obvious troll is obvious...
MonsterBalls -iLLmAtlc - Let me first say this is not a knock against Chuck. I think he's great, and I think Fedor is great. However, I think Dana's reasons for thinking Fedor is a "mythological creature" are completely off-base and if you used his reasoning on Chuck you have to conclude that he too is a "mythological creature".
"Fedor fought [this can] in 2004, [this can] in 2005, [this can] in 2006, etc."
Well, Chuck fought Vernon "Tiger" White in 2004, Jeremy Horn in 2005, and Keith Jardine, after getting knocked out in 30 seconds by an unranked, first timer in the UFC, Houston Alexander in 2007 (and lost, btw).
"Fedor spent his career avoiding the best guys in the world."
For this argument to work, you have to ignore his 3 fights against Nogeuira and his 1 fight against Cro Cop. Let's also ignore Chuck's two fights against Tito and 3 fights against Randy.
Now, I don't think it's a stretch to say that the UFC 205lb division had nothing on PRIDE's 205lb division. Almost all the top 10 fighters were in PRIDE: Shogun, Wanderlei, Lil Nog, Arona, Rampage, and Chuck was fighting in the UFC instead of going over to Japan to fight the best in the world. Why? Because of his friendship with the President of the UFC presumably... just like Fedor and M-1.
What's even more telling is Chuck lost to probably the 4th best 205lb fighter (Rampage) in his prime in an incredibly one-sided fashion. But the UFC continues to claim that Chuck is one of the "all time best LHW fighters", why? He only fought 3 out of the 10 top LHWs and lost to a guy who was in the middle of the pack badly. So, how can you claim that Chuck is one of the best 205lb fighters of all time but NOT acknowledge Fedor as one of the best HWs of all time when the latter in the very least has similar accomplishments (victories over Cro Cop and Nogeuira).
In fact, you could argue that Fedor has much greater accomplishments because he also has two victories over Arlovski and Tim Sylvia. Tim Sylvia was ranked #4 at the time (also was dominating the fight to become the UFC HW Champion) and Arlovski was on a 5 fight winning streak. Now, if you're going to use those two's recent performances as a basis for discrediting Fedor's wins against them, then you have to do the same for Chuck's win against Wanderlei. This potentially hurts Chuck's legacy a lot more because that was arguably the biggest victory in his career.
So yeah, if Dana says Fedor is not one of the best HW of all time and is a "mythological creature" then he can't at the same time call Chuck one of the best LHW of all time and induct him into the Hall of Fame.
First you have to stop basing your thoughts on what Dana says. He is always going to stretch things in a biased direction toward the UFC.
Second, all fighters resume's tend to look differently over time. Fights that may have been huge when they happened don't look so imporant after one or both participants have faded with age. So you get more insight by considering the fights in their time context.
Even Anderson who is still actively competing has guys on his UFC resume that don't looks so tough any more. It happens to all great fighters after they've been around for awhile.
I agree with you man. That's why I think it's such a joke that there are people who actually believe Dana "tells it like it is."
I also agree with your point about having to consider the fights in their time context. It's the main reason why I think Dana is using an unfair standard for judging Fedor.
Prime Chuck would beat prime Fedor. Fact...
Sofa King Cool - OP is right. All Chuck ever did was beat Randy Couture, Tito, and Vitor in their primes. That, and he made MMA mainstream.
That's not even near Fedor's ability to draw less than 8,000 fans to a high school gym and beat CroCop and Nog.
Fedor > Chuck
/douchebag
And all Fedor did was beat Nogeuira and Cro Cop in their primes, while MMA's popularity was at its peak in Japan.
Sofa King Cool -I also agree with your point about having to consider the fights in their time context. It's the main reason why I think Dana is using an unfair standard for judging Fedor.
<img src="http://www.majorchampionships.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/dawson_crying.jpg" width="230" height="222" alt="" />
You call it crying, I call it critiquing Dana's faulty reasoning.
CHUCK NEVER DUCKED.
He had a guaranteed title shot and fought babalu anyway.
Chuck never gave excuses, never had his mangement try and re brand 50% of everything, etc.
Chuck is the fucking man.
I think some of you guys are missing the point. The OP is simply showing how easy it is to spin ANY fighter's resume the way Fedor's detractors have done. All he's saying is that if you want to be consistent with the sort of logic Fedor Haters use, than you have to apply that same sort of backwards revisionism on pretty much any fighter.
Umm.. what the heck? What's wrong with my original post?
and Handy
Quality of opponents, dude. Look at who Chuck fought on Sherdog. Then look at Fedor. Chuck was fighting marquee guys all the time for YEARS. Fedor put together a string of great wins, then phoned it in for like 3 years.
Chuck Liddell fought quality opponents his whole career that's a FUCKING JOKE
Chuck Liddells quality opponents read like this
Noe Hernandez (5-5)
Kenneth Williams (0-2)
Kevin Randleman (16-17)
Vernon White (26-33)
thats 4 wins that are jokes
Chuck: 0-3 in last 3 (3 KTFOs), 1-5 in last 6 with 4 KO/TKOs
Wand: 2-6 in last 8
CC: 6-5-1NC in last 12
Hughes: 4-4 in last 8 with questionable dec over Serra, finished again by a LW in his last bout
Franklin: 2-3 in last 5
Yved Edwards: 10-9 in last 19 without a single notable win, last seen KTFO in UFC
Tito: 1-4-1 in last 6
Randy: 3-3 in last 6
Nog: 3-2 in last 5
Timmeh: 4-4 in last 8
Arlovski: 0-4 in last 4
Saku: 2-5 in last 7
Busta: 2-4 in last 6
Machida: 1-2 in last 3 (coulda been 0-3)
Shogun: 3-3 in last 3
All mythical.
Guess who BLAF talks shit about the most?
I don't see why OP is getting flamed for this.
He is simply stating that using this type of logic can make ANY fighter's resume look shitty.
At his best, Fedor WAS the best. There really was no one else in those days.
At his best, Chuck WASN'T the best. The toughest fighter he faced was Rampage, and he lost. Then cleaned house while Shogun, Rampage and Wand were running shit on another level.
The best guys usually fight the other best guys at the time. Even 6 months can take a champion and put them down a couple rungs. Machida wins the title, Loses to shogun and then loses jackson. Suddenly he is not near the top of the division. When the Best guy does not fight the other best guy Mayweather / Packman then there is no way to judge who is the best. Everyone loses if they are still competing. When you never lose its because you have decided to retire instead of going on your shield. Thats why the best and most beloved fighters usually all lose their last couple fights. Randy, Frank, Saku, Gomi, Fedor, CroCop, etc.
MonsterBalls -iLLmAtlc - Let me first say this is not a knock against Chuck. I think he's great, and I think Fedor is great. However, I think Dana's reasons for thinking Fedor is a "mythological creature" are completely off-base and if you used his reasoning on Chuck you have to conclude that he too is a "mythological creature".
"Fedor fought [this can] in 2004, [this can] in 2005, [this can] in 2006, etc."
Well, Chuck fought Vernon "Tiger" White in 2004, Jeremy Horn in 2005, and Keith Jardine, after getting knocked out in 30 seconds by an unranked, first timer in the UFC, Houston Alexander in 2007 (and lost, btw).
"Fedor spent his career avoiding the best guys in the world."
For this argument to work, you have to ignore his 3 fights against Nogeuira and his 1 fight against Cro Cop. Let's also ignore Chuck's two fights against Tito and 3 fights against Randy.
Now, I don't think it's a stretch to say that the UFC 205lb division had nothing on PRIDE's 205lb division. Almost all the top 10 fighters were in PRIDE: Shogun, Wanderlei, Lil Nog, Arona, Rampage, and Chuck was fighting in the UFC instead of going over to Japan to fight the best in the world. Why? Because of his friendship with the President of the UFC presumably... just like Fedor and M-1.
What's even more telling is Chuck lost to probably the 4th best 205lb fighter (Rampage) in his prime in an incredibly one-sided fashion. But the UFC continues to claim that Chuck is one of the "all time best LHW fighters", why? He only fought 3 out of the 10 top LHWs and lost to a guy who was in the middle of the pack badly. So, how can you claim that Chuck is one of the best 205lb fighters of all time but NOT acknowledge Fedor as one of the best HWs of all time when the latter in the very least has similar accomplishments (victories over Cro Cop and Nogeuira).
In fact, you could argue that Fedor has much greater accomplishments because he also has two victories over Arlovski and Tim Sylvia. Tim Sylvia was ranked #4 at the time (also was dominating the fight to become the UFC HW Champion) and Arlovski was on a 5 fight winning streak. Now, if you're going to use those two's recent performances as a basis for discrediting Fedor's wins against them, then you have to do the same for Chuck's win against Wanderlei. This potentially hurts Chuck's legacy a lot more because that was arguably the biggest victory in his career.
So yeah, if Dana says Fedor is not one of the best HW of all time and is a "mythological creature" then he can't at the same time call Chuck one of the best LHW of all time and induct him into the Hall of Fame.
First you have to stop basing your thoughts on what Dana says. He is always going to stretch things in a biased direction toward the UFC.
Second, all fighters resume's tend to look differently over time. Fights that may have been huge when they happened don't look so imporant after one or both participants have faded with age. So you get more insight by considering the fights in their time context.
Even Anderson who is still actively competing has guys on his UFC resume that don't looks so tough any more. It happens to all great fighters after they've been around for awhile.
The problem with the point you make about "resumes looking different over time" is that this premise is based on the idea that a resume looks different because you find out more about the guys he fought.
The problem isn't the guys he fought we knew everything that we needed to know about them. Almost to a man they were ground based fighters with weak striking and weaker take downs.
What was Chuck? He was a striker with a strong take down defense and a stronger fence grabbing defense. In both fights Chuck beat Randy, he grabbed the fence to stop take downs, in insanely blatant fashion.
Against Tito, well I think Tito had lost those fights before they even began.
So while Chuck was a striker, he was a sloppy one with wide looping shots. Anyone with any sort of understanding knew the first time Chuck fought a more technical striker, he was going to be in a serious tilt.
Enter Rampage and a short crisp hook...
The fact is during chucks reign, 205 was one of the deepest, more talent rich divisions in the sport. It still is. The problem is, during chucks reign, the UFC's 205 division was one of the weakest divisions in the entire sport. All the talent that posed an actual threat to him was in Pride.
Deleting the first post here proves what a joke this place is.