Tough Loss for Neer Once Again Illustrates Judging, Refereeing Issues

Now, I’m not saying that Josh Neer won the fight against Kurt Pellegrino.  However, it didn’t really seem right that he lost, either.  My problem is that it shouldn’t be up to the fighter on the bottom to “make something happen” or lose each round by default simply because he is on the bottom.  To me, the fighter who takes his opponent to the ground has the responsibility to make something happen.  After all, he took the fight to the mat, he should have some kind of ability to take that and turn it to his favor.

The problem is that judges and officials alike have been effectively handcuffed by ambiguous guidelines and criteria, while fighters that are as savvy as Pellegrino have learned how to “work the system”, so to speak.  Pellegrino, as a better wrestler than Neer, knows that if he can get a takedown each round, stay out of submissions and stay just active enough to avoid being stood up, he will get the win. 

This is true almost without question.  For the fighter on the bottom during the majority of the fight, the only way to win is to finish his opponent, which is an all-or-nothing proposition.  For the fighter on the top, he can finish the fight but also fall back on the near certainty that his takedowns will win him the fight via judges’ decision.

Neer won the stand-up exchanges when they did occur, and attempted all of the submissions in the bout, and also laid a nice last-minute beatdown on his opponent as the fight ended, but also knew immediately that he had lost.  But what did he lose?  A wrestling match?

Why are takedowns considered to be a way to “score points”, anyway? 

You hear it all the time that a fighter may have stolen the round with a takedown, or that they are scoring points by taking down their opponent.  But again, this is a fight, not a wrestling match.  If an attempted submission that does no physical damage to an opponent and does not finish the fight is not factored into scoring, why should a takedown be viewed any differently?  In the vast majority of all cases, the takedown is not going to hurt the other fighter, and only leads to a change in the location of the fight.  Why would this be viewed as a valuable maneuver, unless the top fighter can take advantage of the position by doing damage or working on submissions?

One problem is that “octagon control” needs to be removed from the judging criteria.  It is an ambiguous and, quite frankly, lame concept that basically allows judges to give 10-9 rounds out on wrestling ability, rather than who is actually working to finish the fight.  I mean, who had the “octagon control” in the majority of the Penn-Florian fight?  Florian, because he held Penn against the cage?  If a fighter pulls guard, does it count as a takedown?  Should a takedown count as anything?  Should it be worth as much as a good combination or flurry of punches?  Where do attempted submissions fit in to all of this?  Until all of this is spelled out and agreed upon, judging will be a bit of a farce in this otherwise great sport.

Also, stand-ups are in need of some kind of redefining, too.  You see fighters get stood up all the time because they aren’t being active enough, but generally they are really being stood up for not striking enough.  You can stay in someone’s guard all day long as long as you tee off on him every twenty or thirty seconds, but if you take that same amount of time and work to pass to half-guard or mount (where you can do a lot more damage), you will be stood up very quickly if you are unsuccessful.  These kinds of rules favor fighters who look to take the fight to the ground and land punches that usually are not going to finish the fight, anyway.  As we saw with Pellegrino-Neer (and so many other fights), the punches and strikes thrown by the top fighter don’t even have to land to keep the fight from being stood up.  Just flailing your arms and maybe landing a couple of shots here and there is usually enough to keep the ref from intervening.

So, now we have a system where the top guy is tempted to do whatever he can to keep the fight from being stood up, because he knows he will win the round that way.  Meanwhile, the fighter on the bottom is actually encouraged to not be active, because his strikes won’t help him win the round, and his submission attempts won’t be helpful if the fight goes to a decision.  His best move is actually to hold on for dear life and get a stand-up, which is not what the rules of MMA should encourage fighters to do.  However, unless he knows he can get back to his feet or submit his opponent, stalling is his best move.

Several times, Neer showed his annoyance with being controlled on the ground by shrugging his shoulders or looking at the ref with a puzzled look on his face.  The thing is, by being active on the ground with strikes and submission attempts, Neer was actually worsening his chances to win the fight.  The best move would be to pull Pellegrino close and hope to hold him tight until the referee decides that the boos have gotten loud enough that the fight needs to be stood up.  Does that sound like the kind of strategy that MMA’s rules and judging criteria should encourage?

It’s not as if this fight is the only example of this.  Clay Guida, although a very good fighter who is a fan favorite (as well as a good all-around person), has come under fire by many fans for holding fighters against the cage (a-la Florian in the Penn bout at UFC 101) to win judges’ decisions.  Now, Guida certainly fights hard and does try to finish opponents, but let’s say that he didn’t.  What if there was a short exchange or two, followed by minutes of clinching up against the cage.  Again, if the striking in the round is close, clinching with your opponent and putting him against the cage for five minutes technically wins the “octagon control” and “aggressiveness” criteria for the round, right?  Should it be that way, though?  Should a smart fighter be able to take advantage of the rules and judging system to win a fight by basically not fighting?

I don’t have a problem with Kurt Pellegrino, and you can’t begrudge a guy for trying to win a fight within the rules, while playing to his own strengths against a dangerous opponent.  I’m not even saying that he didn’t win the fight, at least not by the current UFC judging system.  However, you can’t help but feel badly for Neer, who really just lost a wrestling match after he had trained for a fight.

by Jon Hartley for Fightmania.com

Tags: Clay Guida, Kurt Pellegrino, UFC