, but they do.

Takedowns are valued as much as getting up from the takedown, just like Submissions are valued as much as escaping the sub. IMO i dont think alot of judges are aware of this, even though its their job to be.

It seems to be a wrestler when they get top position wins control and grappling on the judges scorecard, which is enough for a draw in the round since theirs only 4 criteria.




I agree with you that there are general judging problems, but taking away the importance of success (in takedowns and especially submission attempts) would probably make fights nearly impossible to score. I think takedowns receive too much importance, but they still should be calculated in decisions.

If getting up from a takedown was as valued as the takedown and escaping the submission as attempting the submission, how would that change the fighter with top control from usually winning?

Pookie
4/7/09 9:04:18PM

Posted by lohmann


Posted by Pookie

What they need to do(as judges) is understand how they should be judging fights - because honestly on paper wrestlers shouldnt have an advantage in the UFC, but they do.

Takedowns are valued as much as getting up from the takedown, just like Submissions are valued as much as escaping the sub. IMO i dont think alot of judges are aware of this, even though its their job to be.

It seems to be a wrestler when they get top position wins control and grappling on the judges scorecard, which is enough for a draw in the round since theirs only 4 criteria.




I agree with you that there are general judging problems, but taking away the importance of success (in takedowns and especially submission attempts) would probably make fights nearly impossible to score. I think takedowns receive too much importance, but they still should be calculated in decisions.

If getting up from a takedown was as valued as the takedown and escaping the submission as attempting the submission, how would that change the fighter with top control from usually winning?



No "If's" that is the actual criteria

"How would that change the fighter with top control from usually winning?"
LnP should be valued less. If a fighter is on top with GnP, its pretty hard to say he doesnt win the round in almost any situation.

But if he does nothing with the takedown, he shouldn't win the Grappling portion in that situation if the other fighter gets up on his own volition. He would however get Octagon Control tallied on his side if the guy on bottom isnt constantly throwing up submissions or controlling the stand-up for more time than the wrestler in question is.

Benevides and Kampmann i dont believe are cases like this personally.
Guida v. Diaz i feel is.

Alot of jumbled thoughts there, i hope that came out as coherant.
bjj1605
4/7/09 10:45:07PM
The difference between submissions and takedowns is that one has the end to finish the fight while the other almost never does (excluding the very rare knockout slam). One is an end and the other a means to an end. Its like saying a feint should be more valuable than a hard right hand to the chin. The submission is like the solid punch, trying to end the fight. The feint is like the takedown. It has the purpose of setting up something else that will hopefully finish the fight.

And I agree that true damaging ground and pound should win around even with submission attempts. I don't agree that the pathetic hammer fists we usually see, punches to the body, or punches that miss win the round in any way.

The end of any fight should be to finish it because in a real fight you don't win with out a finish. There is no artificial time limit that ends it for you.

With that being said: The effective part of "Effective Striking, Grappling, Aggressions, and Octagon Control" means effective insofar as it attempts to finish the fight. Striking that is closest to finishing a fight. Grappling that is closest to finishing a fight. Aggression that and Control that leads to those two ends.

Clay Guida is a perfect example of a fighter who should never get a decision because he never tries to finish fights. He is a lay and pray fighter in true form. He blames his hair on his close decisions. I blame his awful fighting style.

If MMA is going to become nothing more than a place for wrestlers to go after college I'll stop watching. I think a lot of other people will too. Why did real professional wrestling stop? Because its uninteresting.

MMA is supposed to be the truest form of competition. For me it is a window into my animal nature. It is man vs. man. A competition of wills. I hate to see it butchered by uneducated judges and fans.
Pages: [1] 2
Related Topics