Dave Meltzer talks UFC's 100 "best matches in history" Countdown:
"I am told the five-part show, which concludes an hour before UFC 100, is very good. As for the list, let's just say it's so petty that they didn't even allow fans to vote for the fight that was No. 2 (Frank Shamrock vs. Ortiz) in this web site's poll and even No. 7 in their own magazine. Basically, everyone on the outs (Ortiz, Frank Shamrock, Maurice Smith) were not allowed to be voted onto the top 100 by fans unless it's a match they lost, and since Frank Shamrock never lost in UFC, he doesn't appear at all. Ortiz's losses will likely all crack the top 100 but none of his wins were allowed to be voted on."
over 2 years ago
Nick Thomas
35 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
What kind of person votes for Frank Shamrock vs Tito to be the second greatest fight of all time anyway?
someone who actually saw the fight
or someone who knows something about mma history.
Personally, it’s my #1.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
Sorry for doublepost but I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing
You are saying that the fight between Tito and Frank Shamrock was the best UFC fight ever. Like if you had to show someone new to MMA how exciting it was, you would pick this UFC fight. If you could watch one UFC fight before you died, it would be this fight. Is this a correct statement? Please confirm.
If you had to show one fight to people who wants to KNOW what MMA really is about , you could show that fight. But you would have to speak and explain a lot, because it’s not bad kickboxing, it’s not “WOW FLYING KNEE!”, “WOW POWERBOMB!”, it’s technical, it’s complicated, it’s making pay the tiniest mistake, it’s that kind of fight and I think that’s what MMA is about at its best. Is there better exemple, probably, but this one is an absolute classic so it’s on a lot of lists. Do this fight deserve a comment a la “What kind of person votes for Frank Shamrock vs Tito to be the second greatest fight of all time anyway?” … NO
that's not my criteria
certain fights like Karo vs Diego have a staying power for repeated viewings that makes them hold their power longer. I’m saying if you were watching it at the time Shamrock vs Tito was an unparalleled viewing experience.
Much like Couture vs Sylvia — we were all on our feet for all five rounds but it doesn’t hold up to repeated viewings as well.
The Ortiz/Shamrock fight was a grinding war of attrition with a sudden tension release at the end.
That plus its significance make it my #1. Shamrock’s record for title fight wins has only been beaten by Tito.
And BTW if you call me retarded again, I’ll ban you.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
Curiousity Nate,
Do you possibly think Chuck/Wandy could beat Griffin/Bonnar for the number one spot?
"Apparently, the only way to kill a lion is by rear naked choke...Personally, I'd just kick it in the head."- Bas Rutten
You drop that lame insult below on me and I call you retarded and you get bent out of shape? All I’m saying is that if you are going to dish it out then you’d better be ready to take some as well.
I think there needs to be some differentiation between your FAVORITE fights of all time or most HISTORICAL fights of all time and the BEST fights of all time. Tito v Frank was hyped to all hell and was a big fight at the time, but I think if you watch it objectively then you’ll agree it wasn’t that great of a fight. Under your current standard, you’d probably have to rank GSP-Serra 2 up there as well even though as a fight it was pretty lame(although about the same pace as Frank-Tito).
im going to triple post because thats how i roll okay
You are saying Tito/Frank was a better fight than:
Guida-Huerta
Diego-Karo
Hughes-Trigg 2
Please confirm
yeah
Repeated viewings are not my criteria, I’m mostly considering how much it mattered and how dramatic a fight it was to watch live.
Of the fights you’re listing, only Hughes vs Trigg was a title fight. And it was a rematch of a fight that Trigg had already lost. As competitive as the fight was it was just one in a series of title defenses for Hughes. Matt entered the fight favored and left the champ. If not for a low blow, that fight is a dud.
Shamrock was the greatest champ in MMA history at that point and Ortiz was a clear #1 challenger.
Shamrock’s win was a triumph of skill and game planning over raw athletic ability.
Ortiz went on to become the longest running UFC lt heavyweight champ, beating Wandy Silva, who went on to be the top PRIDE guy.
Shamrock retired at the top of his game after the fight.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
Agreed
It’s not the “sexiest” fight in UFC history, but it’s definitely one of the best and most significant—especially since it occurred at such a pivotal time in UFC history.
I can’t say I’d rate it quite as highly, but it surely belongs in the top 5 UFC fights of all time, and of fights I’ve actually watched from any promotion, it’s probably in my top 10.
The new breed of UFC/MMA fans aren’t likely to appreciate it or its significance, unfortunately.
Define a good fight
If you want to see two guys stand and throw wild shots for 3 rounds, or see a guy get dominated on the ground and choked out in less than 2 minutes, it’s not a “good” fight. If you want to see two top competitors have a technical chess match, then it certainly is.
Good fights should be competitive on both the ground and standing with a high level of energy. That’s really all it takes. See Guida v Huerta, Diego v Karo, and Torres v Maeda(or vs Mizugaki was good too but it didn’t have much for ground action).
Maybe a lot of people haven’t watched Tito v Frank in awhile and are remembering it as better than it was as a fight. Most of the fight was Tito laying in Frank’s guard with minimal posturing to deliver strikes. Frank occasionally attempted sweeps and got a few. Near the end he got another sweep and threw a downward elbow and that was pretty much it.
C’mon seriously. Dana’s washed people’s brain, making you believe TITO Ortiz, one of the most dominant fighter in the UFC early history, actually sucked. Watch tito vs mezger, tito vs yuki condo, tito vs tanner, etc all those “old days” fights. Tito looked unbeatable, and the shamrock fight was a war, and one of the most beautiful fight of his time…There is no way I’m a Tito fan, but you got to give credit where credit is due.
Tito was definitely one of the most dominant champs in UFC history
But his decline was swift and steep. I’m not sure what’s more responsible for that decline: stiffer/more evolved competition or his own litany of injuries coupled with his own ego.
So petty
Can’t even acknowledge their own rich history. That’s the perfect summary of what element is wrong with UFC management.
And a perfect example of why blogs/independent media are so essential
"Like a ballet of violence clothed in fine Brazilian silk." ~ MMASuPreMaCy
by Benicio on Jul 5, 2009 12:08 AM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
rec this
that’s why I do this site. Because great as he is, Dana shouldn’t be the only one who gets to decide the history of the sport.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
The mere fact that the UFC takes great pans to ignore and downplay its history and continuity shows that it’s more like pro wrestling than sports. It’s sad that on this front, Zuffa has more in common with WWE than boxing.
You know, I think all sports do that to a degree. It’s all about when LeBron will be better than Jordan, not if. Sports, as a business, thrives when it’s spectators believe they’re witnessing the best to ever play the game.
In the case of MMA, that’s true – the middle of the road fighters today would absolutely house Gracie in the same way that Shaq would knock Wilt on his ass under the basket.
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 4, 2009 10:45 PM EDT up reply actions
…que?
The other thing Zuffa has in common with the WWE is that they’re both making money and expanding overseas like mad. Boxing, not so much.
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 5, 2009 1:58 AM EDT up reply actions
Something tells me you’re not a WWE shareholder.
And if we compared international gate receipts between WWE and ALL boxing, we’d find that boxing, by virtue of being held in more countries (no need to “expand” when you’re already in more countries than the WWE and UFC) grosses more, and has integrated itself into the national consciousness in more places than pro wrestling and mixed martial arts.
But if you’re just narrowly talking about PPV revenue, you’d see that while UFC’s numbers are increasing, and HBO’s are essentially standing pat, WWE’s are declining. That suggests, at least to me, that UFC is siphoning more of the audience away from pro wrestling than from boxing. And I can only wonder if its promotion as the “Anti-Boxing,” complete with its pro wrestling-esque notion of revisionist history, has had something to do with that.
by madiq on Jul 5, 2009 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
You know, I think all sports do that to a degree. It’s all about when LeBron will be better than Jordan, not if. Sports, as a business, thrives when it’s spectators believe they’re witnessing the best to ever play the game.
I’m going to pretend that you’re just being intellectually dishonest, and you don’t actually believe that sports’ emphasis on evolution is the same thing as pretending that stars of the past (if they are now in the bad graces of management) didn’t accomplish what they did.
I’m a football fan, and I’ve seen countless black and white footage of legendary games played in the decades before I was born, and the exploits of athletes that continue to be honored by the league, and its respective franchises. Hell, the reason we have iconic figures like Johnny Unitas, Joe Namath, and Vince Lombardi is that the League reinforces the idea that the stars of the past set the stage for those of the present.
And don’t get me started with baseball, who thrives off of history, and the accomplishments of today’s players being starkly compared to the Hall of Famers of yesteryear. Sure, commissioners want to say that today’s athletes are better, but they also recognize the greatness of their forebears. It’s why you have someone like Pete Rose stand out as a legendary player who has been ostracized by the sport, and why people are so willing to continue honoring his accomplishments, regardless of the scumbag that he might be.
As said earlier, it comes down to the fact that there’s an independent press covering sports, with arguably no agenda, and limited biases. This also means that there’s a transparency, which allows for a revisiting of historical fact that goes beyond mere revisionist history. (I.e., because Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Barry Bonds may have used PEDs, their accomplishments are diminished in historical context, though they were big when they happened. Compare to, “Tito Ortiz and Frank Shamrock are no longer on good terms with the UFC, thus their present relevance is ipso facto diminished.”)
by madiq on Jul 5, 2009 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
