Derailment of the Rashad Evans Hype Train

by dropkick101 on Dec 14, 2008 12:54 PM EST Comment 36 comments

Rashad Evans is a good fighter. Any athlete able to go 12 contests in a row without a loss - or 16 according to the UFC - is above average. Disclaimer out of the way, the only major accomplishment in Rashad's career has been knocking out Chuck Liddell, whose skills and reaction time has been declining anyway.

Throughout his UFC career, Evans has been on the winning side of too many fights that were incredibly close, against a number of opponents who probably shouldn't have been in the UFC in the first place. Evans still can't seem to understand why the fans don't take too kindly to him, even after he proved himself as more than legitimate with the Liddell victory. The reason being, one big win after a slew of unimpressive performances where he seemed to always have luck or the judges on his side isn't going to turn haters into fans.

Let's take a quick career retrospective, looking at the quality of "Sugar's" opponents.

(1) At the TUF2 finale, Rashad won the contract by defeating Brad Imes via close split decision. The Hillbilly Heart Throb wound up getting armbarred in his very next fight by middling Dan Christison. Imes is tough but he is mid level at best.

(2) After that, Rashad took another split decision over Sam Hoger. Hoger went on to suffer defeats to Lyoto Machida (which is respectable) and Vernon White (which is not). Hoger is a part-time mid level fighter.

(3) In his third UFC appearance, Rashad took a close majority decision over Stephan Bonnar. The fight could have gone either way but Rasad wrestled his way to a victory. Bonnar is an above average fighter with a quality Gracie jiu-jitsu pedigree and golden gloves level stand up. Rashad wrestled him to eek out a majority decision. Unimpressive.

(4) Evans then TKOed Jason Lambert. "The Punisher" was on an impressive 8 fight win streak at the time, including 3 stoppage wins in the UFC. Since losing to Evans, Lambert has dropped 3 of 4 bouts in the organization. The victory was impressive at the time but looking back, not so much.

(5) Next was the highlight reel head kick over Sean Salmon. While there is no denying the deciveness of the victory, it is readily apparent that, to put it bluntly, Sean Salmon sucks. Since the brutal knockout, Salmon has been stopped by Alan Belcher, Travis Wiuff, Jorge Santiago, and Josh Haynes - who sports an 11-10 record.

(6) Tito Ortiz was next for Rashad to see if he could hang with the big boys. Tito would have had the victory if not for a point deduction. Rashad proved here that he could compete with the top guys but not to the point where he could win. It was counted as a draw nonetheless.

(7) Rashad then entered his first main event fight against Michael Bisping. Rashad previously fought at heavyweight while Bisping has since moved to middleweight. Needless to say, Rashad had a distinct size advantage yet still only eeked out a split decision in a fight that could have gone either way, once again.

(8) Then Rashad highlight reeled the shit out of The Iceman. Hats off to him.

The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.

0 recs | Comment 36 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Nah...

12-16 fight unbeaten streak is nuts. 12-16 fight unbeaten streak to start your career is Crazygonuts University.

Is it the singular most impressive resume ever? Nope. Does he deserve the shot? Yup. I personally like Sugar’s style – and being coached by Greg Jackson sure doesn’t hurt.

by subo on Dec 13, 2008 5:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Does he deserve the shot? no

Liddell is a big name, but as far as being a contender right now(or at the time of UFC 88)…. not so much.

by Discman2 on Dec 13, 2008 5:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think he deserves the shot to, based on the competition. It was either him or Machida and in Machida’s shot at a top guy (Tito) he went to a decision whereas Rashad finished in dramatic fashion.

I’m not presenting an argument whether or not he deserves the shot. This is more based in supplementing why he’s not so popular and why he’s been downright unimpressive, despite his victories. The guys had one two many close calls against sub-par or smaller opponents. Even Salmon is currently a middleweight.

by dropkick101 on Dec 13, 2008 5:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This reads like a blatant attempt at undercutting Rashad’s considerable accomplishments. Using his fights against Imes and Hogar is comparable to using Anderson Silva’s fights against Chonan and Takase to prove he’s not an elite fighter. Fighters change, and Rashad has very visibly become a much different, much better fighter than he was earlier in his UFC career.

by Michaelthebox on Dec 13, 2008 5:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

While I agree Rashad has become much better, the Anderson Silva comparison fails. In addition to the fights you’ve mentioned, Silva has also beaten Franklin, Henderson, Marquardt, Leben, Horn, Murray, and Sakurai. Rashad has beaten Liddell and an undersized Bisping.

by dropkick101 on Dec 13, 2008 6:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Although...

before his shot at Franklin he only beat a marginal Leben in the UFC.

by B Money on Dec 13, 2008 7:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Fails. Not only were some of the victories I named pre-UFC (Horn, Murray, Sakurai) but since the title victory Silva has proven himself not only as a top guy but the best in the world. Can we say the same for Rashad?

by dropkick101 on Dec 14, 2008 1:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And the reason he’s been unpopular isn’t mindblowing. He was largely a takedown artist earlier in his career, especially against Bonnar. Its very hard to turn around that negative sentiment.

by Michaelthebox on Dec 13, 2008 5:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Evans probably gets a little more credit than he deserves considering how spectacular his knockout of Liddell was, but I think there’s a lot to be excited about in Rashad. He’s looked better each time out and beaten a better fighter each time he’s fought. I’ll give you Rashad isn’t scary good yet, but the potential is there. I wasn’t particularly high on Evans when he first started fighting in the UFC. Now, I believe he’s going to be a top five light heavyweight for a while.

by Andy R on Dec 13, 2008 5:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

In fairness in the Tito Ortiz fight, there was more than one occasion where Tito grab the fence. Tito needed to grab the fence not to lose. If Rashad nailed those takedowns, woudnt you say the whole fight from there change? Many are giving Randy that benefit when he was in a similar situation wit Brock, why not the same for Rashad?

by The Bronzeville Bully on Dec 13, 2008 5:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I definitely agree grabbing the fence changed things. Hell, imagine if Lindland got the takedown on Fedor if he didn’t grab the rope.

by dropkick101 on Dec 13, 2008 6:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This is Rashad Evans chance to solidify his spot in the elite...

If he can pull off the victory against Forrest… that makes it definite.

I wanna see Wanderlei vs Rashad Evans, I think that fight could be a war…. could be interesting if both win on the 27th.

by Gunslinger20 on Dec 13, 2008 6:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think even a really good performance in a loss would help solidify him as a top LHW.

Eliot Marshall: Bader won. Like I said in the episode, I'm not going to make any excuses. It's my job to be able to deal with when somebody's doing that. It's not his job to change up his tactics.

http://eliotmarshall.com/

by BJJDenver on Dec 14, 2008 1:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think rashad is a good fighter but I think he has had a lot of luck on his side. I don’t see him getting past Griffin.

by Wookalarman on Dec 13, 2008 6:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

No matter who wins this title bout

They both lose their next fight. The title bout is a non-fight to me. ::I can gives a shit::

by skwirrl on Dec 13, 2008 6:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

That’s quite the statement when referring to one guy who is undefeated and another who is coming off back-to-back wins over Mauricio Rua and Quinton Jackson.

Bolts from the Blue // People who have time on their hands will inevitably waste the time of people who have work to do.

by Richard Wade on Dec 14, 2008 3:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Are youi high?

by Wookalarman on Dec 13, 2008 6:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Haven't been in way too long

Griffen lost to Jackson and got a gift decision… Rashad had his eyes closed when he knocked out chuck. Luck happens

No matter who wins out of Machida vs Thiago Silva either of them beats Rashad or Griffen. No matter who wins out of Wand vs Rampage they win against either also. Wand vs Rashad would be comical in how badly Wand would destroy him. Rashad beat Chuck because Chuck is a counterpuncher and Rashad made him come forward. Let Wand do that and he’ll be laying there just like Jardine was.

by skwirrl on Dec 13, 2008 6:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Griffin did not lose to Jackson. I’m going to assume you watched that fight once because anybody who only saw it the one time had an extreme opinion going either way. The fight was incredibly close and there is a strong argument either way.

Fightmetric scored it a draw and shows that Forrest landed more strikes and attempted 3 submissions, compared to Jackson’s 0. http://www.fightmetric.com/fights/Griffin-Rampage.html

Before that fight, Forrest decisively beat the #1 ranked fighter in the world at the time, Shogun. How do you write him off so quickly against Thiago, Machida, Wand, or Rampage?

by dropkick101 on Dec 13, 2008 6:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I second that

We need to take damage into account as well. The fact that Rampage could barely walk after the fight proves conclusively that Griffin won that fight.

by cyph on Dec 13, 2008 6:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Fightlinker, as always, ftw:

If you think it was a robbery, let me ask you this: Did Rampage manage to pull off a 10-8 round like Forrest did? Did Rampage hurt Forrest like Forrest hurt Rampage’s leg? And did Rampage nearly pull off any submissions like Forrest did? Rampage’s striking looked dangerous throughout the entire fight but never knocked Forrest stupid. Forrest on the other hand just seemed … on.

That about sums it up.

by Rundownloser on Dec 13, 2008 7:38 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

That does about sum it up. I think Forrest won, as do many others. Either way, there is no point in saying that it was bullshit. No matter how you look at it, as long as you don’t have down’s syndrome, it was close.

by dropkick101 on Dec 14, 2008 1:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Forrest = Overrated

I can’t wait till Rashad smashes him!

I still have the Rampage/Griffin fight DVR’d, in HD even. Seen it about 4-5 times. Griffin was given that win. Rampage won 3 out of 5 rounds. Spare me your stats.

Oh and sure he defeated Shogun who was #1 at the time. If you saw that fight you can see Shogun had a NO CARDIO whatsoever and still gave a pretty good fight. Calm down…

by xFenixKnightx on Dec 15, 2008 9:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Griffin won both fights. Your attempts to devalue his victories don’t change the reality of the situation.

Bolts from the Blue // People who have time on their hands will inevitably waste the time of people who have work to do.

by Richard Wade on Dec 15, 2008 8:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bonnar is an above average fighter with a quality Gracie jiu-jitsu pedigree and golden gloves level stand up. Rashad wrestled him to eek out a majority decision. Unimpressive.

So it’s unimpressive to win the only way that you can? Really? Did not know this. Thanks for the update.

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Sir Winston Churchill

by FlyByKnight on Dec 13, 2008 8:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, it was unimpressive. This is MMA. Not wrestling. It might have been smart (it was). It might have been effective (it was). It might have earned the victory, albeit controversially (it did). If Rashad was facing pound for pound king Floyd Mayweather and wrestled him for 15 minutes, would you call that impressive? No.

The argument here isn’t whether Rashad has won fights or whether Rashad has done whjatever he had to do to win. Obviously you use your strengths to nullify your opponents weaknesses in any sport. What is being made clear here is why Rashad, despite his KO of the biggest name in MMA history, is still not a fan favorite.

By the way, what are you trying to even say? Your sarcasm is uneffective in proving any point. I was illustrating obvious facts to prove a further point, which I hope I achieved. Your failing criticism flat out sucks. Being sarcastic when it’s effective argumentatively or in a comedic way works. Being sarcastic for the sake of being a prick for no reason fails and makes you look like an unfunny, unintelligent prick. If you can elaborate on what you’ve got, please do.

When you’ve got nothing better to say, spin the other guys argument by pretending its stupid and standard when in effect you failed to think out an adequate response? Really? Did not know this. Thanks for the update.

by dropkick101 on Dec 14, 2008 2:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well the way you phrased it indicates that Rashad had a disadvantage no matter where the fight took place (standing due to Bonnar’s golden gloves and on the ground due to his Carlson Gracie Jiu-Jitsu). The fact that he was competitive, let alone victorious, under those conditions would seem to say a lot positively about Rashad as a fighter.

by Rundownloser on Dec 14, 2008 2:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Welcome for the update. Anytime.

What did you want him to do? He faced a guy with superior stand-up ability and superior submissions. He used the one strength he had to overcome and be victorious.

What the hell else did you want him to do? Answer that.

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Sir Winston Churchill

by FlyByKnight on Dec 14, 2008 2:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Obviously you use your strengths to nullify your opponents weaknesses in any sport.

You’re not getting it. I’m in no way saying he shouldn’t have used his wrestling. That’s where he had the advantage and that’s where he won the fight. I’m saying that, to me, those earlier fights in Rashad’s career where all he had was wrestling was unimpressive, compared to say his brutal KO of Liddell where he effectively counter punched the counter puncher.

by dropkick101 on Dec 14, 2008 12:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh I’m getting it. What you’re not getting is what I’m saying. Defeating a guy with your one strength, when he has all the other strengths, is the most impressive thing of all. Even if it wasn’t done in spectacular fashion, the fact that he nullified another man’s strength with his own makes it impressive. I’d liken it to the TUF 8 Finale between Efrain and Phillipe. Phillipe was the favorite because of his all-around ability with his stand-up and jits game. But Efrain used the one thing Phillipe couldn’t have an answer for, wrestling. And it’s the same thing Rashad did. It’s impressive as hell to me.

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Sir Winston Churchill

by FlyByKnight on Dec 14, 2008 7:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That fight kind of defined who Rashad is as a fighter.

He was so much quicker, stronger and more athletic than Bonnar, that it took his game away and made for a lopsided, if not very entertaining, fight.

Now you take that guy with those natural gifts and start teaching him striking, defense and submissions and you get a developing superstar, which is exactly what Rashad is. He was a good wrestler, I don’t think he even wrestled varsity at Michigan State, but he is an outstanding athlete. he is learning, developing and getting better and better.

Now he may not be #1 in the world, or even ever hold the title, but there is no reason to take away from what he has and will continue to accomplish.

BTW, I’m not a Rashad fan at all, but let’s try and be realistic.

Eliot Marshall: Bader won. Like I said in the episode, I'm not going to make any excuses. It's my job to be able to deal with when somebody's doing that. It's not his job to change up his tactics.

http://eliotmarshall.com/

by BJJDenver on Dec 14, 2008 2:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You can shed a negative light on anything. This is evidence to that.

by Blackout612 on Dec 14, 2008 3:05 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Rashad has something to prove

No question Evans has something to prove and this next fight is his chance to do so. Though your piece is somewhat exaggerated I really can’t argue with many of your points decisively. Its all just too objective. However I do take some issue with your analysis of the Tito fight. I think if that fight was to go 1 or 2 more rounds Evans would’ve destroyed Ortiz brutally. The thing is, despite the points that you make, the guy is undefeated period. You can call it luck, talent or even call the guy an “opportunist” as another BE member has but it is all just a bunch of bunk weed smoke because the record shows 0 losses.

"Stop smiling you are about to be punched in the face !"

by Warhand on Dec 14, 2008 12:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Dude. Your headline makes it hard not to interpret the article as derogatory of his MMA-skills. Given that, one has to feel that you’d benefit from looking at how he has progressed and improved, rather than judging his current abilities based on past abilities. Sight?

If your point with this essay is to put forth the claim “Rashad has fan-problems because of how he fought early in his career”, then I’d say you could have settled with simply saying so.

by ununkvadrium on Dec 14, 2008 6:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough. I figured I’d elaborate a little bit to spark a little discussion and debate as that is the point of this whole blog thing, but point taken nonetheless.

by dropkick101 on Dec 14, 2008 6:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs