The true #1... Wolf?

Birdofthad wrote:

chorky777 wrote:

Haha, guys, you're funny. I love Pride. I'm just realistic about individual fighters. It's just that I can see their flaws. I'm better at breaking down fighters than just about anyone, and I see them for who they actually are, not for who they're hyped to be. And the fact is, a lot of the fighters from the Pride days, including UFC guys, haven't evolved enough in recent days. Elite fighters are much better-rounded than they were even just 3 years ago. I could see that Chuck was gonna lose to Rashad. I picked Rampage to lose to Forrest. I foresaw Nog getting his block knocked off by Cain. I picked Cro-Cop to lose to Junior dos Santos. Why? Because these are the types of guys who weren't getting better, and they were fighting against guys who were growing and becoming proper, well-rounded fighters. There really is a new crop of fighters now who are just plain better than the old-school fighters that you guys want to cling to.

so basically you pick the young fighter when they fight old guys

He probably also thinks that Matt Hammill would beat prime Ken Shamrock and that Nate Marquardt destroys prime Frank Shamrock.

Birdofthad wrote:

chorky777 wrote:

Haha, guys, you're funny. I love Pride. I'm just realistic about individual fighters. It's just that I can see their flaws. I'm better at breaking down fighters than just about anyone, and I see them for who they actually are, not for who they're hyped to be. And the fact is, a lot of the fighters from the Pride days, including UFC guys, haven't evolved enough in recent days. Elite fighters are much better-rounded than they were even just 3 years ago. I could see that Chuck was gonna lose to Rashad. I picked Rampage to lose to Forrest. I foresaw Nog getting his block knocked off by Cain. I picked Cro-Cop to lose to Junior dos Santos. Why? Because these are the types of guys who weren't getting better, and they were fighting against guys who were growing and becoming proper, well-rounded fighters. There really is a new crop of fighters now who are just plain better than the old-school fighters that you guys want to cling to.

so basically you pick the young fighter when they fight old guys

Not necessarily, but it turns out that way quite a bit. I still like to look at individuals' weaknesses. And the younger guys tend to have fewer.

LA wrote:

Eh I can look at a fighter and think about how he'd do against other top guys in their Prime, Cain would beat a lot of guys, he has all the tools in every department but BJJ.

Cro cop was Cro cop when he came to the UFC, Nog wasn't far out of his prime.

Both their primes were around 2005-2006. They were past it when they came to the UFC. Big Nog had taken too many beatings. Also they were used to fighting in a ring with different rules and had to change.

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

chorky777 wrote:

Haha, guys, you're funny. I love Pride. I'm just realistic about individual fighters. It's just that I can see their flaws. I'm better at breaking down fighters than just about anyone, and I see them for who they actually are, not for who they're hyped to be. And the fact is, a lot of the fighters from the Pride days, including UFC guys, haven't evolved enough in recent days. Elite fighters are much better-rounded than they were even just 3 years ago. I could see that Chuck was gonna lose to Rashad. I picked Rampage to lose to Forrest. I foresaw Nog getting his block knocked off by Cain. I picked Cro-Cop to lose to Junior dos Santos. Why? Because these are the types of guys who weren't getting better, and they were fighting against guys who were growing and becoming proper, well-rounded fighters. There really is a new crop of fighters now who are just plain better than the old-school fighters that you guys want to cling to.

so basically you pick the young fighter when they fight old guys

He probably also thinks that Matt Hammill would beat prime Ken Shamrock and that Nate Marquardt destroys prime Frank Shamrock.

Possibly and probably.

CC def lost his heart after the GP win and was never himself in the UFC. The look in his eye hasn't been there. Go watch old Pride events and his hype videos from back then.

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

This makes me laugh.

Boxing fans overate the past
UFC fans underate the past

People need to get their shit together.

you underrate the past in boxing

start getting yo shit together son haha

food for thought

Tiger Flowers went 30-0-3 3 News Decisions in 1924, beat Johny Wilson and Harry Greb , in 1926 he beat Greb for the title, defended against Greb then fought Mickey Walker, you dont see guys go undefeated in 36 fights in 1 year or fight ATGs back to back to back like that.

chorky777 wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

chorky777 wrote:

Haha, guys, you're funny. I love Pride. I'm just realistic about individual fighters. It's just that I can see their flaws. I'm better at breaking down fighters than just about anyone, and I see them for who they actually are, not for who they're hyped to be. And the fact is, a lot of the fighters from the Pride days, including UFC guys, haven't evolved enough in recent days. Elite fighters are much better-rounded than they were even just 3 years ago. I could see that Chuck was gonna lose to Rashad. I picked Rampage to lose to Forrest. I foresaw Nog getting his block knocked off by Cain. I picked Cro-Cop to lose to Junior dos Santos. Why? Because these are the types of guys who weren't getting better, and they were fighting against guys who were growing and becoming proper, well-rounded fighters. There really is a new crop of fighters now who are just plain better than the old-school fighters that you guys want to cling to.

so basically you pick the young fighter when they fight old guys

He probably also thinks that Matt Hammill would beat prime Ken Shamrock and that Nate Marquardt destroys prime Frank Shamrock.

Possibly and probably.

Now you're just being a troll.

Seems like excuses, Cro cop's first fight in the UFC was like 5 months after beationg Barnett, and Nog 6 months after beating Barnett.

The game changes, fighters evolve and get better happens in all Sports, still condiser Nog the 2nd best HW ever.

Me thinks Gonzo did that to CC

Birdofthad wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

This makes me laugh.

Boxing fans overate the past
UFC fans underate the past

People need to get their shit together.

you underrate the past in boxing

start getting yo shit together son haha

food for thought

Tiger Flowers went 30-0-3 3 News Decisions in 1924, beat Johny Wilson and Harry Greb , in 1926 he beat Greb for the title, defended against Greb then fought Mickey Walker, you dont see guys go undefeated in 36 fights in 1 year or fight ATGs back to back to back like that.

I don't say the old are crap though. I agree they are great. It's you guys that have no respect for present day fighters like Mayweather and prime RJJ.

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

chorky777 wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

chorky777 wrote:

Haha, guys, you're funny. I love Pride. I'm just realistic about individual fighters. It's just that I can see their flaws. I'm better at breaking down fighters than just about anyone, and I see them for who they actually are, not for who they're hyped to be. And the fact is, a lot of the fighters from the Pride days, including UFC guys, haven't evolved enough in recent days. Elite fighters are much better-rounded than they were even just 3 years ago. I could see that Chuck was gonna lose to Rashad. I picked Rampage to lose to Forrest. I foresaw Nog getting his block knocked off by Cain. I picked Cro-Cop to lose to Junior dos Santos. Why? Because these are the types of guys who weren't getting better, and they were fighting against guys who were growing and becoming proper, well-rounded fighters. There really is a new crop of fighters now who are just plain better than the old-school fighters that you guys want to cling to.

so basically you pick the young fighter when they fight old guys

He probably also thinks that Matt Hammill would beat prime Ken Shamrock and that Nate Marquardt destroys prime Frank Shamrock.

Possibly and probably.

Now you're just being a troll.

What? I'm serious. Matt Hamill would probably beat Ken up. Nate would almost definitely beat Frank up. That should be obvious. There's such an athleticism difference.

Bird, I'll leave this 1 for you.

LA wrote:

Seems like excuses, Cro cop's first fight in the UFC was like 5 months after beationg Barnett, and Nog 6 months after beating Barnett.

The game changes, fighters evolve and get better happens in all Sports, still condiser Nog the 2nd best HW ever.

Exactly. I'm not denying the greatness of the older guys. Nog is still the 2nd best ever, Fedor still the best. But they're being passed up in skills by the evolving fighters of today. It won't be long before somebody has a more impressive record than Fedor did, because he'll be beating better fighters.

Frank was good enough to win now. Frank would beat Nate.

I'd take Nate, be close

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Frank was good enough to win now. Frank would beat Nate.

Frank's a guy who did a good job of working on making sure his all-around skills were up to snuff. He's not the type of guy I'm talking about here. But I still think Nate would beat him just because he's so big, strong, and fast.

Frank Shamrock is as good or better than Nate in all areas. He hung with Cung Le, old and shot, in 2008 standing. Nate isn't a better wrestler, Nate wouldn't submit him, Nate certainly wouldn't out strike him. Nate is a poor mans Frank.

Or an upgraded version, striking goes to Nate by the way

Hung with Cung LOL, Cung would get destroyed by Nate

Not standing. Not by a long shot. The standing technique of the two isn't even close. Cung Le is a world class striker, and his striking style is more MMA ready since throws and takedowns are part of it, making the distance and what not more similar for mma than straight Dutch or Thai style kick boxing. In MMA, Nate murders Le likely using BJJ. But Le was a good wrestler too in highschool and I thought I read college, so in addition to his San Shou he would have decent takedown defense. If Le were a few years younger when he crossed over he would have made a real splash in MMA. If he were 29 or 30, and devoted full time to MMA, instead of being 37 and using MMA as a stepping stone to building himself as a martial arts brand.

It's been a while but I think I remember seeing Frank stand with Mo Smith too back in Pancrase.

Frank would kill Nate Mardquardt imo.

Frank at his peak would only lose to Anderson Silva out of all the current Middleweights.

Frank takes Silva down at will. Frank would beat Anderson.

Eh, make it 50/50

Yikes, not even gonna bother here anymore, the games changed a lot in 10 years, Frank can get credit for that, but it's changed a lot.

And Nate beats Le cause he's just a better all around MMA fighter.

wiw Hammill beats Shamrock and Frank loses to Nate what a stretch

dont even really want to respnd but i need to

prime Ken can wrestle, sprawl, and has a damn good shot, Ken that fought Brian Johnston eats Hammill alive

Frank either beats Nate standing or has a replay of the Tito fight, gets taken down, survives, busy off the bottom and somewhere deep in the fight he would talke ove or catch Nate in something, prime Frank is all wrong for Anderson Silva,

awolf i bet money your thinking of Frank vs Vernon White in Pancrase

chorky ever heard of Kevin Jackson???

go watch what a prime Frank did to perhaps the greatst wrestler to ever enter MMA (no bullshit)

LA how is it a relatively smart guy like you can't digest concepts correctly so often? I am talking about standing skills. The game may have changed, sure, but if you brought 1999 Shamrock into our time and gave him a modern camp he would still dominate. Frank Shamrock was a modern fighter in the past. Great in all areas, striking, wrestling, BJJ.


Nate doesn't have the wrestling skills to take Frank down.