Tito vs Matt

How would of this fight looked like years ago. Lets say the hammil of today vs the tito of 2003 or 2006. the difference in their match was of matts wreslting and strength as well as titos tank. what if both were in their primes.

Tito was on his way to winning until that last takedown, lets say young Tito can stop that, he'd win, tough to say though cause Matty seemed to own him wrestling wise.

Tito's hands were slower than they used to be. He has ten years of scar tissue that made Matt's striking look worse than it was. Tito was winning the standup.

Would young Tito stop the takedown?

Not sure, I have always felt his wrestling in itself was overrated, while his general MMA game and his striking in itself was way underrated. He was kind of a LHW Lesnar. Decent, not elite wrestling and size delivered him. The one fight that really justified his wrestling was his domination of Vladdy but that was a short notice bout.

throwdownfight1 wrote:

How would of this fight looked like years ago. Lets say the hammil of today vs the tito of 2003 or 2006. the difference in their match was of matts wreslting and strength as well as titos tank. what if both were in their primes.

Tito would have won by total domination.

I really think Tito would have won, he has lost a lot of strength and speed. He couldnt even take Hamill down

killerofchicken wrote:

I really think Tito would have won, he has lost a lot of strength and speed. He couldnt even take Hamill down

You say that like Hamill's a guy who gets taken down all the time or something. Hamill stuffed Munoz's takedowns. He's a great wrestler.

chorky777 wrote:

killerofchicken wrote:

I really think Tito would have won, he has lost a lot of strength and speed. He couldnt even take Hamill down

You say that like Hamill's a guy who gets taken down all the time or something. Hamill stuffed Munoz's takedowns. He's a great wrestler.

also talking about a healthy, younger tito

killerofchicken wrote:

chorky777 wrote:

killerofchicken wrote:

I really think Tito would have won, he has lost a lot of strength and speed. He couldnt even take Hamill down

You say that like Hamill's a guy who gets taken down all the time or something. Hamill stuffed Munoz's takedowns. He's a great wrestler.

also talking about a healthy, younger tito

Does it matter? Hamill's still a better wrestler now than Tito ever was.

chorky777 wrote:

killerofchicken wrote:

chorky777 wrote:

killerofchicken wrote:

I really think Tito would have won, he has lost a lot of strength and speed. He couldnt even take Hamill down

You say that like Hamill's a guy who gets taken down all the time or something. Hamill stuffed Munoz's takedowns. He's a great wrestler.

also talking about a healthy, younger tito

Does it matter? Hamill's still a better wrestler now than Tito ever was.

so do you believe hamill is a better wrestler than shad is or ever was. you know shad, the guy tito took down several times and beat pretty much. is hamill a better wrestler in mma than tito was. by your logic hamill is a better wrestler in mma than evans was for a declinin tito was still able to take him down. has hamill ever taken a guy at the level of forrest,shad or even wandy down like did.

Hammil has very solid wrestling ability

LA wrote:

Tito was on his way to winning until that last takedown, lets say young Tito can stop that, he'd win, tough to say though cause Matty seemed to own him wrestling wise.

No. Even if he didn't get that last takedown he still would've won.

It was 1-1 and Tito was winning the standup in the rd till that point

throwdownfight1 wrote:

chorky777 wrote:

killerofchicken wrote:

chorky777 wrote:

killerofchicken wrote:

I really think Tito would have won, he has lost a lot of strength and speed. He couldnt even take Hamill down

You say that like Hamill's a guy who gets taken down all the time or something. Hamill stuffed Munoz's takedowns. He's a great wrestler.

also talking about a healthy, younger tito

Does it matter? Hamill's still a better wrestler now than Tito ever was.

so do you believe hamill is a better wrestler than shad is or ever was. you know shad, the guy tito took down several times and beat pretty much. is hamill a better wrestler in mma than tito was. by your logic hamill is a better wrestler in mma than evans was for a declinin tito was still able to take him down. has hamill ever taken a guy at the level of forrest,shad or even wandy down like did.

Yes, Hamill's a better wrestler than Rashad was when he fought Tito. He's taken down much better wrestlers than Forrest and Wandy, those are terrible examples for your point. They both have weaknesses in their takedown defense. I don't know what makes you think Hamill's not a great wrestler. He's a much higher level wrestler than you seem to realize.

chorky777 wrote:

throwdownfight1 wrote:

chorky777 wrote:

killerofchicken wrote:

chorky777 wrote:

killerofchicken wrote:

I really think Tito would have won, he has lost a lot of strength and speed. He couldnt even take Hamill down

You say that like Hamill's a guy who gets taken down all the time or something. Hamill stuffed Munoz's takedowns. He's a great wrestler.

also talking about a healthy, younger tito

Does it matter? Hamill's still a better wrestler now than Tito ever was.

so do you believe hamill is a better wrestler than shad is or ever was. you know shad, the guy tito took down several times and beat pretty much. is hamill a better wrestler in mma than tito was. by your logic hamill is a better wrestler in mma than evans was for a declinin tito was still able to take him down. has hamill ever taken a guy at the level of forrest,shad or even wandy down like did.

Yes, Hamill's a better wrestler than Rashad was when he fought Tito. He's taken down much better wrestlers than Forrest and Wandy, those are terrible examples for your point. They both have weaknesses in their takedown defense. I don't know what makes you think Hamill's not a great wrestler. He's a much higher level wrestler than you seem to realize.

actually shad is the same wrestler then than he is now and from what you are saying is that hamill is a better wrestler in mma than evans was. also i never said forrest or wandy were good wrestlers, what i was trying to imply was that to date, hamills biggest win to date is over tito. a declined tito at that. he has never faced or beaten the level of opponents tito has like when tito fought forrest or wandy. the last 2 times hamill faced top opponents he got tko'd by franklin and got his arm dislocated by jones