Pick'em Leagues: THE BIG SHOW CASUAL BEST OF THE REST Single Event PvP: FANTASY POOLS Betting Leagues: THE BIG SHOW BEST OF THE REST
  MMA Playground 4.0 is live!     Returning members: check out the patch notes     New members: visit our getting started guide, read the FAQ's and start playing!

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

Print  
  Page 2 of 2     1     2  
Posted By Message

Rush

Laying down the beats

Rush Avatar
4



 
 
 


 
 
Posts:6,291
Career:759-539
Joined:Jan 2007
Chips:
835

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.

Last edited 8/14/09 4:05PM server time by Rush
Edit note/reason: n/a

Post #16   8/14/09 4:04:13PM   

cowcatcher

Steady MODdin'

cowcatcher Avatar
6





 
 
 


 
 
Posts:7,725
Career:2,487-1,427
Joined:Jan 2007
Camp: Project Mayhem
Chips:
1,688
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.

_______________________________________

Post #17   8/14/09 4:14:41PM   

ncordless

MODulation

ncordless Avatar
12
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:4,843
Career:1,848-1,057
Joined:Apr 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
1,098
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.

_______________________________________
Flame Not, Lest Ye Be Flamed Yourself.

Post #18   8/14/09 4:42:54PM   

whardin19

MMA Sensei

whardin19 Avatar
1
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:1,071
Career:999-599
Joined:Jul 2007
Camp: B-Robs Terror
Chips:
79
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.

Post #19   8/14/09 5:10:26PM   

Sam_Rothstein

Belt Contender

Sam_Rothstein Avatar
5




 
 
 


 
 
Posts:955
Career:950-555
Joined:Mar 2007
Chips:
65
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.

Post #20   8/14/09 7:03:02PM   

SociopathX

MMA Regular

SociopathX Avatar
1
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:198
Career:210-126
Joined:Mar 2008
Chips:
17
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.

Post #21   8/14/09 8:24:04PM   

fizzle

Standup Guy

fizzle Avatar
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:324
Career:181-103
Joined:Dec 2008
Chips:
65

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.

Post #22   8/15/09 4:49:57AM   

telnights

MODesty

telnights Avatar
14
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:2,910
Career:1,337-741
Joined:Jun 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
539
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.

_______________________________________
MMA Playground Mod
Telnights
MMAplayground Rules

Post #23   8/15/09 4:02:37PM   

Wolfenstein

Heavyweight Champ

Wolfenstein Avatar
4



 
 
 


 
 
Posts:3,216
Career:1,304-730
Joined:Dec 2007
Chips:
790
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.

Post #24   8/15/09 6:55:57PM   

bjj1605

Heavyweight Champ

bjj1605 Avatar
6





 
 
 


 
 
Posts:3,196
Career:1,496-876
Joined:Oct 2007
Camp: Dark Horse
Chips:
676
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.

Post #25   8/15/09 9:49:49PM   

telnights

MODesty

telnights Avatar
14
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:2,910
Career:1,337-741
Joined:Jun 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
539

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.

_______________________________________
MMA Playground Mod
Telnights
MMAplayground Rules

Post #26   8/16/09 2:52:39AM   

bjj1605

Heavyweight Champ

bjj1605 Avatar
6





 
 
 


 
 
Posts:3,196
Career:1,496-876
Joined:Oct 2007
Camp: Dark Horse
Chips:
676
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.

Last edited 8/19/09 2:32PM server time by bjj1605
Edit note/reason: n/a

Post #27   8/19/09 2:30:16PM   

telnights

MODesty

telnights Avatar
14
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:2,910
Career:1,337-741
Joined:Jun 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
539

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.

_______________________________________
MMA Playground Mod
Telnights
MMAplayground Rules

Post #28   8/19/09 3:13:24PM   
 
  Page 2 of 2     1     2