Remembering Chuck Liddell: Potential Unrealized
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 4:03 PM EDT
in MMA History
Email
Print
Let's get the most basic points out of the way up front. Chuck Liddell is a legend. If you were starting a MMA Hall of Fame, Liddell would likely be a first ballot inductee. When Zuffa first got onto national television with The Ultimate Fighter, the sport needed a star to capture the throngs of new fans attracted by the violent game of human chess in the Octagon. Liddell was that star, replacing Ken Shamrock as the new sport's most popular and famous athlete.
Liddell was everywhere: the cover of ESPN: The Magazine, a cameo on Entourage, appearances (we'll get to this later) on local news broadcasts. Not only was he the mohawked perpetrator of incredible violence, he also provided a built in counter point to critics everywhere. "See this man?' Dana White could ask a skeptical reporter. 'He's an accountant.'
For all of his public relations punch, Liddell was no paper champion. He was the real deal in the cage, presenting a unique challenge to opponents. He was a wrestler who could punch. Jiu Jitsu aces like Murillo Bustmante couldn't control him on the ground and neither could wrestlers like Tito Ortiz. With Liddell leading the way, "Sprawl and Brawl" became a legitimate and incredibly effective fighting strategy.
You could make a valid case that from 2005-2006 Liddell was the best fighter in the world. It's a short window, shortened by lifestyle and effort issues, making "The Iceman" a tantalizing what might have been.
During the middle of Chuck's reign on top of the sport, the whispers began. If there was a party on the West coast, you were likely to see Chuck Liddell there. He was spotted, over and over again, with the tell-tale signs of a certain kind of partying: itchy nose, twitchy and hyper body movements, and darting eyes. People began to talk openly about his problems after a bizarre performance in Dallas hyping the movie 300.
It was a lifestyle that was clearly affecting his game in the cage. Liddell was distracted. The poster boy for a growing sport came to the cage out of shape, often sporting a beer belly that became a signature part of his appearance. For Liddell, who regularly went out to nightclubs until the break of dawn on fight week, there was little in the way of critique from the MMA media. The Dallas interview led the Nevada State Athletic Commission to test Liddell for drugs. He passed with flying colors, although most recreational drugs would have long been out of his system anyway. Trainer John Hackleman told Sherdog.com that Liddell had likely been using Nyquill to sleep. Later he changed his story to include prescription sleep medication. Former manager Dana White was concerned enough to step in:
"That was a whole nother story! I wouldn’t say that was an intervention either," White said about Liddell’s "Good Morning Texas" appearance. "I just stepped in and said, ‘What are you doing and who let you go on TV that morning? They need to be hung from the streetlight and beat like a piñata, whoever let you go on that show.’"
Two months after this debacle, Liddell was unceremoniously dropped to the canvas by a Quinton Jackson right hand. Little did we know at the time, but Liddell's career as a top fighter was over that day. Losses piled up, but the lifestyle stayed the same.Liddell lost a decision to the unheralded Keith Jardine and then was knocked unconscious by Jardine's teammate Rashad Evans in Atlanta.
What's troubling about Liddell's fall from the top of the sport is the nonchalance that surrounded it. Liddell continued to employ the same strategies and increasingly savvy opponents knew exactly what he was going to do. As all star training camps became en vogue, Liddell stayed in his comfort zone, training with Hackleman in California at the famous Pit. Before traveling to Pride to fight in the 2003 Grand Prix, White sent Liddell to train in Las Vegas, importing some of the top fighters in the game to help get Liddell ready, a team of training partners that included Phil Baroni, Matt Hughes and Jay Hieron. Liddell hated the training camp, and after losing to Jackson, never went back to preparing with top level fighters.
The loyalty is commendable, but sometimes personal relationships have to give way in the fight game. Liddell couldn't bring himself to cut ties with the camp that helped make him the fighter he had become, and the result was stagnation. Hackleman's gym has produced no other top tier fighters-when Chuck's natural gifts were no longer enough to win, his team couldn't help him devise a new gameplan or come to the cage with new skills in tow. The Liddell who fought Rich Franklin Saturday night was the same fighter who took on Vernon White at UFC 49 back in 2004. The difference? In 2004 Chuck could push forward and take a shot to give one. By 2010, the same kind of punches put him to sleep.
Liddell is a legend and his contributions to the sport have helped propel MMA into the stratusphere. But, in the cage, Liddell was never the fighter he might have been. The short list of the very best includes names like Royce, Rutten, Fedor, and GSP-it could have included "the Iceman" too, but the pull of the fast life was a little too strong, he stayed out a little too late, partied a little too hard. It's the difference between being a famous fighter and being a great fighter. Liddell walked that line for as long as he could, eventually becoming MMA's first victim of the limelight.
206 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Good article.
Has anyone heard from Chuck himself yet about the retirement idea? Seems like everybody but Chuck is talking about it so far. I hope he does this time.
I’m interested in hearing what Chuck has to say about retirement.
As for the article…as usual Snowden makes some cogent points, and then some bizarre ones.
But, in the cage, Liddell was never the fighter he might have been. The short list of the very best includes names like Royce, Rutten, Fedor, and GSP-it could have included “the Iceman” too, but the pull of the fast life was a little too strong, he stayed out a little too late, partied a little too hard. It’s the difference between being a famous fighter and being a great fighter.
Liddell might have been a better fighter, but his resume didn’t suffer because of it until he started to physically deteriorate. Chuck WAS a truly great fighter. And I think most anyone would put him right there with Rutten, who is truly the weakest link of the bunch. To me, Chuck’s big run, but especially his wins over a ‘prime’ Couture trump Bas’ Pancrase dominance. I would never make the argument that Pancrase was a second rate organization for its time, but there were plenty of fights in Pancrase that essentially padded Bas’ record, to say nothing of the Randleman fight that put the exclamation point on his career for American observers (a fight that could have easily gone Randleman’s way). Even before his big run, Chuck’s record was stacked with excellent gatekeepers, and contenders.
And the point about training at Hacklemen’s gym as a hinderance is a tad obtuse. Certain fighters don’t always respond to that type of superstar atmosphere. Fedor, Penn (although Penn gets some sick jiu jitsu partners to train with at times), and Mousasi don’t train with world class fighters, but that hasn’t stopped them from being animals. Hackleman may not be a top level trainer, but that isn’t to say that his relationship with Chuck isn’t unique or dynamic in how he’s capable of aiding Chuck’s game.
The obvious counter to that is that Chuck’s game was never dynamic itself, but who’s to say whether or not training at Militech when they were thought of as the top, would have changed that? If anything, Chuck, in terms of diversity, mixing head kicks with body kicks and right hands looked better than he ever had against Franklin (conceptually). Either way, Chuck’s money move was likely always gonna be his right hand.
I think Snowden is confusing “could have been” with “might have been more”.
by David Castillo on Jun 14, 2010 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Semantics
“Could have been more” and “might have been more”
Rutten was a person who won all the fights they put in front of him in his prime. Chuck is a guy who didn’t, losing at key moments to Jackson, Couture, and Jackson again. That is undeniable and has to change the way we rate Chuck as a fighter..
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions
How is that semantics?
“Could have been” implies Chuck wasn’t a true great, as you’ve already articulated. “Might have been more” denies that implication, accepting that yea…Chuck was a damn good fighter, and one of the greats in fact. Not to mention, well above Rutten. Rutten was a person who won all the fights they put in front of him in his prime, but often against lower tier fighters. Chuck losing in “key moments” is another way of saying he lost to better opposition.
And your wording is just straight bizarre. Did Wand lose at a "key moment’ when Tito beat him? Did Shogun lose at a “key moment” when Griffin choked him out? Chuck avenged his losses to Couture in emphatic fashion leaving no doubt who was the better fighter between the two.
Chuck isn’t the greatest LHW ever or anything, but he certainly deserves to be rated as a great fighter as opposed to one distinguished from “a famous fighter who could have been great”, which is just nonsense.
by David Castillo on Jun 14, 2010 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Wait
So me calling him a future hall of famer and the real deal in the cage wasn’t enough for you? We stipulated up front that he was great, just so we could avoid this kind of nonsense. By key moments, I’m talking about pivotal times in his career. When Dana was pushing him as the best in the world, he fell down hard. When the UFC was counting on building around him, he again dropped the ball against Jackson. These are losses at key points in his career….
By the time Chuck became rich and famous he was walking the line between great fighter and famous fighter. Losing five of six kind of puts the exclamation point on it.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Don't you think
Rampage was just a bad match up for him?
When Dana was pushing Chuck as the best in the world, which was the same time he became rich and famous, he knocked out 7 guys in a row starting with Tito Ortiz.
Guess that wasn’t enough and didn’t live up to his potential.
Good article
Excellent points. I was telling a boxing fan at work a year or two ago about Chuck. At that point he was the top rated fighter, period. No doubt the partying shortened his title reign but he’s the only one who could’ve put the brakes on it. Like Tyson, he was his own worse enemy. Exciting fighter, one of the best. One of my favorites. I sported a mohawk for his fights a week or so out. I’m a 43 year old kid with a professional job as well. Yeah, I’m hoping he stays retired for his own good.
We stipulated up front that he was great, just so we could avoid this kind of nonsense.
So, you don’t actually believe chuck was a great fighter? You just threw that bit in to avoid an argument with your revisionist history piece? I’m guessing you were never a chuck fan, and this is just a way of saying ‘I told you so’.
Can’t we just leave it at Chuck was at the top, the game evolved; and now we have all new faces in the game.
Of course I believe Chuck was a great fighter. What do you think stipulated means?
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Drug use Jonathan?
Are we going to turn bloodyelbow into TMZ? I personally look like an asshole when I’m really into a fight but that doesn’t mean I do drugs.
Let’s leave the inflammatory speculation to the tabloids. Leave the Cheap Heat at the door.
I said there was discussion about his lifestyle and potential drug use. If you need to have that validated for you, please do a simple google search.
Whether his drug of choice was legal or not, Dana White has described being around Chuck like being with a zombie. The man clear had some issues.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 15, 2010 1:57 AM EDT up reply actions
Both Bas and Chuck beat just about everyone in their prime. The only difference is that Chuck continued fighting after it. And then you use Royce Gracie as an example too? The same Royce Gracie who kept fighting in the 00’s and got steamrolled by Matt Hughes and went 2-2-2 in his last 6 fights, with his only two wins coming over Akebono and a punch drunk Sakuraba? At least Chuck kept fighting world class opponents. I love Bas Rutten, but if you judge the two on how great they were it’s impossible to say Rutten was on some sort of different level than Chuck or even above him.
Also, as for your argument that Liddell wasn’t a one of the all time greats, because he never lived up to his potential because of his training habits… does Fedor train with a world class camp? Did Rutten never go partying? Did Royce ever learn good MMA striking? This is a silly way to judge his career, that he could have been even better. Let’s overlook the period of his career when he was the most feared LHW on earth and one of the few truly dominant champions in MMA history. Just because he didn’t dedicate his entire life to MMA the way GSP did doesn’t diminish what he did accomplish, which is enough to put him in that top tier.
Fedor, Rutten, and Gracie didn’t lose some of the most important fights of their careers because of what their close friends describe as “lack of training and partying.”
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions
So, Chuck’s lifestyle is what keeps him from being as good as those guys? Judge a man by his accomplishments, not his unrealized potential or bad habits, or else there’d be a lot of great fighters who you’d have to downgrade, including the three you just listed, for reasons I already gave.
Fedor has never bothered to learn proper nutrition, or bring in world class training partners. Imagine how good he could be if he did those things.
Gracie is a true pioneer and the man who first raised the bar and showed what true jiu-jitsu is capable of, but he had a very short prime. In 18 months he went from submitting Ken Shamrock in under a minute to going to a 36-minute draw with the man, because he never evolved his skill set and Shamrock did, and that was the end of Royce’s prime. What’s more, sure Royce never lost a fight because of excessive partying, but he did lose one of the most important fights of his career despite doping beforehand.
Chuck has always said he wouldn’t make that decision in the heat of the moment after a fight. But Ithink this will be the end of the line, unless he were to fight Tito….
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 12:12 PM EDT reply actions
god, I hope he doesn’t. I can’t take watching Chuck get KO’d by Tito, it would be too much.
by JeremyShane on Jun 14, 2010 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Agreed. It’s time to hang ’em up.
"I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" - Philippians 4:13
by Noah'sArk on Jun 14, 2010 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Hate to say this
but I’m a little sceptical, given the statements he made leading up to the fight. Also Hackleman doesn’t look like the kind of trainer that would lay out the ugly truth to him. Maybe because: a) Chuck is his biggest meal ticket b) Chuck is an intimidating, stubborn kind of dude.
by DrFernando on Jun 14, 2010 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'D SAY IT'S MOST LIKELY OPTION C)
C) Chuck and Hack are just too close. They’ve trained together forever and someone thats that deep in the inner circle doesn’t have the necessary perspective to give the fighter the criticism he really needs.
Ultimately tho, Chuck could’ve brought in anyone he wanted to help him out, it’s up to the fighter to make sure he’s getting the advice he needs. Imagine an open minded Chuck working his ass off with Greg Jackson all of a sudden… It’s like the article said, potential unrealized. Still one of the best ever tho, hard to complain about his career.
My prediction....PAIN!!!!!!!!!!
by RearNakedToke on Jun 14, 2010 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed that option C is definitely possible
Although, the job of a good coach/trainer is to be able to lay out the hard facts. The fact that the he cares about Chuck so much should increase his sense of urgency (arguably should have done so after the Rua fight). That’s why I’m wondering if something else is happening here.
At the end of the day, Chuck has been huge for the sport.
Another Greg Jackson Reference
Just ask Kieth Jardine how diverse his game is with Jackson? STOP WITH THE HYPE it was Miletich now it’s Jackson’s camp.
Greg Jackson Math
Adding up all team members on Wiki
Greg Jackson
GSP 5-0 100%
Reshad 4 -1 80%
Nate Marquart 3-2 60%
Kieth Jardine 1 -4 20%
Karo 3-1-1 60%
Luazo 4-1
Joey Villasinor 4-1 80%
Jason McDonald 3-2 60%
Julie Ketz 3-2 60%
Carlos Condit 4 -1 80%
Shane Carwin 5-0 100%
Joe Stevenon 3-2 60%
Donald Cerrone 2-3 40%
Leanard Garcia 2-2-1 40%
Jon Jones 4-1 80%
Arlovski 2-3 40%
Team without:
GSP (champ before)
Carwin (who knew he trained there)
Arlovski (Did a layover in Santa Fe on way to recent loss)
Jon Jones (who stopped off to hangout I think once before a fight)
That leaves the rest of the list of fighters:
60% wins.
Ya it’s better then 50% but come on!
STOP WITH THE F$*CKING HYPE!
What nonsense. Many of these guys haven’t even been with Jackson’s for those fights.
by HarmlessNinja on Jun 14, 2010 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions
At this point
I’d prefer if Chuck just retired.
"Even the Swedes are getting mad."-Randy Hahn
"It's very cozy in the sin bin."-Randy Hahn
Chuck should retire.
Cause if I saw Tito KO Chuck I would lose it. And you know Tito would be like “IM THE BEST IN THE WORLD” afterward if he managed to beat Chuck. Ridiculous.
Chuck should retire because of his health.
End of story.
www.facebook.com/djpullout
www.twitter.com/djpullout
www.myspace.com/djpullout
www.djpullout.com
AIM = djpullout
info@djpullout.com
Liddell hated the training camp, and after losing to Jackson, never went back to preparing with top level fighters.
He did go back to training with top-level fighters at least once – before the Shogun fight he went down to ATT for a while and worked with Howard Davis Jr.
http://www.twitter.com/TB_Money
This is true. And he’s worked some with John Lewis in Las Vegas. But the bulk of his training and all of his camps have been with of Hackleman.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Could it be partially
that Chuck is the kind of guy that doesn’t like taking a lot of instructions/criticism? Kind of like the “big fish” syndrome? His failure to change his style in the past few fights could support this argument.
I think there is a lot of truth to that.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Solid writeup...
One thing I want to point out though that is often overlooked about Chuck was his deteriorating physical skills..
Chuck used to be fast and furious. For all the talk of his chin, it was his ability to use speed and angles by fractions of second and inches of length that built his legacy..
Chuck simply got old.. Part of that resides in the life-style.. The other part resides in the inevitable. Age catches us all.. Most professional athletes decline rapidly after 33.. Some can hang on until the later 30’s.. I think people forget that guys like Randy are not natural. I don’t think the partying was as big a distraction as people believe. I think Chuck simply was worn down for the wear and tear of competition over the years and the party life-style seemed to magnify it.. Even if Chuck was sleeping right, staying in and living wholesome.. I don’t think it would have mattered in the long run..
If you look closely at Liddell fights post Ortiz 1.. You will see a man that slowed drastically. His timing was slipping, his agility was lumbering and his body mechanics weren’t firing on point.. He was no longer in his prime.. Although the run through LHW dimmed the fact, due in large part to the level of talent he faced.. Randy was old and slow.. Horn possessed no real threat except for the TD, Babalu is well.. Babalu.. Page was younger, faster and it showed.. Jardine was younger, and it showed.. Rashad is probably the fastest LHW fighter and it showed.. Shogun is younger and it showed.. Franklin is slightly younger but still in his peaking years..
33-35 for healthy athletes seems to be the peaking years..
33 seems to be the ground number for the start of decline in body mechanics..
8-29-09
Keith Jardine is now known as "The Dean of Antihistamine" because he is always sleeping early in fights..
by MMAuthority on Jun 14, 2010 12:23 PM EDT reply actions 4 recs
I don’t think you can put a set age bracket on the beginning of a decline for an athlete, especially a fighter. “Fighting years” are a lot more telling than actual age in MMA.
http://www.twitter.com/TB_Money
Actually in terms of professional athletes.. you can
Look at professional athletes today.. Those that start out at a young age seem to decline post age of 33..
in the NFL 33 is considered old and on their way out..
In the NHL 33 is considered old and on their way out.
In the NBA 33 is considered their prime and by age 35 they’re looking at retirement..
In MLB 33 is considered the prime and retirement looms by age 36..
Everything post 33 shows relative decline in professional sports. Again these are simply averages here.. There are individual cases that illustrate otherwise.. But by law of averages, post 33 is considered the declining years..
8-29-09
Keith Jardine is now known as "The Dean of Antihistamine" because he is always sleeping early in fights..
by MMAuthority on Jun 14, 2010 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe a bit older in the NHL?
Seems like alot of the best players are in their mid 30s and still going strong.
That’s very, very generalized. Running backs are old at 29, while receivers last a lot longer. NHL players play a lot deeper into their 30’s. 33 is old in the NBA, not their prime. There are a lot of variables to take into account. Position, injuries, type of player, etc. I don’t think summarizing it this way works. And in MMA, which is what we’re talkin about, it definitely doesn’t work.
http://www.twitter.com/TB_Money
Fair to say..
I’m just making point that Chuck’s age and physical decline were just as much a factor as his life-style..
Many people are forgetting how other professional athletes live similar lifestyles to Chuck’s. Chuck was just more “open” about it. He didn’t hide in the shadows about his lifestyle like many others do..
Michael Jordan used to go on 2-3 hours of sleep a night. He used to eat like shit and go to casinos and drink all night and still managed to show up for work.. He visited strip clubs.. He actually had people bring parties to him so he wouldn’t be seen in public.. This is the case for many of top professional athletes..
Mike Tyson was doing coke and drugs when he was HW champ and blowing through guys (post D’Amato)..
Jose Conseco was a party animal in his hey day.. Among other’s include Darrell Strawberry in his prime..
But judging by the demonstration of Chuck’s own skills, he started declining at the natural age for someone with the length of history in professional competition.. his lifestyle just seemed to magnify that.. Again I mention how the average age of decline starts by 33.. Some guys carry on longer, but the decline in physical ability illustrates clearly post 33.. Lot’s of athletes play into their 30’s.. I would assume the majority do.. But that doesn’t mean their skills aren’t declining by laws of physics naturally through those years..
8-29-09
Keith Jardine is now known as "The Dean of Antihistamine" because he is always sleeping early in fights..
by MMAuthority on Jun 14, 2010 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Yup..
LT is probably the the one of the biggest party animals in professional sports history..
People always overlook Wilt Chamberlain’s excessive lifestyle.. The dude openly admitted to drugs and sex escapades through his professional years.. He wrote that he slept with over 1000 women and spent days on drug induced binges.. All this during his hey day..
Magic Johnson openly admitted to his partying when he went public from the HIV thing that forced him into retirement..
I think the party angle gets magnified a little too much when retrospect should be looking at the ages, and wear and tear.. The party lifestyle is not the healthiest of ways to live and decreases the years of availability, but It’s not a sole reason for decline..
8-29-09
Keith Jardine is now known as "The Dean of Antihistamine" because he is always sleeping early in fights..
Ironically
Except for Jordan, the examples you used, are like a who’s who list of wasted talent…
Wasted talent.. sure one could say that..
But they were also considered the tops of their respective sports at one time or another and still lived excessive social lifestyles during their runs to and at the top..
These are just examples.. There are many to choose. I mention it because often times the “majority” of professional athletes live the same exact lifestyles as Chuck did.. The only difference is Chuck was open about his where as other’s are not.. Tiger woods paid huge money to keep his private affairs, private..
Michael Jordan’s dirt was never leaked until “after” he was done with basketball from a players standpoint.. All the parties and affairs were kept under wraps.. Jordan paid huge amounts of money to keep his private party life quiet.. It never changed his ability to perform.. Not all people can live double lives and carry success.. But the rare few with exceptional talent have been doing it for decades with no chatter in the background..
8-29-09
Keith Jardine is now known as "The Dean of Antihistamine" because he is always sleeping early in fights..
Point taken
The reality is, these guys are young,fit, famous, and super-rich, so of course they are gonna get invitied to more parties than you or I, and chances are they’ll go to a few, so in a way this IS their “lifestyle”.
I do think there is a difference in the nature of the party though… just staying up late, and sleeping with a lot of women one can recover with (maybe even benefit from), but once drugs enter the picture, shit goes downhill real fast.
I don’t know if this was even a factor in Chuck’s decline though.
That's a bit of a generalisation
Smoke a bit of weed and get an early night, and you’ll feel a lot better the next morning than if you stayed up shagging all night (though the latter is undoubtedly more fun).
Not condoning recreational drug use but it’s not necessarily the factor your comment implied
B-A-K-A-S-U-R-V-I-V-O-R
It never changed his ability to perform.
How can you say that? Sure, MJ was the greatest, but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t have been better. Same with Tyson. Imagine if he’d had the dedication of a GSP.
Snowden’s point is that Chuck was great, but he could have been even more successful.
by HarmlessNinja on Jun 14, 2010 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I understood the point quite clearly..
But the hard fact was that in 2007, Chuck was already 37 years old.. The lifestyle would have little to no impact on the way things turned out up until that point because Chuck was already established as the greatest LHW prior to. If he had been living a super strict church going wholesome life, it would arguably have no baring on how things played out because Chuck peaked at his natural time and was on the decline when things went bad anyway.. Things didn’t go bad because of a lifestyle, things went bad because Chuck merely started showing his true age and wear and tear on his body..
8-29-09
Keith Jardine is now known as "The Dean of Antihistamine" because he is always sleeping early in fights..
I meant..
How much more successful could Chuck have been prior to 2007 at 37 years of age ??
The man only lost 3 fights up until the Page rematch and avenged 2 of those losses.. His age knocked him out of contention, not his lifestyle, or dedication to the sport.. Chuck simply got old and his body couldn’t get off at the rate of previous to remain successful..
8-29-09
Keith Jardine is now known as "The Dean of Antihistamine" because he is always sleeping early in fights..
Don't forget the Babe
Ruth was probably the least healthiest legend of any sport
Inhale deep, like the words of my breath—I never sleep, cause sleep is the cousin of death
by Anthony Pace on Jun 14, 2010 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Good call..
Rec’d for great insight…
Further illustrates the point how the social lifestyle doesn’t always factor into the equation “long-term”..
8-29-09
Keith Jardine is now known as "The Dean of Antihistamine" because he is always sleeping early in fights..
It depends on the sport you’re playing. For example, in a sport like tennis predicated on quickness and hand eye coordination, above 30 and you’re a dinosaur. Peak years is around 22-26 after which you slow down. I don’t think there’s a single, general answer to the point at which one’s skills in a particular sport decline.
True..
There is no single age at which skills can be determined to decline..
But there is a general age range that physical ability in general declines.. In professional sports.. It’s average is 33… This takes into consideration that certain athletes in specific sports have shorter shelf lifes. Tennis as you mentioned is 26 where as basketball is 36. WR’s in the NFL is around 36-38.. Running backs is 28-29 Baseball players is 29-34..
The average man peaks physically by the age of 30-33. This means by ages ranging post that age, laws of nature have proven drastic decline in physical ability.
8-29-09
Keith Jardine is now known as "The Dean of Antihistamine" because he is always sleeping early in fights..
i disagree with NHL
33 is prime, the average NHL starter is in great condition
Fan of Tiger 'Makin It Rain' Woods
by B-A-N-A-N-A-S on Jun 14, 2010 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Sure..
Again I make mention of “post” 33 as the start of decline.. 33 being the average “peak” age for professional athletes across the board and because science shows that the average male reaches a physical peak between the ages of 30-33..
I bet if you look further, you’ll see that there is a drastic decline in physical ability starting at age 33 on an average.. The peaking time for professional male athletes is 33-35.. Post 33 they start declining and by age 35 it increases even further..
This was a point to illustrate that Chuck peaked at the appropriate time. The sport was behind Chuck, not Chuck behind in the sport.. The sport has since grown and Chuck has declined in physical ability, regardless of lifestyle. It was the laws of nature and physics that took Chuck down.. Not any lack there of on Chuck’s part..
8-29-09
Keith Jardine is now known as "The Dean of Antihistamine" because he is always sleeping early in fights..
We will find out soon.
The new breed of fighters is starting younger. We will have to see how long they last by comparison.
Sure you can
There are some exceptions but the reality is in the stats.
I agree, I don’t think it’s fair to blame Chuck’s decline on his partying lifestyle, or to say that he didn’t realize his potential. The guy is now 40 years old for chrissakes. He was already 35 when he became the champ, which was exactly one week after the TUF 1 finale… meaning he was peaking just as the sport began to explode and evolve at a rate never seen before. His age, style, and unwillingness (inability?) to evolve would have made him finished by now even if he’d been a teetotaller.
I think people forget that guys like Randy are not natural.
Literally. He’s surely on HGH. Ask Stallone. I’m sure they discussed it on set.
by MMAInFeRioRiTy on Jun 14, 2010 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I think Randy's smarter than that..
HGH is not a performance enhancer and it decreases athletic ability..
HGH is a metabolic synthesizing compound. Not an androgenic or anabolic synthesizing compound. It has no effect on protein synthesis and increases lactic acceleration which decreases endurance output.
It’s surely common knowledge amongst fighters by now.. Not to say he hasn’t used it in the past, but I sure he’s well aware of it by now…
8-29-09
Keith Jardine is now known as "The Dean of Antihistamine" because he is always sleeping early in fights..
HGH helps you heal/recover faster. I call that performance enhancing due to the fact that injuries are less of a factor.
by MMAInFeRioRiTy on Jun 14, 2010 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions
True to a degree..
Study shows that HGH has less effect on healthy adults than on those with growth deficiencies though.. It’s a hell of a cosmetic drug though..
You’re point is very good and valid.. touche’..
:)
8-29-09
Keith Jardine is now known as "The Dean of Antihistamine" because he is always sleeping early in fights..
Sounds like this is what you’re talking about, but it was a literature review rather than a study: http://www.medpagetoday.com/Endocrinology/GeneralEndocrinology/8797
This study came out recently: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=115951
by MMAInFeRioRiTy on Jun 14, 2010 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions
No actually..
Here is one of the many study reviews on HGH..
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1724606/pdf/v037p00100.pdf
Thus reinforcing the study from your link that states:
“Adding in testosterone boosted those effects — in men also given testosterone, the impact on sprinting ability was nearly doubled.
HGH, however, had no effect on jumping ability, aerobic capacity or strength, measured by the ability to dead-lift a weight, nor did HGH increase muscle mass. Yet the study has limitations, Frankel said. Researchers could not say with certainty whether the athletes improved sprint ability because of HGH or because they trained harder during the 8 weeks of the study. And many athletes take HGH believing it will boost endurance, strength, power and other physical abilities — effects the study did not find."
It’s the “psychological effect” that boosts performance output for many steroid users. They believe the effects of the compounds work immediately, thus pushing past previous plateau, when scientific study shows that the compounds require lengthy use for full effect.. Needless to say, if you start taking steroids or any cycle for that matter, nothing within your body’s bio-physiology will change and protein or metabolic synthesis wont occur until week 3.. Thus the need to “cycle” the drugs for length in terms. Anabolics require 4-8 week cycles for best results. Androgenics require 4-6 weeks. HGH requires 6 month cycles for optimum results..
There is a myth amongst athletes and PED users that “mini cycles” offer great benefit.. Science proves against that theory, but states that the psychological effect of PED use shows beneficial to the user..
8-29-09
Keith Jardine is now known as "The Dean of Antihistamine" because he is always sleeping early in fights..
I guess Stallone must have been on HGH and steroids rather than just HGH. Did you see him in Rocky Balboa and Rambo? If Randy isn’t on HGH, do you think he’s taking nothing? I find it very hard to believe. Even Rogan said something about Randy doing “hormone replacement therapy.”
by MMAInFeRioRiTy on Jun 14, 2010 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Hormone replacement therapy is not HGH though..
HGH is a 192 amino chain complex.. Not an actual hormone.. The hormone is the result of the amino complex itself, but not the actual amino chain.
8-29-09
Keith Jardine is now known as "The Dean of Antihistamine" because he is always sleeping early in fights..
Where there’s hormone (smoke), there’s amino chains (fire). String him up! I’m only kidding.
by MMAInFeRioRiTy on Jun 14, 2010 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions
No I think you're probably correct in the assumption..
Hormone replacement therapy was legal during Randy’s earlier years.. It could answer some question.. lol
Who knows !!!
8-29-09
Keith Jardine is now known as "The Dean of Antihistamine" because he is always sleeping early in fights..
Hey, can we get one of those “Ask a doctor” articles going on this? MMAuthority has really gotten me doing a lot of reading on this, and the one thing I’ve been able to find out is that we don’t know a lot about the effects of HGH; a lot of labs, particularly foreign labs, say that it’s a placebo and actually detrimental; testimony before the US Congress and officially accepted law says that it allows you to train harder because of injury prevention. Snowden or anyone?
Definitely beyond my scope
I could get an interview with Dr. Goodman or someone from WADA if you think that would help?
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Lordjimbo2
There are a wide variety of doctoral reviews, science studies, and peer-reviewed documentation regarding the effects of HGH and synthetic rhGH within the human body..
Many people sadly never take the time to find such case study results and rely on their PCP (Primary Care Physicians), friends of previous use, and experimental use to declare results.. Unfortunately, the majority of regular doctors know nothing of steroids or their effects, except what’s been reported on by the media and hearsay..
The best person to ask about the effects of steroids would be a bio-chemist who’s primary study is in the field of bio-physiology and bio-chemical.. Doctors don’t specialize in bio-chemisty, sothey often can’t identify to which chemical compound the user is taking and how it reacts with the human body..
Things like Testosterone and EQ or Equipose are so closely related that they couldn’t identify to which is which through a regular blood test.. Regular docotrs can identify testosterone, nandrolone, estrogen, T3 & T4 levels through blood work.. But that’s about the jist of it for them.. Unless they’ve taken a personal interest in the study itself.. Just like the example I gave you above about testosterone and EQ, they are merely separated by a double bond added between carbon atoms 1 and 2 of the Steran Nucleus of Testosterone.. so it’s very tricky to identify to which is which unless you’re very familiar with bio-chemistry. They are both very similar in structure but very different within the human body..It’s all relative to the binding agent used, whether it be a prop, eth, or cyp ester..
8-29-09
Keith Jardine is now known as "The Dean of Antihistamine" because he is always sleeping early in fights..
considering accomplishments in mma
id put liddel and wand before rutten
by Richard Doughty on Jun 14, 2010 12:25 PM EDT reply actions
Great read!
It’s articles like these where you really shine, Jonathan.
by Applejack McNeil on Jun 14, 2010 12:27 PM EDT via mobile reply actions 1 recs
Thank you.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Liddell to Strikeforce?
Perhaps in another association does anyone believe he could compete on a high level?
I think the competition at UFC is too advanced for him at this stage of his life and career.
Semper Fi
Meh
Even in Strikeforce Chuck wouldn’t do well, at least against the top two in Mo and Mousassi. (Which seem to be their only LHW’s)
I doubt Strikeforce could afford him and I equally doubt he’d be willing to burn those bridges with Dana to even try.
"Alas, there is no time-share on my balls." -Luke Thomas
Never
Dana wouldn’t let it happen in a million years. I think Dana will play the “friend” card as reason to keep chuck involved with the UFC till he literally cannot put on gloves anymore. Dana cannot allow a face man of the organization to go anywhere else because UFC is now lending their star power to that entity.
by Jonnycaz2.0 on Jun 14, 2010 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions
if the franklin fight was the last fight on chuck's contract
then he can do w/e the hell he wants
"Live fast, die."
by Bonedoctor on Jun 14, 2010 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
He won't go to strikeforce...
One of the reasons he remains at the Pit is because of loyalty. Also, I don’t think he would want to fight less than competition. He would refuse to fight a feeder, that wasn’t name Ortiz.
"50% of this sport is 90% mental" - Tim Sylvia
But what about his finances?
I think we can all agree that Chuck shoulda hung up the gloves a couple years ago. I think (like MANY fighters) his finances are a part of the reason that he insists on getting back in the ring. Chuck led a very fast and expensive lifestyle and I can imagine that he thought the money would be there for a while.
I don’t know, Figs….
… His contract is over and if Strikeforce offers the right price and a title shot, I can see Chuck jumping ship. Dana’s CERTAINLY not going to offer another contract.
Semper Fi
by ChicagoMarine on Jun 14, 2010 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions
I dunno...
While I agree that Chuck definitely must’ve blown a fair wad of cash over the years, from the figures I’ve read he’s still a multi-millionare. Plus, even if he was skint I’d imagine that he could make as much (if not more) money outside the cage these days: TV/film apperances ect
B-A-K-A-S-U-R-V-I-V-O-R
Dana said Chuck would always have a job in the UFC
his finances will be assumedly fine
by Body Triangle on Jun 14, 2010 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Just not fighting?
Isn’t that what Chuck thinks he can do still?
Semper Fi
by ChicagoMarine on Jun 15, 2010 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm no Iceman fan
but Chuck is a legend of the sport, not a “could have been.” He demolished every LHW available to him and took any fight he was given. He won the title and defended it four times, winning all fights by (T)KO. At the top of his game in 2006 he had only one unavenged loss… and his vengeance was brutal. He started his career in the UFC and did not get anything handed to him… he took it with incredible scrambling ability and a right hand to end all right hands.
The article was well written, but I feel like you’re shining too much light on chucks shortcomings and glazing over the fact that we was a goddamn animal.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
by pdl on Jun 14, 2010 12:34 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Well...
Let’s get the most basic points out of the way up front. Chuck Liddell is a legend. If you were starting a MMA Hall of Fame, Liddell would likely be a first ballot inductee
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Right, I saw that
but like I said, you glazed over the positive with a quick intro, briefly touched on the fact that he was a great fighter, and then spent paragraphs commenting that Chuck was uncommitted, stagnant, and possibly a drug addict. Prefacing with that sentence sounds similar to saying “I’m not racist, but what’s the difference between a black man and…”
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
I spent 245 words on singing his praises. Fair and balanced…….
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Nobody has accused you of not taking a position.
You keep writing, I’ll keep chop bustin’.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
There was far more negative than positive...
…and the title starts off on a negative note. It makes it look like all he will be remembered for is his “Potential Unrealized”
That said, I understood what you were going for and I didn’t have a problem with it.
idk
if you remember the pre-hype fight going into UFC 71 but it was ALL about Chuck and that was the first real moment that the mainstream took notice.
And Liddell’s loss, plus the manner in which it occurred was a real blow. I think it is fair to say it was a lost opportunity
watchkalibrun.com
very much so
Liddell/Rampage II was the first fight I ever noticed on ESPN, the KO was in top-10 plays that nite
Inhale deep, like the words of my breath—I never sleep, cause sleep is the cousin of death
by Anthony Pace on Jun 14, 2010 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Where does Chuck rank in LHW history during his best years? His foray into PRIDE saw him get smashed by Rampage, and never get the fight with Wanderlei during both of their heydays. How do we rank him compared to the PRIDE contingent at that time? He later beat a similarly over the hill Wanderlei, and even later got smashed by Shogun, who was the rising star of PRIDE while Chuck had UFC glory.
by Hardcharger on Jun 14, 2010 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Like I said, he took every fight available.
Dana asked him to fly around the world to swim in a totally different talent pool under different rules and he went straight out. And while he did lose to Rampage, he also stopped Mezger and Overeem first. So he lost before he truly hit his stride and took the championship. He avenged his losses to Horn and Randy (brutally) and changed the entire makeup of the LHW division. I hold Chuck personally accountable for the lack of wrestling since 2007, and we’re just now starting to see grapplers work their way back up the ladder (Jones, Davis, Bader).
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
I am not debating your recollection of what happenned, I was curious as to others’ opinions of how the talent separation between UFC and PRIDE at that time affects how we evaluate Chuck during his heyday.
I am not saying he ever turned down a fight, or wasn’t a monster. But can we call him the best at that time?
I can imagine it now
He will be ranked underneath everyone who was top 5 in pride?
I love all your articles, but recent ones have been fairly anti UFC and Liddell
"50% of this sport is 90% mental" - Tim Sylvia
Fair enough.
I think in their primes, Wanderlei would have eaten Chuck alive. Shogun would have done even worse things to him and then showed up to do pretty fucking awful stuff to his head.
Then again, I’m a Chute Boxe loving Pride Never Die fan.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
I appreciate your perspective. In 2003-2004, you could probably make a good case of Wand, Chuck, Rampage, and Couture all being somewhere in the 1-4 range. There’s probably cases in there at that time of A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A. I wish we could’ve seen those 2 pools mixed at that time.
As we reached 2006-2007, Rampage fell of a tad briefly, Shogun emerged as a star, and Randy perhaps fell off. Wand and Chuck remained constant.
I would
best LHW of all time that is.
And your point about Pride and UFC having separate talent pools during Chuck’s prime is well taken – we may never know for sure.
But Wand lost to Tito before Wand went to Pride.
Shogun has the lose to Forrest, and hasn’t done enough (yet, he may get there) to be considered the greatest ever.
Rampage? Please, if chuck is somewhat inconsistent, ’Page personifies it.
Seriously, at this point, I’d call Chuck the best LHW ever.
Unrealized potential?
How can you say that at the same time you’re explaining how much the guy is a legend, was the top fighter in the world for a bit, wasn’t a “paper champion”?
Chuck has had a great career. A legendary career. Chuck’s success (and money) came around the time that his skills started to deteriorate, which happens to every athlete. Excessive partying may have sped up his decline, but it’s hard to argue he didn’t reach his peak.
The only real “unrealized potential” was Chuck staying at The Pit instead of evolving with the game. In all fairness, staying with a camp like that is more indicative of the era in MMA that Chuck came up in and not him failing to meet his potential. I can easily claim Matt Hughes did the same with MFS and hasn’t been the same since leaving to start HIT Squad, and nobody is accusing Hughes of excessive partying.
by mma_critic on Jun 14, 2010 12:36 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
How does MFS compare to the PIT? How many other champions has Hackleman trained? How many fighters that have appeared on a UFC main card?
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions
MFS compares to The Pit...
in that both camps developed a very specific fighting style and set of skills, and then neither evolved to keep up with the current era of MMA fighters and extensive cross-training in various disciplines.
And I could make the same argument about those MFS fighters at the peak of MFS not doing all-star training camps when those training camps became popular. Speaking of MFS, I would toss Robbie Lawler out there as a guy with unrealized potential. He stormed through the UFC for a while, got beaten badly, and just never quite hit that earlier success despite being a very good fighter… and never really evolved from that MFS style.
by mma_critic on Jun 14, 2010 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions
In reality though, MFS in its hey-day was always more of a collective of great fighters rather than a true camp. Who does MFS train now? No one particularly notable. It was never because of any magic on the part of Miletich, it was because Hughes, Lawler, Pulver, and Horn all trained together and taught each other. Even Pulver has said that.
Miletich doesn’t get the respect he deserves for what he brought to that camp.
http://www.twitter.com/TB_Money
The biggest thing Miletich brought to that camp was his work ethic, drive, and sheer toughness. It created a tough-as-nails atmosphere were anyone who didn’t also bust their ass and take their lumps was sent home with their tail between their legs. But as far as skills, the way his great ex-“students” talk, they learned more from each other than from him.
MFS had a specific style?
Look at Pulver and Hughes. Diametrically opposed styles. Same camp.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 1:04 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
What Chuck could have been...
This thought went through my head last night too, but for different reasons. Chuck looked so fast and powerful on Saturday because of his dedication to training for this fight. If he had the same focus when he was in his prime, a prime that already had him being a destroyer and potentially the best fighter in the world, it would have been totally amazing to see.
ALL OF YOU LISTEN TO MEE, DON'T DISTURB HERE, I WILL CALL POLICE CATCH YOU, DON'T COME TO MY BANGOLOW HOUSE, UNDERSTAND, O.K. I HATE ALL OF YOU.
Like I said last week
If Chuck would have had the motivation of GSP, who knows. No point in speculating what never was or could be.
"50% of this sport is 90% mental" - Tim Sylvia
That interview was messed up...
Not as bad as ODB though.
Lol… I love this old inteview with ODB and Method man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lxc4K_oI8XQ&feature=related
Pause it and look at the very first frame. That about sums up the interview.
ODB is asleep and Meth is as high as a kite…
Awesome writeup Jonathan
I always wondered how Chuck could have turned out if he had been more willing to break up with Hackleman and go to a different camp.
I’m sure the breakup would have been amicable…
"Alas, there is no time-share on my balls." -Luke Thomas
great article
But I don’t agree with your basic conclusion.
Although Chuck might have been even better, he was still one of the absolute best of all time. Anything more that he could have done is only speculation. I certainly (at this stage of their careers) would not rank him any lower than Royce, GSP or Rutten.
He’s ahead of Rutten, behind GSP, and Royce is debatable depending on how you value his contributions. Chuck was great at his prime and defended his title, but he didn’t dominate a LHW division that had all the top LHWs in the world, like GSP has done to the WW division for years.
that's a fair point
Though you could also point out that Chuck usually finished his opponents, whereas main of GSP’s recent wins have come by way of decision. Not sure if that figures in your analysis.
Talk about kicking a guy while he's down... Lol...
It would be amazing to see Chuck if he was as dedicated as some other other chamions, but it is hard to argue with his accomplishments.
Sure he may have hurt himself a bit with his lack of training, but really he held his bellt until he was 37… I think… That is pretty impressive.
How many people in any sport can say they are the best in the world at any age? How many people can say they are still the best in the world at at 37 years old?
As much as his life style my have shortened his career, I think it is hard to imaginee him having a better or longer career. Seven years on top of the world is an amazing run.
by truck on Jun 14, 2010 12:54 PM EDT reply actions 3 recs
Chuck was not the best 2005 - 2006
You could make a valid case that from 2005-2006 Liddell was the best fighter in the world.
Nah . . . not really, not at all.
- Chuck Liddell fought 5 times in those two years.
- Shogun fought 9 times. His one loss was a freak accident.
- Chuck did not face strikers. And we all know what happened when he faced a number of strikers.
- Shogun not only faced a variety of fighters, but he defeated the only fighter to defeat Liddell twice AND defeated Liddell himself.
I’m not saying Shogun was better or the best during that time period BUT I’m just saying.
- - - - -
VEe is ANIMated!
I try but the numbers and facts don’t lie and they don’t have a constant stream of commercials and spots highlighting the successes of fighters from other organizations. I think that is key because marketing and promotions often cloud our judgement about certain fighters.
- - - - -
VEe is ANIMated!
by VeeisAnimated on Jun 14, 2010 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions
The fact that Rua also had a run on top at the same time is unquestionable. Whether his wins were more significant is in question.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions
I believe it’s harder to make the case for Liddell because the UFC didn’t have all the top LHWs in the world at that time, which at the least casts doubts on whether Chuck was even the best at 205, because we weren’t ABLE to see those fights take place at that time.
Chuck did not face strikers. And we all know what happened when he faced a number of strikers.
The only striker he lost to in his prime was Quinton. Otherwise he beat Pele, Belfort, and Overeem.
How many strikers did Silva beat in his prime?
by David Castillo on Jun 14, 2010 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Trust me, I’m a huge Silva fan but my specific point doesn’t mention Silva at all.
Snowden makes an argument for a specific time period between 2005 and 2006. Shogun’s performances, numbers, Grand Prix status makes a HUGE counter-argument and a GREAT case for the Pride Grand Prix champion as one of the best fighters during 2005 and 2006.
- - - - -
VEe is ANIMated!
by VeeisAnimated on Jun 14, 2010 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Absolutely. Hughes and Fedor in the discussion as well.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Fedor: you don’t have to look at his record, you already his numbers and performances were great. Lesnar or Carwin could defeat Fedor tomorrow and I would still say Fedor is a better fighter, definitely one of the best EVER.
Hughes, I don’t know about him during 2005 – 2006.
He defeated Trigg, Riggs was getting his ass beat by Penn until the ribs injury thing and he defeated him. Oh yeah he defeeated Royce Gracie BUT he lost convincingly to GSP, the current champion.
- - - - -
VEe is ANIMated!
by VeeisAnimated on Jun 14, 2010 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Who the top fighter was in 2005-2006 would certainly have been informed by what they did prior, not just what they did in that period….
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions
True.
That’s definitely a solid point for Matt Hughes. While he did lose to Penn, he avenged that loss and defeated the hungry young lion in GSP.
Liddell? yeah and no. 2004 he fought twice. The Ortiz win was HUGE. Vernon White, not so much. How did the UFC sell that fight? 2003 was not big for Liddell. He loss to Couture then tried his hands in Japan. Ko’ed Overeem who probably wasn’t on horse meat yet and could not stop the Rampage.
- - - - -
VEe is ANIMated!
by VeeisAnimated on Jun 14, 2010 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Silva is often the reference point in this discussions because in 2005, Wand was still the champ at 205 in Pride. He avenged his loss to Arona that year, which still essentially made him the top dog. The reason I bring up Wand in 2005 is that it’s hard to look at Shogun as the best fighter in that time period when he wasn’t even the champ in his own organization, with Wand still in his prime; it’s a stigma that’s hard to ignore. The fact that they were training partners is negated by the fact they were in the same tournament, and would have fought each other if the circumstances dictated so. Shogun was the fighter of the year in 2005, but he fought irrelevant fights in 2006 (Coleman, Diabete, Randleman, Nakamura) while Chuck was defending his title with knockout wins against people like Couture.
And just to harp on it again, saying Chuck never fought strikers is beyond stupid.
by David Castillo on Jun 14, 2010 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions
my bad, I thought you were talking about Anderson Silva.
I did not say he “never” fought strikers in his career. Take a look at the fighters he fought in 2005 – 2006 and tell me which fighter is considered a striker.
Couture2, Horn, Couture3, Sobral2, and Ortiz2.
I totally forgot to mention that 4 OUT OF 5 of his fights were rematches, not that really means much but it says a little something about his competition at that time. 2006 was the year of rematches for Chuck Liddell.
Shogun defeated two top fighters in the same night, that in my opinion is kind of a big deal.
- - - - -
VEe is ANIMated!
by VeeisAnimated on Jun 14, 2010 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Of course it’s a big deal. That’s why Shogun was THE fighter of 2005, but his run in the same time span as Chuck’s just wasn’t as good.
The whole “Chuck and fighting strikers” is one of the weirdest criticisms I’ve ever heard. This isn’t directed at you, but it was always the default linchpin for Pride fanboys.
The problem with the criticism is that first and foremost, just because a fighter isn’t primarily a striker, doesn’t mean they aren’t a top level fighter, which is obvious. Couture beat Chuck on the feet in their first fight. Does that mean Chuck lost to a striker? Does it mean Couture’s striking magically disappeared and he went back to being just a grappler when Chuck merc’ed him? I’m not asking some of these rhetorically. I’m genuinely curious.
Second, why aren’t these same criticisms-in-principle leveled against people like Wand, who rarely fought grapplers in his prime (hence the anticipation for the Arona matchup)? Who’s to say Shogun wouldn’t have had a tough time against guys that could exploit his lack of wrestling (the one area Shogun doesn’t excel at), like Sobral did in their fight, or Couture, or Ortiz? Both Tito and Randy had monster chins in their prime, and I could see either one of them holding Shogun for 3 rounds in their prime (and when Shogun wasn’t as polished as he is now).
Rematches or not, Chuck was fighting quality fighters for his time.
by David Castillo on Jun 14, 2010 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I have no comeback
uhh . . . hmmm . . . good argument.. I never looked at it like that. Those stylistic match-ups would have been interesting to see Shogun or Wanderlei face great wrestlers in their Prime. Shogun suffered a freak accident but it was the result of a takedown. And he couldn’t put an old Mark Coleman away years later.
As far the legend of Wanderlei goes, I’m not sure how well he would perform against the strong grapplers and wrestlers who would more than likely pin him to the ground for several rounds.
- - - - -
VEe is ANIMated!
by VeeisAnimated on Jun 14, 2010 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions
He did put Coleman away. It happened way later than it should have, but it happened.
by HarmlessNinja on Jun 14, 2010 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions
It wasn't just age, failure to evolve or lifestyle
Chuck feasted on grapplers during his “best fighter in the world” period. Sandwiched in between his Rampage defeats were fights against Babalu, Tito, Randy, Jeremy Horn, and Vernon White. These guys either submission or ground and pound guys. And Chuck’s best tool was not his KO power but rather his takedown defense and his ability to get up after being taken down.
As a striker, he wasn’t that great. He always kept those hands low and depended on his chin, something that won’t work against high level strikers.
It's too bad he didn't train this way in 2007
He wasted a few good years.
Liddell ain’t in the same list as Royce, GSP and Bas ??? Are you Kidding me ? Thats a load of BS. He is the best LHW of all-time along with wand silva, If he wouldn’t have done some of the things he would of just been in a league of his own but he’s still one of the greatest to ever live.
by Ghost Face Killer on Jun 14, 2010 1:14 PM EDT reply actions
Great account except for omitting the Silva win
There was that win over Silva in between those crushing defeats. It was his last and finest win. He was able to stand toe-to-toe with someone who many (me included) thought was better than him. It was the last time his style worked for him.
Silva-Liddell was always going to be the decider in the Pride vs UFC debate and on that night Chuck came out on top. Its like he beat a straight flush with a two pair. But other than that, great post.
I don't agree
By the time he fought Silva, both were well past their expiration date. Great fight, but no longer great fighters. I don’t think it settled anything in the Pride vs. UFC debate.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Even if they were on the downside, they were still evenly matched at that point and Liddell won.
Liddell-Silva was considered to be that era’s Mayweather-Pacquaio. The most prominent reps of both organizations clashing was symbolic. While the Pride-UFC debate cant be settled from this fight, Chuck’s win should not be discounted for the symbolic weight it carried.
It was symbolic, but it wasn’t Mayweather-Pacquiao. It wasn’t for the title, and wasn’t even the main event at UFC 79.
It was a fun matchup of 2 guys past their prime – 2 legends who we wanted to see fight each other years earlier.
It was Mayweather-Pac in terms of anticipation in seeing a fight between two guys who were once at the top of the game. Regardless of the event placement and championships it was a watershed moment in seeing a wanted fight realized and delivering a great event.
Could the timing have been better? Sure. But lets not let that cloud out a great fight.
Another great piece Johnathon, but i wonder why you rate Bas Rutten on the same level as GSP and Fedor? Bas is the biggest personality in the sport and was a top fighter, but most his top wins came in Pancrase, and they employed modified MMA rules. He barely edged Kevin Randleman. I think when people talk all time greats of MMA in 10 years or so Chuck will be rated ahead of Bas Rutten by most people.
During the prime of his career
…Bas was undefeated. It was a more primitive period, but performance counts. He wouldn’t be on my personal list of top fighters, but the man beat everyone they put in front of him.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m surprised there’s no Pancrase asterisk along with this line of thinking. Winning 95% of your fights in an organization with strange rules and being known for working it’s fights probably deserves one. Yes, he won 3 fights in the UFC, and I do think Rutten is one of the better fighters ever…but I’m not sure he belongs in the class of the other guys on the list.
http://www.twitter.com/TB_Money
Probably not
Fair enough.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions
If anything, Pancrase rules favored his opponents. Bas was a striker and couldn’t punch the face. When he became a submission threat, his opponents got to rope escape a few times before losing. He only benefited from those rules a few times, far less than his opponents. His only unavenged losses were to a prime, roided-out Ken Shamrock (now that he’s admitted it, we can say it). If they’d fought once Bas became as much a beast on the ground as he was standing, I’m confident Bas would have beaten Ken. Incidentally, Bas is another example of missed potential; he was a party animal and heavy drinker, but moreso for the injuries that ended his career. He’s still in incredible shape at 45.
As much as I obviously love Bas, Liddell has to rank a bit higher, but Bas should still be up there.
by HarmlessNinja on Jun 14, 2010 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions
By that logic,
wouldn’t Rickson be like the greatest fighter ever?
I mean, he beat all 1000 guys they put in front of him. Don’t blame him that none of them could fight for shit.
Sorry, I just don’t get why the early era guys are in the same conversation here.
Rickson absolutely is in the conversation. Watch yourself or the ghost of Helio will strike with furious vengeance.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions
The early era guys deserve to be in the conversation because had the sport already been evolved into what it is today, they would have been better than they were. In comparison to what the sport was back then, they were at least on the same level as today’s stars. It isn’t exactly fair or proper to hold them up to the standards of today, because back then they didn’t have the knowledge or means to reach those standards.
by Monday Morning Martial Artist on Jun 14, 2010 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions
I wonder if Chuck would be willing to become a ref or judge.
If you're not watching Treme, you're a bad person.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by Scott C. Broussard on Jun 14, 2010 1:35 PM EDT reply actions
I hope he exercises better judgement than he did with his own career.
He’ll have a nice job with the UFC, he doesn’t need to be a ref or judge.
by HarmlessNinja on Jun 14, 2010 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Liddell walked that line for as long as he could, eventually becoming MMA’s first victim of the limelight.
Come on now, until Chuck comes out with an autobiography, outlining his tumultuous rise and fall, I think this is a little misleading. Citing drug use because he rubs his nose and acts like a goofball during fights?? C’mon. Did you watch him during TUF? He acted like that for every fight. You’re perpetuating a farily damaging image of him, that is supported by anecdotes from friends of friends and nothing else. I feel like that’s a little irresponsible.
by WestbergIDFC on Jun 14, 2010 1:39 PM EDT reply actions 4 recs
Good point...
Interesting article, but a little speculative to be sure, can’t really use Youtube clips as the best reference material…
by DrFernando on Jun 14, 2010 1:42 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I think
Chuck got about as much out of his career as he could. I don’t think there was much in him that went unfulfilled.
Also, I find the “twitchy, hyper body movements” theory completely unfounded.
The guy just loves fighting and gets really into it.
Who hasn’t made similar movements on the edge of their seat?
I know all boxing fans used to spazz out when Tyson was swarming his opponents, we knew they were about to get knocked out cold.
Hell, I used to move like that playing Mario.
Who knows?
We do know he partied away the prime of his career. Don’t know for certain what the drug of choice was.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Do we though?
He fought the best in the world, and has the majority of them look silly, he was a 4-time defending LHW champion, revolutionized the sport, and has become THE most recognizeable figure in MMA history.
You want to say he partied away the prime of his career? Seems to me like he has done pretty well for himself.
by WestbergIDFC on Jun 14, 2010 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions
has the majority of them look silly
*has made
by WestbergIDFC on Jun 14, 2010 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions
So
you don’t know what drug he was on or if he was on drugs at all, yet you chose to write about it.
He’s never failed a drug test as far as I know, yet you chose to dismiss that because “most recreational drugs would have been out of his system”.
I’m not a drug or drug test expert, but a little google research suggests the “leftovers” of cocaine can be detected in urine for weeks after use depending on how much and how often you use.
It can also stay in your hair for much longer, even months.
(this is just google search though, not entirely reliable)
Sorry Jonathan, but I think this article is complete trash.
Nah, cocaine lasts for less than a week. Often gone in 24 hours. Same with MDMA. And we know alcohol at a minimum was a major factor….his own friend and promoter says so…
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Not true Snowden...
Cocaine can have lingering trace. It’s all relative to the amount of use, frequency of use, etc.. Just as mentioned above..
They can detect through hair analysis.. I’ve worked for government agencies and been through the testing procedure’s first hand. I’ve seen co-workers terminated for test failures from minor use long after they’ve used.. Hair and blood analysis can show trace elements long after use.. Urine tests only pick up contents through the kidneys and liver.. Not through the blood..
8-29-09
Keith Jardine is now known as "The Dean of Antihistamine" because he is always sleeping early in fights..
Here's more on your cocaine detection times theories
There is a bit of misinformation out there and that is cocaine is out of your system in 2-3 days. Well while that might be true LABS DON’T TEST FOR THE DRUG ITSELF. Yes, that is true, they look for the metabolite. A metabolite is something that the body produces when it ingests something, in the case of cocaine it is “benzoylecgonine” that will stay around long after the drug is gone, up to 30 days for a frequent user. THE DRUG ITSELF can stay in your bloodstream up to 72 hours. It can stay in your urine for about 1 or up to 3 days after single use. Habitual or chronic use can be detected in urine for up to 12 weeks depending on quantity, duration, and frequency of use.
Cocain can stay in your hair up to about 90 days. But there are also information that cocaine can stay in your hair for about 25 years after you only take it once.
8-29-09
Keith Jardine is now known as "The Dean of Antihistamine" because he is always sleeping early in fights..
No..
The athletic commision’s don’t have the authority to test hair and blood at this time.. Only if by individual consent is given by the athlete prior to, can they use that type of testing. Olympic bodies declared it their right to test by any means necessary and as a result have the authority to test as they deem fit.
They have to get a governmental clearance to deem it within the athletic commissions authority to test using those procedures without consent ..
8-29-09
Keith Jardine is now known as "The Dean of Antihistamine" because he is always sleeping early in fights..
OK, what do you consider his prime?
I don’t think the loss to Cotoure was due to partying.
And the loss to Rampage (1st time) is your own example of him training hard (plus, it was a tournament, which makes it hard to say who’s really better anyways)
He was what, 37 38 by the 2nd Rampage fight? He wasn’t a peak athlete anymore.
He does the same thing on the Ultimate Fighter when his guys are fighting and I don’t think he’s coked up then. I do believe the partying to excess is true though.
by HarmlessNinja on Jun 14, 2010 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Or if there was a drug.
But “itchy nose” and “hyper body movements,” leans in a specific direction. I don’t think it’s responsible journalism to insinuate specific drug use without a hint of proof.
by Gideon Jay on Jun 14, 2010 2:41 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
That was actually a pretty good interview of Chuck.
"If your going to come on then come on!" - Harold Howard
I want to understand Chuck's interviews..
please retire Iceman! while you’re still somewhat eloquent!
lol
potential unrealized? didnt he have the belt for years? this article is awful.
potential unrealized would be something like jon jones getting a career ending injury next week.
It depends on what your potential is...
If your potential is “all-time” great and you fall short, that potential was unrealized.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions
He was one of the greats but of all time. Nah, not at all.
- - - - -
VEe is ANIMated!
by VeeisAnimated on Jun 14, 2010 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Even if he was the greatest of all time (which he isn’t) that alone does not mean he didn’t have the potential to have been even better.
by Monday Morning Martial Artist on Jun 14, 2010 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions
WAR Snowden. It has to be so taxing to write an article and then have to defend it for an hour afterwards.
Did you see the size of that chicken?
Nah, it’s fun. If I didn’t want to engage I wouldn’t be here.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Ridiculous statement, Chuck is the GOAT at LHW and the greatest LHW champion in mma not to mention his resume and success he brought to the UFC is second to none. If Chuck didn’t reach his potential I have no idea who has the guy did it all but eventually father time caught up with him like it does all other great fighters.
"they mad at me, I keep going hard reppin/
cause what's your Rampage to Rashad Evans/"
-Joe Budden (Something To Ride To)
http://www.zshare.net/audio/76866807deabe3c1/
Even his closest associates don’t contend that it was just a matter of time catching up with him….
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions
But really, do you think he’d be doing any better (at this point) regardless of his lifestyle?
Randy is a freak even for clean living athletes! Time doesn’t treat fighters well. Time treats particularly poorly fighters who rely on their chins. Chuck’s style + getting older doomed him far more than any partying he did.
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.
