A lot of knowledge in this thread 
Pioneers for sure. Both Vale and Ken Shammy
btw william C, i cant go by how well Ken did in Pancrase as so many of those matches were rumored to be fixed...im not sure which ones were real and which were fake but Ken did look slick on the ground in those days..we would see none of that slickness during his ufc run though..
when it comes to Royce/Ken 2, at least Royce was mounting some sort of offense with heel kicks..Ken literally did NOTHING but lay on top of Royce..even Kens father was screaming at Ken to "do something!"..as soon as Ken would try to mount up to punch, Royce would go for the gi choke..i dont think Royce looked bad at all in the fight and i perfectly understand why he bowed out of the Ufc after this fight..Ken truly saw or thought that going to a draw or not losing to royce was as good as a win..
Of course you can go by how well Ken did in Pancrase, lol- you cant just discount an entire organization because of some "rumors". We hear rumors about all kinds of nonsense in mma every day. What Pancrase fights do you feel were fixed and why? You can't just throw blanket statements out there because you want to discount a person's career without good cause and don't have legitimate evidence. You need to do the research and come to an educated conclusion.
At this point I'm confident that you're just bashing the guy for no reason as many of your points are silly/without real thought, and it's clear you have a biased agenda. I'll entertain this last post of yours though.
We did see slickness on the ground from Ken in UFC- the problem was there were different rules between organizations. That's why fights would look different on the ground. Ken was fighting under two different rule sets, with more liberal strikes allowed and encouraged on the ground in UFC.
With Royce/Ken 2, Ken was doing more than Royce. The guard is a defensive position that can become offensive if the fighter on top makes a mistake (thats pretty much straight from the Gracies). The heel kicks were something to try and get Ken to move and make a mistake, I can't fault the guy (Ken) for not doing that. Ken's strikes did more damage. Ken was on top. Ken was doing some work, certainly as much as Royce. Ken's dad could scream what he wanted, that was his right as cornerman. His dad was not a fighter though, and may not have understood all that his fighter was going through. More on that in my interview.
You don't just start a sport at say UFC 1 (for a start point for sake of argument), and expect to pump out fighters like Fedor, GSP, and Anderson Silva in a couple months right after. What you need to understand is that there is a natural progression- you need to learn to crawl before you can walk. I'm sure the boxing technique of today is overall superior to the technique widely known in 1890. That is because as sports develop, people learn and adapt and build on what came before. It does not happen overnight. To uninformed (or 2015) eyes, Royce vs Ken 2 may be boring. But at the time it was, as I said, a paradigm shift. That step in the fight game needed to happen and was very necessary. And since it was something new that we were seeing at the time, I'm sure many like me were fascinated.
BTW, Ken was planning/training for a 3 hour fight (worst case scenario). The plan was to wear Royce down significantly then submit him. Ken was told the day before or of the fight that there would now be a specific time limit. His whole game plan would have had to have been changed, and he did not want to throw everything away strategy wise at the last minute.
At UFC 1, Ken was also told at the last minute shoes were not allowed. He was given no time to even get on the mat once without shoes pre fight and to feel the difference and adjust his game accordingly. (He was told the shoes were a weapon- although Royce was allowed to use the gi as a weapon and choke with it).
As to some of your other previous comments:
"he never won a tournament and was given a superfight against Royce in which he stalled like crazy"
Winning a tournament is awesome but does not necessarily make you a great fighter. One side the finalist may have a tough road, the other side the finalist may have an easy road with more unskilled fighters. Ken was "given" a superfight, just like Royce was given many advantages in the early UFCs (like his own dressing room, with all other fighters in one large room). Ken got that fight because thats what the fans wanted. I may call this a sport but it isnt and never was, its more entertainment. They (the promoters) were learning as they went back then.
"i give him props as he did submit Severn but from then on, his superfights were borefests..try to go back and watch his fight with Oleg or rematch with Severn"
Once again this is a poor reason to consider Ken less than a great fighter of the day. Just because you consider someone boring does not mean they are not great. GSP is the best at 170 without question, and many felt he was boring too. Sometimes 2 great and normally exciting fighters may have a boring match- maybe because of the danger each fighter is aware of- or maybe outside circumstances. Silva vs Maia is an example of that. On top of all that, the Kimo fight was not boring at all, and that was a superfight after Severn part 1 (you even earlier stated it was his best submission).
The Severn rematch was boring due to many factors. Ken should not have fought due to a few (3 I think) big injuries, so that is on him- I cant remember the reasoning for not bowing out. He took the center and was going to do what he could- defend the takedown, mount, and strike. Didn't work out fully to plan. There was a huge legal issue with UFC 9 which definitely affected that fight (and Ken mentally). Ken IIRC fought with open hand strikes (per the alleged rules) while Severn fought close fisted, as many fighters did that night. A lot of behind the scenes stuff helped create the dance in detroit. IIRC one judge told Ken he gave it to Severn for the closed fisted strikes he threw- which were supposed to be against the rules that night. It was a big mess.
"with Shamrock, so many questions remain as to how good he really was.."
I think between Pancrase and UFC he was very tested against all kinds of fighters and situations. His strengths and weaknesses of that time seem clear.
"im not trying to bash Ken but his mma run wasnt exactly that amazing.."
I think you are- but at any rate how was his run in fighting not amazing? If you're arguably the #1 or #2 fighter of the period, how much better can you reasonably expect to be? Your expectations may have been unrealistic.
Ultimately it doesn't really matter what any of us think about Ken (or Vale, or other fighters)- I think what is more telling is what did the other fighters think of him. In Ken's case, most fighters back then seemed to have a great respect for him. That is very telling. The main ones that didnt seemed to be some of his biggest rivals, so that is understandable that they might have a personal dislike.
Im getting pumped to wrap up this Ken interview now- lots of great Shammy (and some Vale) info in there. Gonna see if I can hand it in to Kirik in less than 2 weeks (Im putting that out there so Im forced to work on it)
Those that want a lesson on the history of mma will not be disappointed. Those that want controversy will find plenty of ammo also.
William C - Im getting pumped to wrap up this Ken interview now- lots of great Shammy (and some Vale) info in there. Gonna see if I can hand it in to Kirik in less than 2 weeks (Im putting that out there so Im forced to work on it)
Those that want a lesson on the history of mma will not be disappointed. Those that want controversy will find plenty of ammo also.
First off, Ken was amazing in his day. I would like to have seen a Vale/Ken mma bout (altho I'm pretty sure I know how it would go.) Kens mouth and career length seem to make newer fans think he's overrated. Without Shammy, MMA wouldn't be anywhere near where it is today. Same goes for Royce, Oleg, Severn, and a much longer list. Respect for the pioneers...
NKcell - People always hated Bart valet on here, for his time he was pretty legitimate.
Ken shamrock was never THAT good at subs, he wasn't the best " young boy" at malenkos as they use to say. He was good at the exercises this is why gotch and Larry sent him to japan
Speaking of Malenkos,Carl Pride Veteran. Dieuseul “Tiger” Berto's school in Winter Haven. Tiger father of Edson and Andre. Tiger was going to put on probably Vanderlai's first US seminar.We wanted to go but heard it was cancelled.
Bry Bry - btw william C, i cant go by how well Ken did in Pancrase as so many of those matches were rumored to be fixed...im not sure which ones were real and which were fake but Ken did look slick on the ground in those days..we would see none of that slickness during his ufc run though..
when it comes to Royce/Ken 2, at least Royce was mounting some sort of offense with heel kicks..Ken literally did NOTHING but lay on top of Royce..even Kens father was screaming at Ken to "do something!"..as soon as Ken would try to mount up to punch, Royce would go for the gi choke..i dont think Royce looked bad at all in the fight and i perfectly understand why he bowed out of the Ufc after this fight..Ken truly saw or thought that going to a draw or not losing to royce was as good as a win..
William C and Bry Bry -
I am just catching up to this debate.
I was in a Ken Shamrock debate in another thread. Much of it applies... so i'm going to copy and paste.
Hope you don't mind... my time is limited But i'd like to chime in.
""""Ken never won a tournament. Ever. He never had a run.""""
(paraphrased... then my response)
First King Of Pancrase tournament champion.
That's a tournament.. and at a time when Pancrase arguably had more talent than all but the top 2-3 UFC fighters.
You know damn well he would have beat Harold Howard, everybody does.
Wins over Masa Funaki (twice), Mo Smith, Bas Rutten (twice), Dan Severn...
Draws that would have been decisions over Oleg Taktarov and Royce Gracie.
Funaki - 2x KOP
Rutten - 3x KOP
Mo Smith - future UFC champion, kickboxing legend
Dan Severn - 2 time UFC champion
Oleg Taktarov - UFC champion
Royce Gracie - self explanatory
From 1993 to 1996 Ken Shamrock was 24-5-2 with 22 submissions.
Yeah, he sucked. LOL
Make it 23-5-2 if you don't count the Hume work.
Make it 23-2-2 if you don't count him putting over Suzuki and Funaki.
Make it 23-1-2 if you don't count the farce that was "The Dance".
Make it 25-1 if you put judges in the Oleg fight and second Royce fight.
Or you can leave it at 24-5-2.
Either way, he competed with and beat the best fighters of his era.
Again - you cannot logically argue that he was not one of the best.
(with all due respect, because your a good poster)
The "loss" to Severn was tainted by weird last minute rule changes. One of the worst fights ever. Hard to really look at that as a loss for Ken or a win for Severn.
Ken did hold back against Oleg. Yeah.. that's a bit disappointing. But he still controlled and all but dominated him. He clearly proved he was the superior fighter.
And you can't overlook Ken's UFC wins over Pat Smith, Leininger, Kimo, and Brian Johnson. These were all very tough fighters for the time, and Leininger a legit Judoka. Ken manhandled these guys. These fights weren't even close.
You are correct that Ken had a couple boring fights. I am not defending those other that to say he is not the only fighter to have them.
You are also correct that Ken underachieved.
But he still proved, head-to-head, that he was one of the best fighters of that era. This is based on how he looked against other champions from that era.
Bry Bry -
On Pancrase "works"...
Ken's only "losses" in Pancrase were works.
Only one of his wins was a work - Ken vs Matt Hume - and they made it obvious (sunset flip/northern lights suplex) :)
There has been debate over one of the Suzuki fights.
But its pretty much common knowledge that he put Funaki over, as well as Suzuki the second time.
The thing is, nobody in Pancrase could really handle Ken straight up. A couple of the guys, like Suzuki and Funaki, probably had more submissions knowledge overall. But Ken made up the difference by being a freak of nature. He was just too damn strong.
But the powers that be at Pancrase didn't want their champion losing in other organizations, like the UFC. So they had him put guys over. It was a different time, and a different culture. Anyways, this was the beginning of Ken falling out with Pancrase and staying full time in the US.
Ken's wins over Bas and Funaki have never been disputed that I have seen. You can watch them yourself, and they pass the eyeball test. Since Funaki and Bas were the 2 best Pancrase fighters other than Ken... I'd say these wins speak volumes.
It can be argued that Bas was the most successful Pancrase fighter of that era, while Ken was the best/most dominant.
Bas had wins over Funaki, Suzuki, Yamada, Mo Smith, Frank, Mezger, etc. 3 time KOP!
But Bas lost to Ken twice, and never got revenge.
Ken is the only fighter Bas fought that he was never able to beat. He only lost a couple of other times, and he avenged them both.
Really, it was a bad matchup for Bas. Ken even overpowered Bas i striking exchanges, which is the one area where Bas should have had the advantage.
But even if you take Ken's worst case scenario record in the 90's, he would be 23-5-2. That is taking away his worked win over Hume, but leaving his worked losses.
30 fights, 23-5-2, 22 submissions, in about 3 years.
I'd say that's damn impressive by any standards.
William C - If my posts seem like theyre missing words- for some reason the word s.t.y.l.e. doesnt show when I type it
Check your PM
Bry Bry -onepunchJD -William C -Carson's Corner radio show -Carlton Fist - Vale's body was already aging and failing him when he fought in NHB/MMA. Imagine how Vale vs Renzo, Vale vs Paulson, Paulson vs Renzo would have in Super Fight style without politics and striker or grappler WCC brackets. Vale had similar knowledge to Ken Shamrock and Hume at the time.
Is this post serious? Both Ken and especially Hume had way more knowledge at the time than Vale did ever.
There is no way Hume had more knowledge than Ken in the early 1990's during their Pancrase stints. Hume became a wizard after then, but watch all his Pancrase fights (yes, I know there is an asterisk next to Hume's fights with Ken and Sullivan). In Pancrase Hume (IMO) showed great wrestling but little submission, submission defense, or striking. Pancrase asked Ken to go scout Hume and his group actually. Not sure how Pancrase knew of him.
Vale didn't have the knowledge Ken did either. In fact Ken's first (Florida) tryout around June 1990- when he knew absolutely nothing about submissions (he had only seen the Funaki vs Suzuki worked 4/90 match afaik)- he grappled Vale and handled him easily.
William C -
Its a damn shame that only maybe a couple handfuls of posters here, yourself included, understand just how good Ken really was.
I realize the past decade has not been kind to Ken. But that is no excuse for ignorance... newer fans or not.
Ken could wrestle, and he knew his submissions very well. He also had real life experience on the streets, illegal organized bare knuckle fights, and toughman contests. There just weren't a whole lot of guys in the early 90's that were bringing that formidable of a package to the table. Among those who did, Ken was usually physically superior.
Ken was basically a monster among men, who intuitively understood how to physically impose himself in a fight. The grappling knowledge he gained was really just icing on the cake. I believe Ken got to a point where he might have thought too much of himself as a technician, and this limited him. He was absolutely ahead of his time on a technical level... but his off-the-charts physical presence was his best weapon.
Regardless - Bart Vale couldn't handle one side of Ken Shamrock.
No disrespect to Vale, because I realize the guy was promoting himself and making living. It was certainly a different era, in more ways than just the evolution of technique. But I agree it would be nice to get some real history from him, and many other guys from that era. It would only make them look better in the eyes of hardcore/old-school fans... and we are pretty much the only ones who give a shit anyways, LOL.
As far as Matt Hume... I would never say anything at all negative about that man. He is an MMA legend in his own right, and has a wealth of knowledge. I hold both Hume and Paulson in VERY high regard. ANY fighter should be honored to receive coaching from guys like this.
As fighters though... Ken was on a much higher level than Hume. Of course, Ken's ridiculous physicality was part of that reality.
although i dont disagree with what you are saying, i have to ask..why didnt Ken shine in the Ufc since he was so physically superior and had such a great grapling game?instead, he struggled with guys like Felix Lee mitchell and his best submission win is over a brawler in Kimo...im not trying to bash Ken but his mma run wasnt exactly that amazing..given his background he should have dominated but he didnt come close..why?
Bry Bry -
Sorry, I'm moving backwards here...
Ken was awesome in the UFC.
People bring up the Mitchell fight because he struggled for the takedown a bit. But he Won the fight!
What about Pat Smith, Leininger, Kimo, and Brian Johnson??!! Ken pretty much ran through all these guys. Pat Smith and Kimo both did better against Royce than they did against Ken. (I know, MMA math...)
Ken did not win a UFC tournament because he pulled out of one due to injury (and stubborness), and broke his hand in another.
But in head-to-head matchups, Ken clearly showed that he was among the top 2 fighters of that era, along with Royce (A point William C already made).
As far as the Royce rematch... the regulation was indeed boring.
For the sake of argument, lets call the regulation period a draw.
Now, watch Ken/Royce 2, but ONLY watch the overtime period. Ken dominated and beat Royce up in OT. Royce was DONE, had no chance at offense, ant it was only going to get worse. Once Ken got high in the guard, it was a different fight.
Even the most unworthy panel of judges would have given Ken the decision over Royce.
No disrespect to Royce BTW. The man is a legend, and he literally changed my life. He was my original favorite NHB fighter, and will always be a personal hero to me.. at least as much as a person I have never met can be.
But I think Ken proved, straight up, that he was at least as good as Royce, and very arguably better.
Yeah, he played it safe. Can you blame him? Royce had submitted every fighter in his path, Ken included. The one way Royce could beat Ken was by Ken making a mistake and exposing himself.
But this was a real fight, not a takedown competition. Plenty of current fighters go for points because they know what the judges are looking for. I find it hard to understand criticizing Ken in a different era, when more was at stake, and he actually had a good reason to be conservative. It was Royce freakin Gracie!
Ken was awesome man.
I am not suggesting that you did not watch these events unfold as they happened. You have an '01 join date, and you are a good poster. But from my point of view, watching Ken's initial stint in the UFC as it happened was VERY impressive.
Granted, I think he could have done better. Ken has been a bit of an enigma at times, no doubt.
But if we were applying Ken's accomplishments in the 90's to any other fighter... we would be praising them as a legend, and talking about how good they were!
I think that with Ken most of us realize that he was a better fighter than his actual career accomplishments (impressive as they were).
So maybe we hold Ken to some higher standard because he should have done more??
Or maybe its the last decade of his career, when he continued fighting long after his injuries severely limited him??
Ken Shamrock could have retired from fighting after the WWF, and his accomplishments in the 90's alone make him an MMA legend.
Skpotamus - Him trying to pass off his pro wrestling matches as real fights pissed a lot of people off.
Yeah, and the clown is is STILL trying to say the Shamrock "KO" was real. He has a youtube channel and posted the match. Here's one of his comments:
"It would be pretty hard to fake three kicks to the head in front of hundreds of people. Honestly because of the rules of Shootfighting the fight has a different flow than what you would see in a UFC fight. Most people don't understand the dynamic of the matches. Some will say that they have researched and they know someone who told them something, that's all BS. But in the end the ones who were around at that time know. Thanks for watching."
https://youtu.be/93RNT1xo_1U
.
William C - Of course you can go by how well Ken did in Pancrase, lol- you cant just discount an entire organization because of some "rumors". We hear rumors about all kinds of nonsense in mma every day. What Pancrase fights do you feel were fixed and why? You can't just throw blanket statements out there because you want to discount a person's career without good cause and don't have legitimate evidence. You need to do the research and come to an educated conclusion.
At this point I'm confident that you're just bashing the guy for no reason as many of your points are silly/without real thought, and it's clear you have a biased agenda. I'll entertain this last post of yours though.
We did see slickness on the ground from Ken in UFC- the problem was there were different rules between organizations. That's why fights would look different on the ground. Ken was fighting under two different rule sets, with more liberal strikes allowed and encouraged on the ground in UFC.
With Royce/Ken 2, Ken was doing more than Royce. The guard is a defensive position that can become offensive if the fighter on top makes a mistake (thats pretty much straight from the Gracies). The heel kicks were something to try and get Ken to move and make a mistake, I can't fault the guy (Ken) for not doing that. Ken's strikes did more damage. Ken was on top. Ken was doing some work, certainly as much as Royce. Ken's dad could scream what he wanted, that was his right as cornerman. His dad was not a fighter though, and may not have understood all that his fighter was going through. More on that in my interview.
You don't just start a sport at say UFC 1 (for a start point for sake of argument), and expect to pump out fighters like Fedor, GSP, and Anderson Silva in a couple months right after. What you need to understand is that there is a natural progression- you need to learn to crawl before you can walk. I'm sure the boxing technique of today is overall superior to the technique widely known in 1890. That is because as sports develop, people learn and adapt and build on what came before. It does not happen overnight. To uninformed (or 2015) eyes, Royce vs Ken 2 may be boring. But at the time it was, as I said, a paradigm shift. That step in the fight game needed to happen and was very necessary. And since it was something new that we were seeing at the time, I'm sure many like me were fascinated.
BTW, Ken was planning/training for a 3 hour fight (worst case scenario). The plan was to wear Royce down significantly then submit him. Ken was told the day before or of the fight that there would now be a specific time limit. His whole game plan would have had to have been changed, and he did not want to throw everything away strategy wise at the last minute.
At UFC 1, Ken was also told at the last minute shoes were not allowed. He was given no time to even get on the mat once without shoes pre fight and to feel the difference and adjust his game accordingly. (He was told the shoes were a weapon- although Royce was allowed to use the gi as a weapon and choke with it).
As to some of your other previous comments:
"he never won a tournament and was given a superfight against Royce in which he stalled like crazy"
Winning a tournament is awesome but does not necessarily make you a great fighter. One side the finalist may have a tough road, the other side the finalist may have an easy road with more unskilled fighters. Ken was "given" a superfight, just like Royce was given many advantages in the early UFCs (like his own dressing room, with all other fighters in one large room). Ken got that fight because thats what the fans wanted. I may call this a sport but it isnt and never was, its more entertainment. They (the promoters) were learning as they went back then.
"i give him props as he did submit Severn but from then on, his superfights were borefests..try to go back and watch his fight with Oleg or rematch with Severn"
Once again this is a poor reason to consider Ken less than a great fighter of the day. Just because you consider someone boring does not mean they are not great. GSP is the best at 170 without question, and many felt he was boring too. Sometimes 2 great and normally exciting fighters may have a boring match- maybe because of the danger each fighter is aware of- or maybe outside circumstances. Silva vs Maia is an example of that. On top of all that, the Kimo fight was not boring at all, and that was a superfight after Severn part 1 (you even earlier stated it was his best submission).
The Severn rematch was boring due to many factors. Ken should not have fought due to a few (3 I think) big injuries, so that is on him- I cant remember the reasoning for not bowing out. He took the center and was going to do what he could- defend the takedown, mount, and strike. Didn't work out fully to plan. There was a huge legal issue with UFC 9 which definitely affected that fight (and Ken mentally). Ken IIRC fought with open hand strikes (per the alleged rules) while Severn fought close fisted, as many fighters did that night. A lot of behind the scenes stuff helped create the dance in detroit. IIRC one judge told Ken he gave it to Severn for the closed fisted strikes he threw- which were supposed to be against the rules that night. It was a big mess.
"with Shamrock, so many questions remain as to how good he really was.."
I think between Pancrase and UFC he was very tested against all kinds of fighters and situations. His strengths and weaknesses of that time seem clear.
"im not trying to bash Ken but his mma run wasnt exactly that amazing.."
I think you are- but at any rate how was his run in fighting not amazing? If you're arguably the #1 or #2 fighter of the period, how much better can you reasonably expect to be? Your expectations may have been unrealistic.
Ultimately it doesn't really matter what any of us think about Ken (or Vale, or other fighters)- I think what is more telling is what did the other fighters think of him. In Ken's case, most fighters back then seemed to have a great respect for him. That is very telling. The main ones that didnt seemed to be some of his biggest rivals, so that is understandable that they might have a personal dislike.
lol im not a Pancrase fanatic, i have watched a handful of matches, ken did look good there but when you hear so many rumors of fixed fights, OF COURSE i am going to view those fights in an entirely different way...im not hating on Shammy at all, but you are doing the opposite..you must be his friend or something, im not sure..
go back and watch Royce/Ken 2..you say ken landed shots and punches, when and where did he do this?Royce didnt have a scratch on his face until they were stood up for overtime..Ken didnt do anything in that fight beside land the hard right in overtime..pathetic display by Ken..bottom line, he was in there to not lose, not to win..
Ken said his game-plan was to wear royce out and submit him after a few hours but lets be real, Royce wasnt tiring and neither was Ken by just laying there..even hearing about the rule changes, what was Kens strategy after hearing it?he wasnt doing anything and you call this a huge shift in mma strategy?no, its called stalling..Ken should have sprawled and brawled against Royce from the beginning..Ken likes to say things to make him look better after the fights..i dont blame him as many people believe him
jbbarne -William C - Im getting pumped to wrap up this Ken interview now- lots of great Shammy (and some Vale) info in there. Gonna see if I can hand it in to Kirik in less than 2 weeks (Im putting that out there so Im forced to work on it)
Those that want a lesson on the history of mma will not be disappointed. Those that want controversy will find plenty of ammo also.
First off, Ken was amazing in his day. I would like to have seen a Vale/Ken mma bout (altho I'm pretty sure I know how it would go.) Kens mouth and career length seem to make newer fans think he's overrated. Without Shammy, MMA wouldn't be anywhere near where it is today. Same goes for Royce, Oleg, Severn, and a much longer list. Respect for the pioneers...
agreed, Shammys reasons or excuses for fighting this way or that is just silly...he has been caught in lies before, after ufc 1 he said he had no idea what bjj was yet in other interviews he said he knew exactly what Royce Gracies game was all about..which is it Ken?he cant face the fact he lost to a better fighter..thats made him look bad..
id have loved to have seen Shamrock/Ruas in their prime..this would solve much debate on how good these guys really were..both will always remain question marks in my eyes..
error
.