http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles/1/history-and-the-checkered-hero-19898
Friday, September 25, 2009
by Jordan Breen (jbreen@sherdog.com)
19898
In the wake of his loss to Junior dos Santos, Mirko “Cro Cop” Filipovic told the world that the places in his mind once filled with a focus on kicking opponents in the head had been replaced by thoughts of fishing in Privlaka.
Given the dismal turn the former K-1 standout's career has taken in the last two years, it comes as little surprise that he's thinking about calling it quits. Nonetheless, the stark and one-sided beating he took from the Brazilian heavyweight prospect last Saturday at UFC 103 has led to fans and pundits alike wondering how we came to this point, where MMA's formerly most feared striker has been relegated to a disappointing also-ran in a division he was supposed to reign over with impunity.
The answer is much less simple than you might think.
Most discussion of his decline has centered on the physical, which is understandable, as it is certainly the most visible component. It is important to consider why Cro Cop was seen as the ideal K-1 fighter to cross over into MMA in the first place: While he was never a large heavyweight, he's always been a physical specimen, and not just in a superficial beach muscles sense, though obviously the size of his legs goes without saying. Rather, he was explosive and athletic in a way that even far superior K-1 contemporaries like Peter Aerts and Ernesto Hoost were not. This made him far more apt to tussling with potent wrestlers and capitalizing on the hunt-and-kill nature of MMA -- a nature that suited his striking style better than styles based on volume and workrate.
There can be no doubt those physical attributes that made him the posterboy for K-1 converts have diminished. His reflex and strike speed lags, and he struggles to explode away from the clinch as he once was able to when desperate fighters latched onto him. Though some are quick to say that Filipovic is "only 35," that misses the fact that age -- especially in MMA -- is extremely relative.
"You're only as young as you feel" sounds like a hollow line from a dental adhesive or margarine commercial, but it couldn't be more true in this sport. While Randy Couture is constantly used as MMA's refutation of aging, "The Natural" started MMA 12 years ago at age 33 after a fairly healthy wrestling career. Cro Cop has been training and fighting for nearly two decades at this point, and it has taken its toll on him. In recent years, he's had surgeries up and down his body to fix nagging issues from a deviated septum to a busted foot to a faulty elbow to nagging knees. That process isn't about to stop, and if anything, it will only exacerbate. Prizefighters are like porn stars: When it's gone, it's gone. You might have another stellar scene or two, but you're sure as hell not going to sweep the AVNs.
But it's wrong to view Cro Cop's current predicament strictly as a product of wear-and-tear. If anything, his physical depreciation has served to highlight the technical flaws of his game that have always been present and often ignored.
Part of what has been difficult for fans to digest is that he hasn't just looked awful as of late: He's looked awful on the feet despite being hailed as the greatest striker in the sport for years. However, chinks in the armor have always been present. Apart from his bouts with Mark Hunt, the southpaw Cro Cop has circled left on orthodox fighters since his K-1 days. Circling into your opponent’s power tends to be a major no-no, but it has always given Cro Cop the best chance to land his left cross and left head kick, by far his two best weapons. When fighters with real striking skills have opted to be aggressive against him, though, he's suffered as a result.
He walked into Fedor Emelianenko's right hook repeatedly, and shortly after, barrages of left hooks followed. Hunt's right found him repeatedly in their MMA rematch. While people remember the Cheick Kongo bout for Cro Cop's testicles being battered, the Frenchman dominated latter proceedings with his right cross and right kicks to Cro Cop's exposed body. In one of the most brutal starchings the sport has ever seen, he walked right into Gabriel Gonzaga's shin at skull-level. And Saturday night, Junior dos Santos pelted him with both hands, but especially rights.
Compound this issue with the fact that he generally struggles going backward. At his finest, Cro Cop was less the tiger he was once nicknamed for and more akin to a shark, circling opponents quickly at short range. Watch the Nogueira bout to see the ideal range and movement for his attack; it is little coincidence that he displayed nearly all of his offensive weapons in that bout's first round. When forced backward, his primary weapon to halt opponents was his left cross -- the same punch that destroyed Bob Sapp and got the wrecking ball rolling on Wanderlei Silva in their second bout. However, from Hoost to Cigano, when opponents are fleet enough to avoid the punch, or stay close enough to stifle it, he's less a fighter and more a cornerback.
Maybe most critically of all, for all his striking acumen, Cro Cop has never been a quality counterstriker. At his best, whether in K-1 or MMA, he attacked first, hurt his foe, then finished the job. When ambushed, he's always pushed opponents away and circled out wide to reset. Even against Josh Barnett, whose game plan in their second bout was haphazard punch-swarming to set up the clinch, Cro Cop was still almost entirely defensive. Even his punches on Sapp and Silva were not really pure counters as much as fighters walking directly at him with their hands down.
The point about counterpunching is especially relevant, as it is the method through which the cleanest chances for damaging blows in combat sports are created. It is no coincidence that virtually all of the top fighters in the sport right now are adroit at either slipping punches to counter (Emelianenko, Penn) or parrying punches to counter (Machida, Rampage). At this stage in the sport, it's not good enough to just endlessly circle left, hoping to set up a roundhouse kick to the dome.
There's also been a noticeable reduction in his actual striking arsenal. His bouts at this point are reduced to a few sparse punches and failed attempts at the left head kick. However, his brutal salvos of leg kicks and body kicks mostly appeared when his opponents stopped moving, as in the cases of Nogueira or Silva, or when he was facing rigid and awkward opponents like Hidehiko Yoshida and Hong Man Choi. As for his punching combinations, their appearances were almost entirely relegated to when he got opponents stuck in the corners of the ring. The punches that polished off Mark Coleman? The furious barrage on Aleksander Emelianenko? The brutal head-and-body assault that started the destruction of Josh Barnett in their third bout? Every single one of those opponents he'd trapped in the corner of the ring, a point sorely missed as people squabbled about Cro Cop's adaptation to the cage in terms of how it would affect his ability to stop takedowns.
So, where were all these deficiencies in 2003, when he was putting the boots to hapless foes, and why are they so painfully vivid now?
Obviously, the aging process plays a formative role in exposing these flaws, but it's actually a quintessential double whammy: Cro Cop's physical decline also coincided with the general improvement of heavyweight MMA and more consistent fights with top heavyweights. Your baseline heavyweight in an elite promotion in 2009 is a bit less likely to circle face-first into the strike that his opponent is synonymous with. Some are even talented and brazen enough to throw strikes against a former K-1 World Grand Prix runner-up, and aggressively so. Even if they wanted the fight on the floor, as Gonzaga and Overeem did, the ability and willingness to trade strikes in a way that the likes of Herring, Waterman and Coleman couldn't made those takedowns that much easier.
Perhaps a better question is why so much was expected from the man upon his arrival in the UFC. After all, the reaction to his decline is not simply a tough-but-necessary acknowledgement that his better days are behind him, the way many now view Randy Couture's performances. Instead, the response is one of sullen dejection and disappointment, not because he's past his prime but because that fact means he cannot and will not fulfill their lofty expectations for him.
It is hardly a new hypothesis that many of Pride's fighters attained a staggering aura of invincibility due to the crafty and lopsided pro-wrestling-style matchmaking of parent company Dream Stage Entertainment, but it is still an important one. It is fairly telling that one of the most famous moments of his MMA career is decapitating masked Mexican luchador Dos Caras Jr. For that matter, it is perhaps even more telling that his signature K-1 moment is destroying Bob Sapp. Perhaps no fighter in MMA's short history has been better suited to the Youtube generation and the highlight reel, and that's largely due to the brutality he was able to dish out against sacrificial lambs.
The potency of his knockouts coupled with his aesthetic and authentic gimmick -- the Croatian anti-terrorist force member with enough sangfroid to spare -- made him MMA's first larger-than-life fighter. That, along with the fact his exploits came within the ring of Pride, in a heavyweight division that was markedly deeper and more talented than the UFC's (which featured the likes of Mike Kyle and Wesley “Cabbage” Correira), solidified the idea that he could be UFC champion simply upon showing up in the Octagon.
This is not to say the man's resume is without merit. However, the question is how that merit was distorted as people convinced themselves he would rule the UFC with an iron fist. Victories over Heath Herring and Igor Vovchanchyn were strong wins six years ago. Now, though, we know Herring to be a dependable if flawed gatekeeper-to-the-stars, and Vovchanchyn was marginalized as an elite fighter the moment his contemporaries developed half decent boxing and top games. Aleksander Emelianenko has gone on to be a strong heavyweight, but at the time Cro Cop dispatched him, he was an out-of-shape novice with a special surname.
The best wins of Cro Cop’s career are over Wanderlei Silva -- a longtime light heavyweight now bound for 185 pounds -- and his trifecta over Josh Barnett, the only perennially top heavyweight he's defeated in his eight-year career, though I imagine that trio of W's doesn't look too damn good right now given Barnett's recent indiscretions. Beyond these fights, when you think of Cro Cop against elite fighters, you think of him losing. And in some cases, to non-elite fighters as well.
At the time, each of those losses could be justified in some absolving fashion. He lost to Nogueira, the second best heavyweight of all time, due to his inexperience on the ground. Against Kevin Randleman, he simply "got caught." Against Fedor Emelianenko, he simply bumped up against the best heavyweight we've seen yet. Against Mark Hunt, he was burned out and unmotivated after his fourth fight in six months. All of these explanations were reinforced by the fact that somehow, losing in Pride was not at all indicative of the success one might have stateside against the likes of Andrei Arlovski and Tim Sylvia. Interestingly enough, during his Pride tenure, Cro Cop was part of the "Big Three" along with Emelianenko and Nogueira, but historically, he actually fits in much closer with his hypothetical victims Arlovski and Sylvia, two other quite successful but often faltering heavyweights.
His victory in the Pride Openweight Grand Prix three years ago, in which he notched the two best wins of his career in a single night, came specifically at a point where the hackneyed UFC-versus-Pride suddenly wasn't such a landslide any more. Pride was crumbling under the Shukan Gendai scandal surrounding the promotion's underworld ties, and "The Ultimate Fighter" generation brought the UFC prosperity, and as a result, some of the sport's best fighters. Those who parroted the superiority of Pride for years, as well as the neutral parties who wanted a UFC heavyweight division where Justin Eilers didn't fight for a heavyweight title, placed unfortunately high expectations on a fighter who they desperately wanted to believe was a superhero instead of an aging, fallible heavyweight standout.
I fear this piece coming across as an attempt to impeach the career of Mirko Filipovic on all fronts. Let me assure you, that is not my intent. If anything, I see crucial value in pointing out his technical and competitive shortcomings to actually bolster his standing in public memory. While I would find it unnerving for history to depict Cro Cop as an absolute all-time great with an iron-clad resume, I would be equally dismayed for him to be remembered as a bittersweet failure because he couldn't vindicate vehement Pride fans.
He will be the owner of a scintillating highlight for the rest of time, but his actual resume won't position him as the dominant heavyweight it was assumed he would always be, in the ring or the cage. He should be remembered just as much for his impressive victories as for his failures when it counted the most -- to Hoost, Hug and Bernardo, to Fedor, Nogueira and Gonzaga. However, he should not be scorned for failing to live up to the unrealistic expectations of those whose hearts skipped a beat whenever Simon LeBon's voice filled a Japanese arena.
^ ARTICLE END and my comments:
Lotta chat on Mirko now that he's seems done.
Course, there's the requisite "he was only good before cuz....." ditties out there in abundance. Jordan Breen's article covers almost all of it. Like what makes GSP good, there isnt one particular reason that CC aint so good anymore other than "his time is over" but everything Breen points out is pretty legit imo (except I recall CC finishing Aleks and Igor mid ring without backing them into a corner or being "frozen" as others said all CC's victims were or too agressive like Wand II).
As Whistleblower has pointed out though, CC's fall is almost parrallel with Chuck's. You can make certain notes that "yeah but Chuck did or had this..." and "CC did this or that...." but bottom line is that they were once 2 of the most feared strikers and fighters in the game but they've both seen better days.
A couple things I wanted to talk about though was CC's style not evolving and opponents now figuring him out and "the competition being easier in Japan."
HIS STYLE: People said the same thing about Chuck's style too, that its too one dimensional and people jsut figured it out. People dont really bring up for Chuck though that perhaps the game is just passing him by along with his time just being over. Its pretty easy to talk about technical flaws and that when a fighter or athlete cannot stay on top forever and all must eventually decline. However "one dimensional" both Chuck and CC's styles were, they simple worked well and consistently enough to make the either the best or one of the best in their divisions for a while.
COMPETITON: Much like how Denis Kang lost badly twice before losing badly to Belcher (whom he was pretty much owning in every aspect of the game up then), a lot of people seem to overlook that CC did lose in Pride a number of times as well. He was never unbeatable (like Fedor or like Anderson or GSP now). And unlike Chuck, who is still an all time great too in my books, CC's div was the best at the time without question where the Pride LHW div was deeper than the UFCs at the time.
Fast forward to today, the UFC HW div is the deepest and strongest now and it has all sorts of young hungry guns on the up and up just like the UFC LW div. But it wasnt always like that for the UFC LW div as it was of course, disbanded and then Pride clearly had the strongest LW div. There are a lot of top LWs still fighting over in Japan but there's a ton of younger bucks in the UFC LW that are their rivals now (on top of the clear lion of weight in BJ course).
Im not sure if someone like Dos Santos, who is def for real, would have beaten CC back in his Pride days or Gonzaga, whom still has potential imo but obviously has holes in his game (head). Maybe may not. Are they exploiting CC's one dimensional game or lack of adaption to the cage? Probably somewhat. However, the fact that CC greeted Dos Santos with almost friendly eyes in the staredown and retreated in that awkwardly flailing fashion was def not the man he was before just like the legs that Chuck tried to use to chase Shogun were expired.
Also, about being "one dimensional":
There is also a lot of talk about fighters being too generic and too JOAT (Jack of all Trades, Master of None). CC's "one dimension" worked and worked often, thats the bottom line and the goal of a sportiing contest - to win consistently. If a JOAT wins consistenly, then so be it. Also, any fighter in MMA must be good in at least 2 things to be good: wrestling/tds and ground or striking and wrestling/tds or defense of. CC, a guy who'd only be a striker his whole life, gained one of the best sprawls in the sport in a short amount of time.
YouAreNex - flight in ring = win
fight in octmom = loose from circle circle too much
Didnt he just get thrown around and look also shoddy in this ever so important ring recently against Overeem?
Didnt he also lose against Randleman, Nog, Fedor, in Pride (which were in rings)?
Did he ever flail back like he did against Dos Santos in a ring? Was it the Octagon or DS that made him do that?
CretardsCrutch - I agree on the Chuck/Cro Cop parallel and have said that numerous times myself.
People get all "analytical" when CC, Wand, Nog lose or lost. Nog is back, Dan is doing well, Ramapge did well. Fedor still hasnt lost.
On top of Chuck though, every single UFC champ of the past has also been run over or lost handily of late as well: Hughes, Tito, Jens, Randy, Tim, AA, Yves. Where are the sweeping, world stopping statements and "analysis" of that?
"This is not to say the man's resume is without merit. However, the question is how that merit was distorted as people convinced themselves he would rule the UFC with an iron fist. Victories over Heath Herring and Igor Vovchanchyn were strong wins six years ago. Now, though, we know Herring to be a dependable if flawed gatekeeper-to-the-stars, and Vovchanchyn was marginalized as an elite fighter the moment his contemporaries developed half decent boxing and top games. Aleksander Emelianenko has gone on to be a strong heavyweight, but at the time Cro Cop dispatched him, he was an out-of-shape novice with a special surname."
This article is shit.
Wow, it's harder to compensate for holes in your game when your body is physically shot? Hard hitting analysis there.
Jordan Breen is quick to write essays on why fighters who have reigned their divisions for years "simply never were that good" when they end their careers stringing up losses. Once Forrest Griffin had manhandled an out-of-shape Shogun we soon saw a write-up on how Shogun's flailing immature style made him dangerous, "but not elite" and his only good wins were against Arona and lil Nog. Isn't it funny how easy it is to do this in hindsight and make it look obviously true? Yet the sherdog editors will not write these things while the stars are still on top of their game. They come afterwards with a "I knew it all along"-attitude that is sometimes annoying. He is right to point out that Crocop's decline coincided with an increase in competition, the HW class got deeper. But to point at opponents and say "they are not top fighters today" is pointless. Heath Herring was a badass at the time and was for a long time sniffing at the very top of Pride's heavyweight chain, he beat Kerr and Vovchanchyn while they were still relevant. If i fighter like crocop fought lesser competition than all the others, why on earth were he always in the sherdog top 3? And in the top 10 up until months ago? If he did not fight the best, then please enlighten us: who else? Who else did he not fight? There were no Lesnars or Carwins or Gonzagas. He fought Fedor, Big nog, Barnett, Sapp (who was legitimately dangerous at the time, although not champion material), Herring, Vovchanchyn, Coleman etc. If you can think of more HWs he should have fought in Pride, count them up. And Breen, in your coming "I told you so"-essays, don't just point at things that a fighter did wrong in your opinion, but point out what should have been done instead. If not, they will only seem like clever afterconstructions.
Yeah, id have to read over the article again, i kinda just browsed over the last bit. Bottom line again is that he faced the best for his time and that included all sorts of styles (where as the knock against Chuck was he was just beating grapplers though in MMA, thats still a feat and he did beat Guy and Wand).
Of course Herring is out of the picture now. So is Trigg. But Trigg was one of the best WW of his day. Igor certainly was the man anymore but taking him out like he did signified a new era (much like DS outstruck CC, CC took out one of the most feared strikers of the game in the past). The Herring fight was actually a legit test for CC at the time. Herring had given Nog a tough battle for the title and Herring was run over by Fedor but many still werent sure if CC could beat a good sized HW that was well rounded.
jbapk - "This is not to say the man's resume is without merit. However, the question is how that merit was distorted as people convinced themselves he would rule the UFC with an iron fist. Victories over Heath Herring and Igor Vovchanchyn were strong wins six years ago. Now, though, we know Herring to be a dependable if flawed gatekeeper-to-the-stars, and Vovchanchyn was marginalized as an elite fighter the moment his contemporaries developed half decent boxing and top games. Aleksander Emelianenko has gone on to be a strong heavyweight, but at the time Cro Cop dispatched him, he was an out-of-shape novice with a special surname."
This article is shit.
Wow, it's harder to compensate for holes in your game when your body is physically shot? Hard hitting analysis there.
OK, reading that bit over now, its just lke saying Hughes win over Trigg meant nothing since Trigg was just blasted by Kos this many years later.
Herring was ever bit the title contender when he destroyed Erikson and Kerr, if anyone doesnt remember how big it was when Herring beat Kerr then......
He did beat Barnett, who of course is every bit as good as a Gonzaga, Kongo or Dos Santos, if not better, just prior to coming to the UFC so who didnt think he was gonna run the division over ESP at the time when the div was weak ass.
"Wow, it's harder to compensate for holes in your game when your body is physically shot? Hard hitting analysis there."
- lol, agreed.
However, at least writer covers nearly every point of discussion possible, rightly or wrongly commented on thereafter.
To see CC make Coleman look like he didnt know how to wrestle was a sight. No, it wasnt prime Coleman but it was still Coleman back then and CC was a kickboxer who denied Coleman at every turn.
It was like Chuck/Tito.
Wasa-B -CretardsCrutch - I agree on the Chuck/Cro Cop parallel and have said that numerous times myself.
People get all "analytical" when CC, Wand, Nog lose or lost. Nog is back, Dan is doing well, Ramapge did well. Fedor still hasnt lost.
On top of Chuck though, every single UFC champ of the past has also been run over or lost handily of late as well: Hughes, Tito, Jens, Randy, Tim, AA, Yves. Where are the sweeping, world stopping statements and "analysis" of that?
Oh, how could I forget to add Rizzo to the mix.
He's been KTFO by Zentsov (the Zentsov loss was as bad a loss if not worst then Gonzaga/CC - though Rizzo wasnt as highly ranked either but we'd never seen Rizzo lose like that before) and Barnett but no one talked about how the competition was easier in the States. Everyone just assumed (correctly) that Rizzo's days were just numbered.
Wasa-B's comments are apt as usual, but there's some major revisionist bullshit going on in that original article.
This is not to say the man's resume is without merit. However, the question is how that merit was distorted as people convinced themselves he would rule the UFC with an iron fist. Victories over Heath Herring and Igor Vovchanchyn were strong wins six years ago. Now, though, we know Herring to be a dependable if flawed gatekeeper-to-the-stars, and Vovchanchyn was marginalized as an elite fighter the moment his contemporaries developed half decent boxing and top games. Aleksander Emelianenko has gone on to be a strong heavyweight, but at the time Cro Cop dispatched him, he was an out-of-shape novice with a special surname.
The best wins of Cro Cop's career are over Wanderlei Silva -- a longtime light heavyweight now bound for 185 pounds -- and his trifecta over Josh Barnett, the only perennially top heavyweight he's defeated in his eight-year career, though I imagine that trio of W's doesn't look too damn good right now given Barnett's recent indiscretions. Beyond these fights, when you think of Cro Cop against elite fighters, you think of him losing. And in some cases, to non-elite fighters as well.
This reads just like an orcus post that attempts to "historically analyze" Fedor's wins - i.e., trying to retroactively (and distortively) detract from them as much as possible. It's trying to apply today's standards and fighters to unfavorably compare past wins to - when those standards and fighters weren't even around at the time.
The Igor and Herring wins were big at the time - and just because they're no longer top HW's 6 years later doesn't mean that they were retroactively exposed as having never really been that great - or that they were always just a "gatekeeper-to-the-stars" or "marginalized as an elite fighter" in the first place.
Wins over Fujita, Herring, and Igor were extremely relevant back then - and enough to make Cro Cop a legit top-5/top-3 HW and in line for a title shot in Pride. (For more proper context, at that same time, Gan McGee and Cabbage were also contenders in the UFC's HW division.)
And the wins over Barnett don't "look too damn good right now given Barnett's recent indiscretions"? How so? How the fuck does Barnett failing another 'roid test make Cro Cop's wins over him at the time any LESS impressive? If anything, beating a Barnett on 'roids would have been an even more formidable feat.
It's like saying Mir's win over Sylvia "doesn't look too damn good right now" because Sylvia had previously 'roided (like Barnett had before facing Cro Cop) - or that GSP's win over Sherk "doesn't look too damn good right now" because Sherk would subsequently test positive (again, like Barnett did).
Breen is really trying too damn hard to detract from Cro Cop's wins as much as possible - in any way possible - by applying the most fallaciously revisionist standards. It's the orcus-Fedor effect.
For that matter, it is perhaps even more telling that his signature K-1 moment is destroying Bob Sapp. Perhaps no fighter in MMA's short history has been better suited to the Youtube generation and the highlight reel, and that's largely due to the brutality he was able to dish out against sacrificial lambs.
What? This is just outright ridiculous.
So Sapp was just one of those "sacrificial lambs" that Cro Cop got to face in order to pad his highlight reel? WTF. Pure, concentrated revisionist bullshit. To the extreme contrary, Sapp was considered an absolute monster at the time - and Cro Cop's win over Sapp was thus rightfully huge at the time.
Sapp couldn't have been any further from being perceived as some "sacrificial lamb," going in. Sapp was the juggernaut who had just stopped K-1's #1 fighter and reigning Champion in Hoost, twice. (As well as having just powerfully manhandled the undisputed #1 MMA fighter in Nog as well.)
Sapp was a truly fearsome beast at that point - that Mirko was really the first to emphatically put in his place. Up to then, Sapp had come in and was running rather roughshod over both K-1 and MMA. Sapp was even being spoken of as the biggest challenger for BOTH the Pride HW Championship and the K-1 GP - and there was certainly a hell of a lot of suspense going into the Cro Cop fight. "Sacrifical lamb," my ass.
Maybe most critically of all, for all his striking acumen, Cro Cop has never been a quality counterstriker. ... Even his punches on Sapp and Silva were not really pure counters as much as fighters walking directly at him with their hands down.
LOL. Seriously, how desperately hard is Breen trying to retroactively discredit Cro Cop's skills and accomplishments. Some of his statements seriously sound exactly like an orcus post on Fedor.
The potency of his knockouts coupled with his aesthetic and authentic gimmick -- the Croatian anti-terrorist force member with enough sangfroid to spare -- made him MMA's first larger-than-life fighter.
LOL @ Cro Cop being "MMA's first larger-than-life fighter." "Larger-than-life" began all the way back with the mythically invincible Gracies.
I like how at certain points Breen tries to build Cro Cop up as much as possible - to these lofty heights of expectation - just so he can then tear him down for an even further fall. Again, exactly orcus-Fedor.
Man, I only have 2 years of college. That's way too much reading...
Wasa-B - To see CC make Coleman look like he didnt know how to wrestle was a sight. No, it wasnt prime Coleman but it was still Coleman back then and CC was a kickboxer who denied Coleman at every turn.
It was like Chuck/Tito.
Yep. In fact, Coleman had taken down every single fighter he had ever fought up to that point (including Fedor) - and Cro Cop just stuffed at will the wrestler who could take everyone down at will, and made Coleman look completely helpless for the first time in a fight.
It was only after that fight that we knew Coleman was definitively done as a top-level contender - and that Cro Cop had further cemented that he had, along with Chuck, the best TD defense in the sport.
CretardsCrutch - Exactly. It was more changing of a guard than anything, even though everyone jumped on it just being about UFC > Pride. Really everyone who was on top in 2005 pretty much ended up getting dusted except Fedor.
Exactly. The only pre-TUF-established all-time great who has never undergone at least a period of decline since, is Fedor.
As for everyone else, time has equally exempted no one - from Pride, UFC, or wherever. Regardless of org., Fedor so far has remained the singular exception - and even he won't outlast time.
per - Jordan Breen is quick to write essays on why fighters who have reigned their divisions for years "simply never were that good" when they end their careers stringing up losses. Once Forrest Griffin had manhandled an out-of-shape Shogun we soon saw a write-up on how Shogun's flailing immature style made him dangerous, "but not elite" and his only good wins were against Arona and lil Nog. Isn't it funny how easy it is to do this in hindsight and make it look obviously true? Yet the sherdog editors will not write these things while the stars are still on top of their game. They come afterwards with a "I knew it all along"-attitudeCORRECT-ITUDE
whistleblower -Wasa-B - To see CC make Coleman look like he didnt know how to wrestle was a sight. No, it wasnt prime Coleman but it was still Coleman back then and CC was a kickboxer who denied Coleman at every turn.
It was like Chuck/Tito.
Yep. In fact, Coleman had taken down every single fighter he had ever fought up to that point (including Fedor) - and Cro Cop just stuffed at will the wrestler who could take everyone down at will, and made Coleman look completely helpless for the first time in a fight.
Thanks for pointing that out, I have been thinking about that too. As washed up as old Mark is, he has always kept his ability to take fighters down. He got on top of Fedor, Minotauro, Shogun, etc etc etc. And Crocop made him look like a BJJ fighter clueless in wrestling.
It really annoys me when columnists try to look smart with afterconstructions like these... It is no problem to make any fighter look bad in hindsight, but as long as Crocop, Shogun, Liddell were still winning they had nothing but praise for them. To be honest, this article is ridiculous.