I'm just curious as to why so many are popping boners over Cung's "amazing standup, possibly the best in MMA". He flicks out kicks that take 15 minutes before they start having an effect on opponents that walk into them over and over. His hands are average at best.
Boetsch put on a display in the Heath fight every bit as versatile and flashy as anything Cung has shown in MMA. The difference is Tim's strikes actually had power and he finished his opponent (a higher level opponent than anyone Cung has fought) in the first round.
What is it that makes you guys cream all over Cung's standup? What has he done that Boetsch (a wrestler) didn't do, other than fight worse opponents, get rocked more, and take much longer to finish? What am I missing that you all are seeing that makes you think Cung is some standup wizard?
I think it's ridiculous that people make excuses everytime someone they didn't think had a snowball's chance in hell of winning, wins the fight and in convincing fashion.
I also love how people were talking about Frank being potentially the only guy to give Anderson Silva a run and then, once he loses, Frank is washed up, was never that good, etc. etc.
"It wasn't that convincing. Frank did have his moments and ultimately was injured, not being able to continue."
He had "moments" but was dominated for the 85% of the fight. Also, the "injury" that happened wasn't a freak accident or anything. Cung Le broke his arm with a kick.
Again, I don't want to turn this into yet another "Cung is great! Cung sucks!" thread.
I am genuinely curious as to what Cung showed in his standup than Tim didn't show in his. Tim was just as varied (in fact, maybe moreso -- he landed knees and elbows as well), just as accurate, and more powerful. He might not have done as many spins, but I don't remember that being a criteria for high-level striking.
"Also, little different dominating David Heath and dominating Frank Shamrock."
Even if you think Frank is better standing than Heath, that doesn't explain why people were still marveling over Cung's standup against guys like Frkylund or Von Flue. Not to mention, given the fact that Cung was put in danger more than Frank was up until the finish and was taking rather than giving the harder shots, I don't know if you can say Cung was "dominating" Frank so much as "out-pointing" him.
"So you're wondering why everyone is wasting their time talking about Strikeforce fighter Le when they could be talking about UFC fighter Boetsch."
Not at all. Like I said, I am wondering what people are seeing in Cung's standup -- other than more spins -- that causes them to make statements like "He might be the best striker in MMA".
Boetsch is just the example I chose because he happened to use a similarly high-volume, somewhat flashy style with a wide variety of attacks and lots of kicks, which is the only thing I can think of that puts Cung over the top in some people's eyes.
I could have used Manhoef, for example, if you're so fixated on this whole "UFC" thing, except he is not as flashy. I guess I am trying to figure out if it's just the kung fu movie appeal of Cung's style that makes so many think he is actually "better" than other good strikers in MMA.
The other argument for Cung would be that he lands so many strikes. My counter to this would be something like Nick Diaz vs Neer -- tons of light strikes landed that were more frustrating rather than damaging, until several rounds of accumulation took their toll. No one considers Diaz one of the best strikers in MMA and many people ridiculed his punching in that fight particularly for its lack of power. But when Cung lands 9 million side kicks that have no visible effect "Oh shit he's picking him apart, we've never seen this level of striking in MMA!"
"Something to do really. I'm not upset at all. More me trolling than anything. Creating tension, etc. etc. You know the drill."
Yeah, but if you want the forum to be "intelligent" and/or debate logically, then you may want to stop telling everyone to "shut the fuck up" or calling them "idiots".
I understand that sometimes it is frustrating reading the boards, but you seem to be upset about every little thing stated that doesn't agree with what you believe.
Who ever said the Frank Shamrock was the only guy that could give Silva a go is a smuck! Shamrock would not have been able to climb his way through the contenders! Hendo would stop him, so would Franklin (although that would be a real good fight now) Even Travis Lutter would most likely be able to bring down Frank. I do agree that Frank's personality help form MMA into what it is today, however, just like his brother Ken, Frank is done. I don't care if people think is coasting his way through or not, maybe he is, maybe he isn't, that doesn't matter! He is a good fighter, not a great fighter, he is one hell of an entertaining fighter, and that is what the crowd loves (or loves to hate). I for one an very thankful for having both Shamrocks involved in the sport, they have helped to make it what it is today, and I look forward to kicking back and watching old highlight reels and other fights they have had and saying to myself "wow I remember that one!" with joy!
"We haven't seen enough of Boetsch to really make any comparison, yet."
I just using Boetsch as an example. I guess what I'm saying is I've seen better (more accurate, more powerful, etc) displays of striking from many guys, against better opposition, than I've seen from Cung, and I'm wondering why so many others seem to feel differently.