Deleted
Joined on: May 4, 2024 10:13:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2007 7:36:43 GMT -5
I'm not arguing at all dude, I respect what you think and just disagree. You gave your reasons why you think so, so I gave my reasons why I laughed. No hostility from me.
|
|
|
Post by gordon on May 30, 2007 10:13:47 GMT -5
I'm not arguing at all dude, I respect what you think and just disagree. You gave your reasons why you think so, so I gave my reasons why I laughed. No hostility from me. Well the fact you are laughing at my opinion shows little respect, Ken Shamrock was a great fighter and was versed in nearly every form of MMA fighting e.g. ground and pound, stand up, submission. He has one various Martial arts torunaments and titles and has fought and won some of the toughest and greatest fighters ever e.g. Dan Severn, Royce Gracie and Bas Rutten. In his prime he would beat nearly all of todays competitors in his weight range which would either be a heavyweight or light heavyweight, you cant argue with success and he was very successful between 1990 and 1997. If what your saying is correct that all of todays competitors are a better caliber then previous years competitors why is that a 40 year old dan severn can beat forrest griffin, why is it Randy Couture can beat Tim Sylvia? Both Severn and Couture are of the old generation fighters both making UFC debuts over 11 years ago. the old generation of fighters paved the way for the new breed of fighters and I think without them then MMA wouldnt be the success it is today. Yes MMA has evolved but you have your greats from the old generation that if they were in their prime could hang with the newer evolved MMA fighters of today. As I said I dont want an arguement, but my opinion still stands as does yours, I just feel Ken shamrock is highly under-rated by MMA fans today and deserves more respect, and his legacy shouldnt be tarnished just because he has lost some fights in the last few recent years.
|
|
|
Post by dafilthymofo on May 30, 2007 10:27:22 GMT -5
Fedor Emelianenko the numbers don't lie.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on May 30, 2007 10:36:57 GMT -5
I'm not arguing at all dude, I respect what you think and just disagree. You gave your reasons why you think so, so I gave my reasons why I laughed. No hostility from me. Well the fact you are laughing at my opinion shows little respect, Ken Shamrock was a great fighter and was versed in nearly every form of MMA fighting e.g. ground and pound, stand up, submission. He has one various Martial arts torunaments and titles and has fought and won some of the toughest and greatest fighters ever e.g. Dan Severn, Royce Gracie and Bas Rutten. In his prime he would beat nearly all of todays competitors in his weight range which would either be a heavyweight or light heavyweight, you cant argue with success and he was very successful between 1990 and 1997. If what your saying is correct that all of todays competitors are a better caliber then previous years competitors why is that a 40 year old dan severn can beat forrest griffin, why is it Randy Couture can beat Tim Sylvia? Both Severn and Couture are of the old generation fighters both making UFC debuts over 11 years ago. the old generation of fighters paved the way for the new breed of fighters and I think without them then MMA wouldnt be the success it is today. Yes MMA has evolved but you have your greats from the old generation that if they were in their prime could hang with the newer evolved MMA fighters of today. As I said I dont want an arguement, but my opinion still stands as does yours, I just feel Ken shamrock is highly under-rated by MMA fans today and deserves more respect, and his legacy shouldnt be tarnished just because he has lost some fights in the last few recent years. Ken Shamrock was good in his day, but his day was about 6-7 years before MMA began to peak. Shamrock was successful mostly because he was a LOT more experienced and trained more often than his opponents whom were often times completely out-matched. To say he would beat the top fighters now is pretty unrealistic. I'm not saying Shamrock was terrible and he was certainly 'past his prime' when he came back in 2000, but the way he got beaten over and over again since 2000 is a pretty clear indication to me that he would not have been nearly as dominant 'in his day' if everyone else was given the same opportunities to train as he was. Randy Couture beating Tim Sylvia at age 43 is a clear indication that he has/had better staying power than Ken Shamrock. Dan Severn sucks. He beats up on and improves his record against kids who are having their first fights; ala the Griffin fight. You're certainly correct in that the Severn's, Shamrock's, Couture's, Gracie's, etc. of the world 'paved the way' for the current generation of fighters... But that doesn't mean that they're better.
|
|
|
Post by gordon on May 30, 2007 10:44:21 GMT -5
Well the fact you are laughing at my opinion shows little respect, Ken Shamrock was a great fighter and was versed in nearly every form of MMA fighting e.g. ground and pound, stand up, submission. He has one various Martial arts torunaments and titles and has fought and won some of the toughest and greatest fighters ever e.g. Dan Severn, Royce Gracie and Bas Rutten. In his prime he would beat nearly all of todays competitors in his weight range which would either be a heavyweight or light heavyweight, you cant argue with success and he was very successful between 1990 and 1997. If what your saying is correct that all of todays competitors are a better caliber then previous years competitors why is that a 40 year old dan severn can beat forrest griffin, why is it Randy Couture can beat Tim Sylvia? Both Severn and Couture are of the old generation fighters both making UFC debuts over 11 years ago. the old generation of fighters paved the way for the new breed of fighters and I think without them then MMA wouldnt be the success it is today. Yes MMA has evolved but you have your greats from the old generation that if they were in their prime could hang with the newer evolved MMA fighters of today. As I said I dont want an arguement, but my opinion still stands as does yours, I just feel Ken shamrock is highly under-rated by MMA fans today and deserves more respect, and his legacy shouldnt be tarnished just because he has lost some fights in the last few recent years. Ken Shamrock was good in his day, but his day was about 6-7 years before MMA began to peak. Shamrock was successful mostly because he was a LOT more experienced and trained more often than his opponents whom were often times completely out-matched. To say he would beat the top fighters now is pretty unrealistic. I'm not saying Shamrock was terrible and he was certainly 'past his prime' when he came back in 2000, but the way he got beaten over and over again since 2000 is a pretty clear indication to me that he would not have been nearly as dominant 'in his day' if everyone else was given the same opportunities to train as he was. Randy Couture beating Tim Sylvia at age 43 is a clear indication that he has/had better staying power than Ken Shamrock. Dan Severn sucks. He beats up on and improves his record against kids who are having their first fights; ala the Griffin fight. You're certainly correct in that the Severn's, Shamrock's, Couture's, Gracie's, etc. of the world 'paved the way' for the current generation of fighters... But that doesn't mean that they're better. i suppose your right, better... nope, equal to yes. shamrock of 2000 cant possibly even compared to 1994 shamrock... when he left for the WWf he left his skillbehind because when he came back he was no more than an average fighter, personally if he couldnt come back 100% he should never have came back and the Shamrock we saw in all the tito fights was less than 50% of the Shamrock we saw years previous. Your all very knowledged in MMA backgrounds etc and I applaud you for that, I just think shamrock would be a good challenge for todays fighters if he was in 1994 prime... which obviously would never happen unless someone built a time machine lol. anyways I think people should see it from my perspective, Muhammad Ali vs Mike Tyson, Ali was from a different era but people still want to see it because of the skill they both possesed in different eras of boxing. Yes MMA has evolved but Shamrock was still a great MMA fighter, and he wouldnt look stupid if he was in his prime against todays MMA fighters.
|
|
|
Post by The Canadian Killer Deen on May 30, 2007 16:45:06 GMT -5
CHUCK "THE ICEMAN" LIDDELL
i dont care that rampage beat him
|
|
|
Post by metallica90 on May 30, 2007 18:12:14 GMT -5
Fedor Emelianenko
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 4, 2024 10:13:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2007 22:32:39 GMT -5
I'm not arguing at all dude, I respect what you think and just disagree. You gave your reasons why you think so, so I gave my reasons why I laughed. No hostility from me. Well the fact you are laughing at my opinion shows little respect, Ken Shamrock was a great fighter and was versed in nearly every form of MMA fighting e.g. ground and pound, stand up, submission. He has one various Martial arts torunaments and titles and has fought and won some of the toughest and greatest fighters ever e.g. Dan Severn, Royce Gracie and Bas Rutten. In his prime he would beat nearly all of todays competitors in his weight range which would either be a heavyweight or light heavyweight, you cant argue with success and he was very successful between 1990 and 1997. If what your saying is correct that all of todays competitors are a better caliber then previous years competitors why is that a 40 year old dan severn can beat forrest griffin, why is it Randy Couture can beat Tim Sylvia? Both Severn and Couture are of the old generation fighters both making UFC debuts over 11 years ago. the old generation of fighters paved the way for the new breed of fighters and I think without them then MMA wouldnt be the success it is today. Yes MMA has evolved but you have your greats from the old generation that if they were in their prime could hang with the newer evolved MMA fighters of today. As I said I dont want an arguement, but my opinion still stands as does yours, I just feel Ken shamrock is highly under-rated by MMA fans today and deserves more respect, and his legacy shouldnt be tarnished just because he has lost some fights in the last few recent years. I'm sorry if I came off as disrespectful because I didn't mean to. MMA is a way different sport now than it was then, man. Back then, you can be a one trick pony and demolish everyone. Look at Gracie, he is one of the pioneers of MMA and he'd get demolished nowadays.. The Hughes fight is evidence of this. Now it's evolve or die in MMA, you're going to get demolished if you don't train in everything. Ken was decent in everything and highly above average in submissions. If I'm thinking correct he has what, a couple of knockouts? Everything else is by submission. I wouldn't say he's a one trick pony, but he's no versed well enough in everything else to deal with the new breed of fighters. The reason Couture is still winning is because he grew to learn every concept of the sport. His wrestling is still dominant, he improved his stand up IMMENSELY, and he's learned submissions. He saw that the sport was changing and he changed with it. Dan Severn isn't that good, he fights newbies, that's all he does. Ken just didn't change his game well enough to readjust to the new world of MMA and that's why he hasn't been doing good since he coming back. Fighters like Couture are exceptions to the rule, because the evolved with the sport. I agree that the Ken that came back to the UFC isn't the same Ken as the one that before he left but I blame that on 50% age and 50% being too stubborn to train heavier in other aspects of the game. The UFC changed a lot while he was gone and he just wasn't around to keep up with it. Prime Ken wouldn't be an easy opponent for the top LHW's in the world, but I definitely don't see him beating any of them at the same time. It doesn't help that the LHW division is probably the strongest division right now, too. And you're right, I'd love to see the match, haha, but boxing is an unfair comparison. Boxing is still generally the same now as it was during Ali's time. Sure, techniques have changed, stances have changed, footwork has changed, but it's still two people punching eachother. MMA involves a number different styles of fighting, most of which was barely utilized when Ken was in his prime. And the contenders nowadays are well versed in virtually all aspects. So to counter all of Ken's strengths, the current breed of fighters can use techniques that Ken had never seen before. It'd be no competition. Like kliquid said, Shamrock definitely paved the way for MMA but most would not make it in MMA today.
|
|
Bearski
Main Eventer
X-Box 360, Wii, DS lite and PSP owner. TNA and WWE collector.
Joined on: May 27, 2006 10:02:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,687
|
Post by Bearski on May 31, 2007 5:20:11 GMT -5
FEDOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i'm not sure how you can say shamrock was so dominate, he lost 5 fights before he was even in the wwf, and his wins in the ufc were hardly impressive.
i would also have to say matt hughes!
so matt hughes or fedor
|
|
Bearski
Main Eventer
X-Box 360, Wii, DS lite and PSP owner. TNA and WWE collector.
Joined on: May 27, 2006 10:02:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,687
|
Post by Bearski on May 31, 2007 5:21:07 GMT -5
- i train mma, the only stuff we use of ken shamrock is his power lifting workouts
|
|
|
Post by cjd15 on Jun 3, 2007 14:39:31 GMT -5
Fedor Emelianenko Dan Henderson and the man in my sig.
|
|
|
Post by cjd15 on Jun 3, 2007 14:40:59 GMT -5
- i train mma, the only stuff we use of ken shamrock is his power lifting workouts my step bro fights too. Hes a Middleweight, just turned pro too.
|
|
JoeyBats
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jan 25, 2007 19:14:50 GMT -5
Posts: 1,885
|
Post by JoeyBats on Jun 4, 2007 23:52:23 GMT -5
'The Iceman" Chuck Liddell
|
|
|
Post by kevx301 on Jun 4, 2007 23:57:45 GMT -5
From what I've seen, I say Tito Ortiz. Of course, some people are going to get pissed off at me for saying that. He's certainly one of my favorites, but to say he's the best just makes me shake my head. While I'm not agreeing with him, there was a three to four year period where the media was always talking about Ortiz and people thought he couldn't be beaten.
|
|
Sandy
POSSIBLE BAD TRADER
Joined on: Dec 17, 2004 14:33:52 GMT -5
Posts: 5,868
|
Post by Sandy on Jun 5, 2007 1:25:40 GMT -5
^^^
So true. Kinda like how the media is portraying "CHUCK LIDDELL".
I hate how they advertised him in his upcoming matches as if it was a certainty that he was going to win. Then when he got his ass handed to him in the first half of round 1 people are now saying "it was an off night" or "it was fixed". It is complete b.s. I wish people could just accept that The Iceman got KTFO the second time by a PRIDE fighter.
Not to mention they are talking about a rematch? Umm don't rubber matches usually work where each guy wins one each? Not one guy wins both matches but still wants a 3rd match just because he is the poster boy for UFC..
Best MMA fighter of all time... hmm. So hard to narrow it down. I will say it is a toss up between Fedor, Wanderlei, Tito, or Matt Hughes.
|
|
|
Post by Deano on Jun 5, 2007 6:09:53 GMT -5
Dunno about the 'best'...
All I know is that my faves are Rampage Jackson and Anderson Silva.
|
|
|
Post by shogun on Jun 5, 2007 7:31:00 GMT -5
Ken Shamrock could easily become a top contender again, but the first step would be swallowing his pride and turning to Frank for help with his training. Together, those two could dominate the sport and really help the new crop of fighters who'd train with them.
Without a doubt, Ken ranks up there as one of the greatest ambassadors of the sport alongside Bas Rutten and Randy Couture. But best fighter? Ten years ago, yeah. Hell, he's still my favourite MMA fighter of all time, but I can't put over a case that he's the best.
Randy Couture probably gets my vote on account of his evolution and ability to cut and gain weight to win titles so fluidly. Also an excellent ambassador for the sport. His win-lossrecord may not be as clean as Fedor's, per se, but the guy's always adapting and bringing that A-game.
|
|
|
Post by dustin on Jun 5, 2007 20:19:54 GMT -5
^^^^^Lol wtf?
Ken is done. He was never that good, he was just a product of the media. period. to say that ken could become a top fighter in the year 2007 is a complete joke.
Arlovski or Fedor is/are the best of all time.
|
|
|
Post by cantstop21 on Jun 6, 2007 12:31:11 GMT -5
opinion everytime....Im going to always say Tito Ortiz..but that might be just cause he is my favorite fighter....Fedor, honeslty...WHO ? I have no clue who he is..I watch UFC and barely get to see Pride or K1...so I cant rate those other guys..and the only fight Ive seen of Cro Cop, he got his head kicked off his ing shoulders..by bottom rate competition...so that speaks volumes there huh.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jun 6, 2007 12:52:44 GMT -5
opinion everytime....Im going to always say Tito Ortiz..but that might be just cause he is my favorite fighter....Fedor, honeslty...WHO ? I have no clue who he is..I watch UFC and barely get to see Pride or K1...so I cant rate those other guys.. Fedor is the #1 heavyweight fighter in the world as ranked by just about every person who has any knowledge about MMA. and the only fight Ive seen of Cro Cop, he got his head kicked off his ing shoulders..by bottom rate competition...so that speaks volumes there huh. Bottom-rate competition? You say you only know UFC... But apparently you don't even know UFC.
|
|