UFC's Stalinist View of MMA History Erases Frank Shamrock and Tito Ortiz
Sherdog documents the atrocities:
The UFC’s first middleweight champ and arguably its biggest star in the late 90s, Shamrock never lost a fight in the Octagon. However, the UFC excluded all of his bouts from fan voting -- even his epic scrap against Tito Ortiz in September 1999 at UFC 24.
In short, Shamrock-Ortiz was one of the UFC’s earliest title bouts that felt like a top championship boxing match, given the buildup and drama that made Shamrock’s fourth-round TKO his finest -- and final -- performance in the Octagon. Giving up more than 20 pounds after the weigh-in, Shamrock calmly and tactically dissected Ortiz in what stands as a masterpiece of strategy, along with a heady dose of down-and-dirty know-how.
Sadly, the bout won’t be featured on the UFC’s countdown that has been airing on Spike TV.
"I thought it was a pivotal fight (in MMA)," Shamrock told Sherdog.com. "Physically and mentally, it was a pivotal fight in the history of the sport itself. It’s obviously pretty ridiculous and childish they left it out. That’s obvious. I was the first-ever champion, and Tito was the first guy in a weight class to work his way up. In my opinion, it was the first real legitimate build-up to a championship fight. It was a real story."
I've blogged about this before and my Frank Shamrock obsession is well documented -- in fact the third post ever on BloodyElbow was me bagging on Frank for tarnishing his legacy.. And we certainly included Frank Shamrock vs Tito Ortiz in our USA TODAY/Bloody Elbow top 50 mma fights in history series. We also included his win over Olympic gold medalist Kevin Jackson on our list.
The decision to attempt to erase the second great champion of the UFC (after Royce Gracie) from the official history of the promotion is the kind of thing I'd expect from $kala Shaw, not from people who fancy themselves the caretakers of the sport.
Steve Cofield talks to Tito Ortiz:
"UFC wouldn't let me go to the Fan Expo. I feel very sorry for all my fans. I'm here for the fans, I'm going to support them no matter what."
Frankly, this whole thing is ridiculous. Ortiz was a vital part of the organization's growth going 14-6-1 with the promotion since his first UFC battle back in 1997 at UFC 13. Ortiz and Dana White should've found a way co-exist. Tito is losing money in the long term and the UFC cost itself a good personality that it could've pushed for the foreseeable future.
Before you scoff and use White's line that Ortiz is no longer a top 10 205-pounder, look at what's happened to the careers of Rashad Evans, Forrest Griffin and Lyoto Machida since they fought "The Huntington Beach Bad Boy." Ortiz's 1-1-1 mark against those three doesn't look so bad now. Ortiz hopes to return in late-2009.
Micheal David Smith adds:
Like everyone who follows MMA, I respect the accomplishments of Shamrock and Ortiz in the Octagon and would love to see them recognized as UFC Hall of Famers. But I don't think that's going to happen for a long, long time. The UFC won't be extending an olive branch to Shamrock and Ortiz any time soon.
0 recs |
40 comments
|
Comments
The irony is that the only reason Tito was “involved” was because he lost to Chuck.
watchkalibrun.com
by Zak Woods on Jul 11, 2009 9:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I would rarely count on something proposed as “voted by the fans”, I’d rather have sites like BE et al give me their impressions of the top 50 and make my own judgement. White is going to make his own mind with whatever was ‘voted’.
by pr0cs on Jul 11, 2009 9:42 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah....
but the point is. They gave the fans the list they had to pick from for the voting and didn’t include Frank’s fights.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Jul 11, 2009 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
which is why i never bothered to vote, if they leave out key fights then they obviously do not take the process seriously so why should I?
by pr0cs on Jul 11, 2009 9:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The UFC top 100 fights is just a 5 part commercial for UFC 100 and future cards. Don’t look into it as anything other than that. In that context, it would be utter stupidity to show anything that would cause a viewer to think positively about a competitor.
Nice over the top word choice for the title, that and talking about Frank Shamrock I knew who was writing it before even seeing your name there =P
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
by iiowyn on Jul 11, 2009 10:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Get over your man crush on Frank, Nate. And stop watching old PRIDE DVD’s.
by subo on Jul 11, 2009 12:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If only i could vote twice..
The UFC should acknowledge Frank Shamrocks accomplishments.. and Nate should get over his man crush.
by Anton Tabuena on Jul 11, 2009 1:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I feel that
both Frank and Tito chose their own destinies. Wearing a “Dana White is my bitch!” shirt wasn’t exactly intelligent. Go wear a shirt with your bosses name on it calling him/her a bitch. See what kind of response you get. Hundreds of fighters have been happy making good money under the UFC banner.
People need to learn to accept the consequences for their actions. Frank and Tito chose to fight the system rather than follow it. If you buck the system sometimes it bites you.
We (educated MMA fans) all know who contributed to MMA . Yes they have a place in the MMA annals . The Fryes/Frank/Tito/Tank all gave something to the sport. But to ask the UFC to include them is like me demanding the HoF to put Pete Rose in.
by Riney on Jul 11, 2009 1:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm all for putting Pete Rose in the HOF
Ty Cobb is in there and people don’t get much worse.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Kid Nate on Jul 11, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
100% agreed
There are admitted cheaters in the HOF like Gaylord Perry, and everyone kind of chuckles about it. Ty Cobb was an absolute psychotic. Mickey Mantle was a complete drunk. Pete Rose should be in.
BOOSH
by Farthammer on Jul 11, 2009 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He should be, but he won’t – not as long as Selig is in charge. Rose pissed on the throne, and you just don’t do that in baseball.
by subo on Jul 11, 2009 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So just to be clear here, since Dana White didn’t include Frank Shamrock in his top matches, or invite Tito Ortiz to his party, you’re comparing him to a dictator who murdered millions of people. And you wonder why you bloggers don’t get credentialed.
by andherewego on Jul 11, 2009 1:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
who compared who to a murder/dictator?
and what’s with the anger?
by Anton Tabuena on Jul 11, 2009 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the term Stalinist has a very specific meaning
referring to his practice of altering official photos to remove communist officials who had fallen out of favor. Thus by 1938 you’d never see Leon Trotsky in a photograph of the leaders of the revolution in 1918.
And I could give a fuck about being credentialed. I’m not a journalist, I’m a fan and opinion writer.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Kid Nate on Jul 11, 2009 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ask anyone who actually knows history what “Stalinist” means and they’re much more likely to talk about millions of people being round up and shot than removing pictures of previous leaders. I mean, really, youcould have had a decent post here about the UFC’s heavyhandedness, but you have to compare Dana White to Stalin …
by andherewego on Jul 11, 2009 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Simmer down
Everybody needs to calm down a tad.
I agree with Kid Nate’s description of UFC’s actions here but ‘Stalinist’ isn’t quite right. The correct word here is ‘Orwellian’.
From Wiki:
The adjective Orwellian describes the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free society. It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past, including the “unperson” — a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practiced by modern repressive governments. Often, this includes the circumstances depicted in his novels, particularly Nineteen Eighty-Four.
That is precisely the point that Kid Nate is making here and it is entirely accurate. Meltzer said as much on ESPN’s B.S. Report. The term Stalinist implies more than section I put in bold. it implies paranoia, blood lust, mass murder and despotism. Comparing UFC (and by extension Dana himself) as being truly Stalinist would certainly be seen as, at best, a cheap and provocative way to criticize them but that is clearly not happening here. Kid Nate’s point is entirely fair and in bounds and still would be even if he did consider himself a journalist — which he does not. The operative difference between Kid Nate as a journalist versus an opinion writer being that if he was a journalist, his editor might have overruled his use of the word ‘Stalinist’.
by nani on Jul 11, 2009 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
true true
but remember Stalin was the real life inspiration for Orwell’s writing. But you’re correct, Orwellian would have been a better choice.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Kid Nate on Jul 11, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It also sounds cooler. You should change it.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Jul 11, 2009 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But less sensationalist. The top 100 fights is just a damn commercial.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
by iiowyn on Jul 11, 2009 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, that’s obvious. Treating it as such is less fun.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Jul 11, 2009 8:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
this sounds very similar to Dana White to me
The term implies an inherently oppressive system of extensive …political “purging”, or elimination of political opponents…, and it involves …making extensive use of propaganda to establish a personality cult around an absolute dictator to maintain… political control
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Kid Nate on Jul 11, 2009 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Roger Goodell. Bud Selig, David Stern, Gary Bettman, etc.
by subo on Jul 11, 2009 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stern, yes. Goodell, sure. But Selig? I’d say he’s more GW than Stalin.
BOOSH
by Farthammer on Jul 11, 2009 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are
assuming the same level of education from all your readers. Many might not understand “Stalinist” unfortunately. Good article as usual. The Wikipedia link might have helped a select few with the article.
by Riney on Jul 11, 2009 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I keep getting these requests
“Kid Nate, write DOWN to your audience, we’re not all smart and crazy well informed like you. Please type s-l-o-w-e-r and use smaller words!”
And yet I would suck at it, so I don’t.
/jk
seriously, thanks for the kind words, i’ll try to explain myself.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Kid Nate on Jul 11, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Picked the last one.
Kid Nate FTW!
:)
Fans: FEDOR! FEDOR! FEDOR!
Goldie: The crowd seems to be chanting "Kongo" here, Joe.
by xFenixKnightx on Jul 11, 2009 1:55 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
am I the only one who's going to rec this?
what’s wrong with you people
green this puppy!
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Kid Nate on Jul 11, 2009 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 

















