Josh Neer and Kurt Pellegrino Comment on Their Fight at UFC 101

MMAPlayground.com » Community » MMA News Share Forum » Josh Neer and Kurt Pellegrino Comment on Their Fight at UFC 101
emfleek
8/14/09 8:12:07AM
Josh Neer:

Hey guys I figured I’d come on here and explain my fight a little. 1 thing I wish I would have done is just try to get up. The reason I didn't was because when he stood up, he was waiting for me to do so. Soon as I would of, he would of spun around and take my back. If I had it to do over again I would have just took the risk. I was complaining about the ref standing us up because c'mon he can't stand us up 1 time? But I guess you can't when you’re basically from the same town as my opponent. I watched the same ref being buddy buddy with all the guys on the card from New Jersey. My main problem with Kurt was b4 the fight he talked how it was going to be a war and he was going to leave it all out there and blah blah. Well in my opinion he didn't at all. If you’re going to play it safe and stick to a game plan just say that. Don’t talk like it's going to be a great fight.

STORY
Rush
8/14/09 9:46:44AM
It's too bad the fight went the way it did. I really felt that Josh was trying to make a fight out of it, while Kurt was riding out the UD from round 1. Josh may have sealed his own coffin in the fight by being so active from the bottom. It's a shame that the ref and judges don't understand that if the guy on the bottom (with guard) is constantly attacking, he is not in danger from the guy on top, thus how can the guy on top get any credit for control or aggression?

In retrospect, when Josh got the sense the fight was not going to get stood up, he should have locked up Kurt in his guard and hugged him to see how long it took Dan to stand them up.
fizzle
8/14/09 11:39:30AM
Personally, I feel that if you can't get up on your own, tough nuts. I also didn't really feel that Kurt did anything wrong. Kurt threw punches from guard and would have passed if Neer wasn't so good at keeping him there. The complaining to the ref got on my nerves during the fight. It isn't the ref's job to appease your frustration. If you want up, then get up. Kurt and Josh are almost the same fighter, Kurt just has better wrestling, I don't see the problem in using your strength against a basic carbon copy of yourself.
xdanish020
8/14/09 12:00:15PM
I agree with Neer, although I can't really blame Kurt...if he lost that fight he would have been out of the UFC, so he played it safe and stuck to his wrestling and top control. It wasn't a very exciting fight, to say the least and Neer although upset with the loss, his comments are pretty on point.
bjj1605
8/14/09 12:07:55PM
You know I don't agree with stand ups at all. Thats how the fight game goes. If your opponent is a better wrestler he will be on top of you.

My problem is that the ignorance of MMA judges has made stand ups necessary. Just like the guy on top has the right to keep his position the guy on the bottom deserves credit for the work he's doing. Josh Neer won that fight. By no stretch of the imagination did Kurt come closer to finishing the fight. You might argue that he had octagon control because he dictated where the fight took place. But Josh had effective grappling (a little bit of effective striking) and way more aggression.

I'm so sick of uneducated judges screwing up fights. Another perfect example of this was Jeff Curran vs. Mizugaki. There is no way to make an intelligent argument for Jeff loosing that fight.

In MMA is you play guard and don't finish the fight you will loose. And that sucks.
hippysmacker
8/14/09 12:11:06PM

Posted by fizzle

Personally, I feel that if you can't get up on your own, tough nuts. I also didn't really feel that Kurt did anything wrong. Kurt threw punches from guard and would have passed if Neer wasn't so good at keeping him there. The complaining to the ref got on my nerves during the fight. It isn't the ref's job to appease your frustration. If you want up, then get up. Kurt and Josh are almost the same fighter, Kurt just has better wrestling, I don't see the problem in using your strength against a basic carbon copy of yourself.



I agree and I actually thought the fight was entertaining myslef. A little chess matchy
KaibaThedon
8/14/09 12:40:30PM
Water under the bridge now boys, Pellegrino dictated where the fight went and he took home a unanimous...

Good comments by both, but Pellegrino said it - He had to use his game plan to beat Neer because Neer is a tough guy...

When you play video games, you use the best hero/character or the strongest weapons because you play to win. If its legal, then use that advantage.

If you gotta go for the W, you gotta go for it.

I was kinda disappointed cuz I picked Neer, but hey, what happens happens.
Rush
8/14/09 12:58:02PM

Posted by fizzle

Personally, I feel that if you can't get up on your own, tough nuts. I also didn't really feel that Kurt did anything wrong. Kurt threw punches from guard and would have passed if Neer wasn't so good at keeping him there. The complaining to the ref got on my nerves during the fight. It isn't the ref's job to appease your frustration. If you want up, then get up. Kurt and Josh are almost the same fighter, Kurt just has better wrestling, I don't see the problem in using your strength against a basic carbon copy of yourself.



It would be interesting to see if you feel the same way if Frankie Edgar and/or Sherk layed on Kurt for 3 rounds without a stand up, which ended up resulting in Kurt losing and possibly being let go by the UFC.


I don't have a problem with the no stand up "rule" provided that judges score the fight accordingly. That is, this is not a wrestling match and guys should not be rewarded for holding their opponent down. Pinning should not be considered a means of winning/finishing a fight in MMA. I mean, if a fighter bear hugged his opponent for 15 min, not allowing him to strike, and ended up winning by UD, would that seem like an appropriate way to judge that fight?
cowcatcher
8/14/09 1:00:50PM
i think the guy doing the bear hugging wins if thats how the whole fight goes, hes the one in control.
Rush
8/14/09 1:09:57PM
"Control" or not, how can hugging not be considered the same as not engaging your opponent. To me, if you are not trying to T(KO) or sub your opponent, you are not trying to win. By saying that I don't expect the fighters to be going at each other 100% of the 15 min., but come on, I can't think of too many instances in that fight where Kurt was trying to win by any means other than a decision, especially in Rd 2 or 3.


I think a good example of how a decision should be (because the outcome was similar to the Neer-Pellegrino fight) was the Grove vs. Almeida fight. Almeida was controlling Grove on the ground most of the fight, but he was clearly trying to finish him at all times.
SmileR
8/14/09 1:54:03PM
Basically Pallegringo did all he needed to win. He held top position and landed the most damaging strikes. Thats enough right there to be granted a UD.
Neer is a tough dude but if your game plan is to stand and bang then learn to sprawl if you want the fight stood up take control and stop that action on the floor.

I'm 100% on Joe Rogan's side with this though. As the great man says "If a guy can hold you down from 3 rounds thats your problem and your loss".
Neer needs to man up and move on.
cowcatcher
8/14/09 2:13:46PM

Posted by Rush

"Control" or not, how can hugging not be considered the same as not engaging your opponent. To me, if you are not trying to T(KO) or sub your opponent, you are not trying to win. By saying that I don't expect the fighters to be going at each other 100% of the 15 min., but come on, I can't think of too many instances in that fight where Kurt was trying to win by any means other than a decision, especially in Rd 2 or 3.


I think a good example of how a decision should be (because the outcome was similar to the Neer-Pellegrino fight) was the Grove vs. Almeida fight. Almeida was controlling Grove on the ground most of the fight, but he was clearly trying to finish him at all times.



so youre saying you would give it to the guy getting hugged? if a guy is in control of the fight, action or not, he has to get the win. i dont want to see a guy in a bearhug for 3 rounds, but id damn sure give the hugger the win over the huggie.
joshryanshepherd
8/14/09 2:38:56PM
anyone who thinks its okay to hug your opponent is the same person who booed when a Pride Ref handed out a yellow card.

the fighters need to realize they are being paid to entertain the fans not get Wins, even though they are nice. when Sylvia did it he was viewed as a trash. and Anderson's win over Leites was suppose to be crap.
colman
8/14/09 3:15:35PM
I think they are being paid to entertain fans and to get wins. If you don't get wins you won't stay in the UFC for very long no matter how entertaining. It wasn't the most exciting fight but if Josh Neer wants people to play into his strength and bang the whole fight then he is in for a frustrating career.
jiujitsufreak74
8/14/09 4:02:10PM
sour grapes by Neer. i'm sure it is frustrating to get controlled by a dominant wrestler, but if you can't do anything to stop it then that is your bad. i didn't see one point in that fight where it should have been stood up imo. Kurt was never just "laying" on Neer. he was always active and landed a lot of effective strikes from half guard. you can even see it on Neer's face after the fight.

and as for the whole hugger vs huggie argument, i'm with cowcatcher. how can you give a fight to a guy who is being controleld for 3 rounds posing no danger to his opponent? just because a guy is using an effective strategy to win a fight by eliminating his opponents offensive capabilities doesn't mean he shold lose. in the bear hug scenario, both fighters aren't really doing any damage, so why should the guy getting thrown around like a ragdoll win?

Rush
8/14/09 4:04:13PM

Posted by cowcatcher

so youre saying you would give it to the guy getting hugged? if a guy is in control of the fight, action or not, he has to get the win. i dont want to see a guy in a bearhug for 3 rounds, but id damn sure give the hugger the win over the huggie.



No what I am saying is I think the rules/expectations for judging should not reward a fighter that is not trying to finish the fight. I used the hugging example because I thought it was fundamentally equivalent to pinning your opponent, but at the same time emphasize how it can be viewed as not engaging in the fight.

Similarly, I think the ref should have an obligation to ensure that the fighters actually fight. I mean, it's obvious we saw the fight differently, and I have no problem with fights going to decision, but I think that it needs to be recognized that pinning your opponent in MMA should not be considered a way to win the fight. Like in boxing, they don't let fighters clinch for long because it is not a wrestling match. If the fighters are punching than a clinching is allowed, but you don't see one fighter clinching and holding another on the ropes tiring him out or running the clock.
cowcatcher
8/14/09 4:14:41PM
i get what youre saying rush, but the guy doing the "pinning" still has to be the one you give the advantage to on the scorecards. neers biggest mistake was not closing his guard and pulling kurt tight so he could get the stand up. both guys were active on the ground, and although kurt wasnt desperately looking to finish, he was loking to land shots from the top and at any time one of those could land flush and put a guy on dream street ending the fight. from the bottom its a lot harder to finish the fight, the options are just more limited so its not a good place to be. the guy on top should get the nod in many cases, but had pellegrino done nothing on top and neer stayed as active as he was throughout the fight i could see giving neer the W. unfortunately for josh, kurt was active enough on top, and did a good job of mixing control with landing shots when they were there to be had. sure it wasnt a ton of damage and none were lose to finishing, but kurt clearly controlled the fight throughout and earned the win.
ncordless
8/14/09 4:42:54PM
I think the problem is not with the outcome of the fight but in how fighting is judged.

Right now, being on top is given the edge because it is seen as control.

The way it should be scored is not on who is "on top" in a position, but rather what offense is done in that position. If a guy on the bottom is throwing the more effective strikes and throwing up legit sub attempts, he should easily win the round. Obviously, in most cases the guy on top is still going to win the round because it is a lot easier to strike from top. But it shouldn't be set in stone that the guy on top is winning because that is sometimes not the case.

In the Neer/Pellegrino fight, if you look at what the fighters were doing regardless of "positioning" Neer clearly won round 1. Round 2 was close, but imo Pellegrino won round 2. Round 3 Pellegrino more clearly won, although the elbows by Neer were the most effective striking offense by either fighter the whole fight.
whardin19
8/14/09 5:10:26PM
I would have been alright either way the fight went. It was very tough to call. Although I picked Neer (and thought he won) I had no qualms about Pellegrino winning. As for them trash talking there both being retarted. Neer should have tried to stand up more even if his back would have been taken. You go to take that risk. As for Pellegrino trying to say he wasn't LnP'in is bullcrap. Thats LnP in everyones mind.
Sam_Rothstein
8/14/09 7:03:02PM
The best part of the fight was Josh Neer elbowing the **** out of Pellegrinos face for the last few seconds of the fight. Everything else in that brawl is easily forgettable.

Kurt fought like a guy who needed a win and he got it. So he gets to stay in the UFC still but im not sure how many people are gonna be anticipated for his next fight.
SociopathX
8/14/09 8:24:04PM
I'd rather watch Josh Neer fight any day of the week than Kurt. Josh brings it every fight, Kurt had to lay on him to win.. if he would have kept it standing he would have gotten KTFO.
fizzle
8/15/09 4:49:57AM

Posted by SociopathX

I'd rather watch Josh Neer fight any day of the week than Kurt. Josh brings it every fight, Kurt had to lay on him to win.. if he would have kept it standing he would have gotten KTFO.



Even though its not proper game plan, I still like Pellegrino in the stand up. Whatever Neer can throw isn't going to really add up to that vicious kick to the head the Pellegrino took that made his teeth show through his bottom lip in that one fight. This isn't K-1, its MMA and if a guy is better wrestler, you'd better learn to sprawl.
telnights
8/15/09 4:02:37PM
Neer's down fall has always been his inability to stop the take down. This isn't the first time he has lost because of this and I'm betting wont be the last. No matter if the way we judge fights in the US is right or wrong Neer knows the rules and what does and doesn't win fights. By the way we judge things right now Neer lost and cant complain about the Ref when both fighters stayed active. That's the reason there were no stand ups is because Neer keep going for Subs and Kurt keep trying to pass. Now that's not to say there wasn't a couple of times the fight should have been stood up. But would it have changed anything at all. NO... because Kurt would have scored the take down yet again because of Neer's lack of a sprawl. Neer is a lot like Diaz, he is a very emotional fighter who lacks good TDD and lets his emotions get the best of him sometimes. That doesn't mean he isn't a good fighter or fun to watch just means he has a hole in his game that needs to be fixed and the only person he can blame for that is himself.
Wolfenstein
8/15/09 6:55:57PM
I think certainly it's frustrating, but Kurt was trying to pass guard constantly--so it's not like he was just laying on top of him. Everyone knows how we score in the US, so the outcome isn't a surprise. Even if we did score heavilly on who was trying to finish the fight--Neer never even came close to scoring any subs from the bottom. Maybe he needs to add more than just triangles and an armbar to his arsenal from the bottom.

I'm a big fan of Neer. I like that he wants to go to war on the feet--but he got beat fair and square.
bjj1605
8/15/09 9:49:49PM
I really think this conversation is ignoring the important part of the fight. I don't agree with stand ups and obviously takedowns score points.

Here's where I disagree:
If there is one fighter on top and one on his back and neither is doing anything the guy on top is winning. However if the guy on the bottom is controlling the grappling (going for sweeps, submissions, stand ups, tie ups) avoiding ground and pound, and landing more strikes he is quite obviously winning the fight. This was clearly the case here.

As it stands now it is pretty damned near impossible to win a decision from your back. That sucks hard. Jiu Jitsu guys created this sport and many of them have helped make it what it is today. To ignore a cardinal message (that a fighter on his back doesn't have to be at a disadvantage) is an insult to one of the key martial arts that makes up our sport.
telnights
8/16/09 2:52:39AM

Posted by bjj1605

I really think this conversation is ignoring the important part of the fight. I don't agree with stand ups and obviously takedowns score points.

Here's where I disagree:
If there is one fighter on top and one on his back and neither is doing anything the guy on top is winning. However if the guy on the bottom is controlling the grappling (going for sweeps, submissions, stand ups, tie ups) avoiding ground and pound, and landing more strikes he is quite obviously winning the fight. This was clearly the case here.

As it stands now it is pretty damned near impossible to win a decision from your back. That sucks hard. Jiu Jitsu guys created this sport and many of them have helped make it what it is today. To ignore a cardinal message (that a fighter on his back doesn't have to be at a disadvantage) is an insult to one of the key martial arts that makes up our sport.



How is being on your back controlling? If the guy on top is holding you there and stopping everything you do how is the guy on bottom winning? So who is really in control? Yes some BJJ fighters are happy on their back but most are even more happy being in top control. If you cant do anything to the guy on top of you other than TRY subs how is that winning. The guy that took you down didn't just TRY he accomplished his goal. Your not in control at all, the guy that put you on your back is. If I can take someone down and hold them there I can stay there till the other guy wears himself out TRYing to escape or TRYing subs. In the end I wont be near as tired and can beat him till my heart feels that nice warm feeling inside. But none of this really matters about this fight because fact is Neer knows how North American fights are scored and if your on your back 90% of the fight your losing.
bjj1605
8/19/09 2:30:16PM
Kurt may have accomplished his goal in taking josh down but doing so did nothing for him. In fact it put him in a position in which he was in danger of loosing the fight. As a result his only hope was stalling (aka laying) and counting on the judges to make a bad call (praying). A takedown in its self does nothing to finish the fight (except for the rare and vicious slams) it is a transition to another aspect of the fight game. If you are worried you opponent has an advantage on the feet you can take him down where you feel you can win the fight. Taking him there should score you some points (you chose to bring the fight there) and if there is no grappling or the grappling is a draw the man on top should get the nod.

But when the fighter on the bottom is doing a better job once the fight is on the ground this negates and surpasses a single take down. Take the rules of any jiu jitsu or submission grappling tournament (minus wrestling because I doubt any one would say the object of a mixed martial arts fight is to pin your opponent). Take downs generally score two points. Submission attempts that are close but not dangerous earn an advantage (like a half point, used in a tie breaker). Close submission attempts and close sweep attempts earn one point each. By this criteria alone josh one the fight.

Now take striking into account. One could easily argue that josh won the small amount of the time spent on the feet, but for the sake of simplicity I'll leave that part out. Once on the ground the top fighter must try to either do damage or improve his position. Kurt did neither and it was in fact josh who did the most damage with strikes on the ground. If you take a guy down into a barrage of elbows and slapping punches (which may not be finishing the fight but are doing damage) and land little striking of your own you can't feel you've won the fight.

However you break it down its hard to see where Kurt really won. And as I said before I feel this fight was the same story as in the mizugaki vs curran fight.
telnights
8/19/09 3:13:24PM

Posted by bjj1605
Now take striking into account. One could easily argue that josh won the small amount of the time spent on the feet, but for the sake of simplicity I'll leave that part out. Once on the ground the top fighter must try to either do damage or improve his position. Kurt did neither and it was in fact josh who did the most damage with strikes on the ground. If you take a guy down into a barrage of elbows and slapping punches (which may not be finishing the fight but are doing damage) and land little striking of your own you can't feel you've won the fight.

However you break it down its hard to see where Kurt really won. And as I said before I feel this fight was the same story as in the mizugaki vs curran fight.



We must have watched different fights because Kurt was continuously trying to improve his position. Props to Neer for doing a good job blocking him or getting back to full guard. But fact still remains Kurt controlled Neer almost the hole fight. I think its crazy to say its hard to see where Kurt won even Neer knew Kurt won at the end of the fight. He wasn't mad because he did a great job or felt he won, he was mad because he knew he lost.

I'm guessing you think is the Mizugaki vs Curran that Curran won that fight as well. You got to stop listening to Mir. Yes Curran got a good triangle locked in but that doesn't change the fact he got controlled by Mizugaki for 99% of the fight. Whats sad is that fight was a split because one judge must have been listening to Mir as well.
Related Topics