Hoost is in the twilight of his career.
Losing to Sapp doesn't take away from his accomplishments.
If you know a better heavyweight kickboxer please tell me.
the man is a legend.
If he hadn't lost twice to Sapp, he would be the undisputed best heavyweight kickboxer of all time.
I still think he is, but those are two really, really bad losses.
LMAO @ two people choosing Michael McDonald. WTF?
Kaman is the best ever. What was his record against Hoost?
The thing people have to realize is that Sapp was basically allowed to fight MMA rules in K-1. Itd be one thing if he beat the guys he did just by being big and strong but grabbing people by the neck and clinched them into the corner so you can club them over the head with your forearm is a bit much.
Rob Kaman
rob kaman knocked out hoost
I have to say Dan Black is correct.
And claiming Michael McDonald is the best kickboxer ever doesnt even make sense.
dan that doesnt work. guitarists cant really do battle to see whos the best, rob kaman and ernesto hoost can fight to see whos the best, and they have. but yes, i agree with you about "just appreciate the fighters for their talents instead of coming up with some fictional #1 when 99% of you guys don't even follow kickboxing enough to have an educated opinion on the subject anyway.."
Rob Kaman beat Hoost when Ernesto had not developed into the fighter he is today. It was also under savate rules.
that wasnt savate rules ;)....... great fight
I forgot about that fight :) Regardless Kaman was in his prime while Hoost was still getting started.
Hoost was at his best in 1999.
I dont think beating someone back when they were young means your automatically better than them forever. Hoost was good at the time Kaman beat him. But he was not great. I dont think Kaman would beat Hoost of 1999.
I dont think Hoost would beat the Peter Aerts of 1998 either though. Those 3 KOs for his GP wins were brutal
Kaman was technically also a LHW. As was Hoost really but he bulked up
Got to go with Aerts IMO, with Dekkers, Hoost and Kaman tied for second, but this kind of thing mostly comes down to which fighting style you prefere
The first Kaman-Hoost fight is not really relevant, as it was very early in Hoost's career. The second, however, Kaman was coming off some tough losses and was (wrongly) considered washed up. It was a huge upset when Kaman won. That fight was at light-heavyweight, though. If you're talking heavyweights, Hoost and Aerts are unquestionably the best ever.
I'm suprised no one has talked about Benny the Jet.
Well you need to clarify what rules we are talking about. Because Benny The Jet wanted nothing to do with elbows and knees and the thais.
When considering best heavyweight kickboxer or who would win if they all fought without weight classes, few thais are really relevant.
"When considering best heavyweight kickboxer or who would win if they all fought without weight classes, few thais are really relevant."
Thats a stupid comment. Fedor would beat them all if they fought without weightclasses and no rules. I dont know about you but when i talk about best kickboxer ever. Im talking about the level of competiton he faced and how much he dominated that competition. Saying the thais are not relevant because a HW could beat them is childish
The BEST EVER was TKOed twice in a row by Bob "I'm totally new to the sport" Sapp?
The best ever should be able to defeat someone 100 lbs heavier than him if he is fighting as a HW IMO.
That's what HWs do, they beat people up regardless of weight because they are already big enough...
Sapp is better than people give him credit for, obviously, but he was a ROOKIE at the time...and he beat Hoost twice in a row.
"Hoost was good at the time Kaman beat him. But he was not great. I dont think Kaman would beat Hoost of 1999."
no THATS a stupid comment. Getting knocked out by Kaman is one of the reasons he became great. you learn from your losses. every great fighter has had some devastating loss. those losses are what sends them to the top.