Who is the better Shamrock: Ken or Frank?

Better all-time fighter?

A prime Ken could have beaten any fighter in the world on any given day.

I think Frank accomplished a lot more...so Frank.

Though if they were both in their prime and they fought. I don't know.

Frank had a more more modern and well rounded skillset. This isn't even close imo.

I got Ken but both had great careers in there days. Ken in his baddest man on the planet days was just a hell of a fighter and I give him the slight edge over frank.

Ken was flat out the best fighter in the world in 1995

Frank probably was the best fighter in the world in 1998 but Im just not sure

Frank dominated in the UFC but Ken did more in Pancrase and UFC combined IMO

This is really tough
Its like asking who is better Brady or Manning IMO

neither answer is wrong

Also to me the fact that Ken trained Frank and introduced him to the sport weighs alot in my opinion

great question though LA

I say Frank.

Ken imo was never clearly the worlds best fighter and was more a product of the weaker era, while Frank in his prime could still compete easily today.

Frank was the prototype.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Ken imo was never clearly the worlds best fighter and was more a product of the weaker era, while Frank in his prime could still compete easily today.

Frank was the prototype.

Then who was in 1995?

Wins over Bas Rutten, Royce Gracie and Dan Severn

Who had a better career or who was the better fighter? I voted Frank on being the better fighter.

reason i say Ken also is the resume

He was defending his title against, Severns, Taktarovs, and Kimo's

Frank was fighting Zinoviev, Lober, Jackson, Horn and Ortiz

good wins just not on the level of who Ken defeated

and the win voer Rutten for Frank, was really based on the fact he clowned Bas when Bas was slapping him IMO

I'm with you on this Wolf

Birdofthad wrote:

reason i say Ken also is the resume

He was defending his title against, Severns, Taktarovs, and Kimo's

Frank was fighting Zinoviev, Lober, Jackson, Horn and Ortiz

good wins just not on the level of who Ken defeated

and the win voer Rutten for Frank, was really based on the fact he clowned Bas when Bas was slapping him IMO

Only bird and his twisted pro UFC 1-10 outlook would hold the first group over the second...lol.

This really is trying to compare Brady and Manning. I am going to go with Ken, though the reason is weird. Ken was one of the originals. When Frank was popping zits in high school, Ken was fighting. UFC 1, was the only legit threat to Royce Gracie. First Super Fight Champion. Sure it is romanticizing the past, but look what that gave us?

sorry Horn and Ortiz to me werent better than beating Rutten, Severn, Gracie IMO

I respect yours just
ok

Ken dominated Gracie in the rematch, owned Severn in first fight, Controlled Taktarov, and destroyed Kimo

Frank got easy Kevin Jackson, Zinoviev who was good, Jeremy Horn who is good fighter not a great IMO, Shamrock was a lucky fall away from possibly losing, if he doesnt fall into that knee bar
Also everyone forgets until the 3rd round Shamrock is losing to TIto

I just think the way Ken won in his prime was better

simply because Zinoviev and Jackson wins arent even in the same stratosphere of beating Gracie, Severn, Taktarov, and Kimo IMO
even if it was in a combined 30 seconds


this is really a tough question

I rank Frank Higher all time

I just think Ken was the best for a period, not sure if Frank was, although I am pretty damn positive he was


Can everyone admit something


Its nuts that these 2 brothers are Sure fire top 25 MMA fighters all time, and IMO both top 10 MMA fighters all time

how impressive is that?

dont worry Andrew I think back to the past admn near every day

I miss those days

I wish , no I rey sometimes that I can invent a time machine, go back tell Ken, to fight Tito around UFC 15-25 range area

Ken wouldve beat Tito in his prime IMO

I know its flawed but as a kid if I saw Mezger, Williams, Frank, etc, etc, Lions Den fighters beat anyone I would (and probaly at fault) say Ken could have won that fight then, he taught these guys everything they know, if they are winning these fights vs Coleman, Tito, etc., etc., then Ken could have beaten them.

and thanks LA, you have inspired me on a thread that I will write when I get back from bowling class!

Bird

i have to ask


if you could maybe


jusy yuou know maybe


talk or type like youre not someone


who suffered severe cranial damage


in a fight with mirko crocop

you sounded like Stevie from Malcom in the Middle there Wolf... Some dogs don't know it's not bacon

I
Will

Try

really hard

for you wolf

happy?


sorry I very rarely check for typo's and think it is easier to read if broken into paragraphs

frank

Incredily tight decision.

Both guys went on runs where they were they were amongst the best. Both guys were trailblazers of sorts. Both guys took extended leaves from the sport during or very near their prime, and neither guy fared very well upon their return from that leave.

I don't think we should penalize Ken for competing in an earlier era, and it's debateable how much he should be penalized for a near embarrassing end of his career. And I don't think we should give Frank points for the "what if" portion of his career where he fought only twice between between 27-33 yrs of age,(yes Ken has that too, but it was at a later age, and not quite as long).

I think Im leaning towards Ken, I just think he accomplished more. Stood a little higher on the mountain.

Frank was the better fighter. Ken was more famous. Even though their primes were close they fought like they were from different eras. Take them from their primes and place them in the present and I see Frank being more successful.

I agree GDP. I am surprised Ken pulled so far ahead.