Chuck Liddell Was the Best Light Heavyweight in MMA History, It's Not Even Close
Jonathan Snowden's piece earlier today reminded us that Chuck Liddell may have tarnished his legacy with sub par training in his final run as UFC champ. But to my mind there's a much bigger question about Chuck, was he really the best fighter of his era?
For the record, I've got Liddell near the top of the MMA All-time Mountaintop. He's up there with Royce Gracie, Kazushi Sakuraba, Frank Shamrock, Wanderlei Silva, Tito Ortiz and Fedor Emelianenko on my immortals list.
No less an authority than Jordan Breen says he was (transcript via Fight Opinion):
"At this moment in time, I would still call him the best Light Heavyweight ever."
...
"He has the greatest bulk of Top 10 wins and impressive performances against notable guys from his era that we've seen. I do think that will change, I mean the UFC just has so many top Light Heavyweights at this point in time that if we get a guy now, if you know Shogun put together a reign like Liddell his resume would just look insane so I mean that's another argument."
The biggest problem with anointing Chuck the best of all time, is that it was never 100% established that he was the best LHW of his era. It's not Chuck's fault. The reality is that throughout his peak era of 2001 - 2007, the UFC was facing a very tough competitor in PRIDE and they monopolized much of the best talent in the division.
So Chuck at his very best, despite dipping his toes into the PRIDE waters, never got to fight Wanderlei Silva at his peak from 2000-2004, never got to fight the surging young Mauricio "Shogun" Rua of 2005/2006, and lost badly to Quinton "Rampage" Jackson not once but twice in 2003 and 2007.
Regardless, by my count Chuck Liddell beat nine top-ranked fighters in his day (Pele Landi-Jons, Kevin Randleman, Guy Mezger, Murilo Bustamante, Amar Suloev, Vitor Belfort, Babalu Sobral, Tito Ortiz and Randy Couture).
This outshines Wanderlei Silva's five (Guy Mezger, Dan Henderson, Kazushi Sakuraba, Quinton "Rampage" Jackson and Ricardo Arona), Mauricio Shogun Rua's four (Rampage, Antonio Rogerio Nogueira, Ricardo Arona, and Lyoto Machida -- Randleman wasn't top ranked when Shogun beat him), Tito Ortiz' five (Jerry Bohlander, Guy Mezger, Wanderlei Silva, Evan Tanner, and Vladimir Matyushenko), Rampage Jackson's five (Kevin Randleman, Murilo Bustamante, Chuck Liddell, Ricardo Arona, Matt Lindland and Dan Henderson), or Randy Couture's three (not counting heavyweights here -- Chuck Liddell, Tito Ortiz, and Vitor Belfort).
There are some arguable calls in there, mostly having to do with how close to peak some of those guys were when they got beat, but be warned, I'll be watching the comments with the ban hammer in hand. Fighters will be respected in this thread. I don't want to see a single "Jerry Bohlander?!? He sucked" from you ignoramuses.
By my count, it's inarguable that Chuck racked up more wins against top contenders than anyone of his era. Let's run through the notables in the full entry.
It will forever remain unknown if the Chuck of 2005 could've beaten the Shogun of 2005, but I'd wager that based on their 2007 bout that Chuck would've beaten Wanderlei. I don't think he'd have beaten Rampage in a lifetime of trying though. But it's interesting to think that had Liddell trained for Keith Jardine the way he trained for Rich Franklin he would've gotten a third bite at that apple
But let me close the main piece with this quote from Jim Ross (HT who me):
Liddell should have a job for life in UFC as he laid many blocks in the foundation of the fastest growing sports entity in the world.
Your work is done Chuck. Thank you so much for all the memories. Now take your passion, charisma and knowledge and help UFC grow even bigger by focusing outside the Octagon.
He notched his first big win in his second MMA fight -- taking a decision over the legendary Jose "Pele" Landi-Jons, already famous as the trailblazer of the Chute Boxe style. Pele was too small to be fighting Chuck, but that's how things were done in 1998. At the time Pele had a 13-2 record over the best competition fighting in Brazil. Most expected Chuck to lose.
Then in 2001, Liddell got the first of the epic wins that established his Sprawl n' Brawl style as kryptonite to wrestlers when he KO'd former UFC heavyweight champion Kevin Randleman. At the time Randleman was 9-4 and moving down to 200lbs after dropping the heavyweight title to Randy Couture and he'd go on to take a decision over Babalu Sobral at UFC 35. The Randleman that Chuck destroyed bore little resemblance to the clownish loser of the PRIDE era that Randleman became.
Then Chuck went to Japan and beat Guy Mezger in the PRIDE ring. Mezger is truly one of the forgotten men of MMA history. If you actually watch the fight today (or Mezger's 2000 "loss" to Sakuraba), you'll see why Guy Mezger was so highly regarded back in the day. A solid kickboxer who had honed his ground game in the Pancrase meat grinder, Mezger actually dropped Chuck with a hard shot before Liddell finished him late. Up to that point, Mezger was 12-4 in MMA (Pancrase doesn't count) and had only been soundly beaten by Tito Ortiz and Wanderlei Silva.
When Liddell notched his win over Murilo Bustamante, Butamante was viewed as one of the best fighters from the best camps (Carlos Gracie Jiu Jitsu). He'd already gone to a draw with 285lb wrestler Tom Erikson and beaten Lion's Den star Jerry Bohlander. He would go on to drop a division and beat Dave Menne and Matt Lindland. Murilo also took Rampage to a split decision in the opening round of the very same tournament where Rampage would finish Chuck. Admittedly, Liddell's win over Bustamante was less than satisfying as he won a decision based largely on his ability to foil Murilo's take downs and not much more. But just take my word for it kids, when that fight was booked, smart people went "ooooo" great fight and Liddell wasn't expected to win.
He followed that win by beating Amar Suloev who brought a 13-2 record against some of Russia and Brazil's best. Suloev was a well-rounded fighter, dangerous both standing and on the ground. Arguably undersized for Chuck, he would go on to notch wins over Yushin Okami, Dean Lister, and Murilo Bustamante.
It was his back-to-back wins over Vitor Belfort and Renato "Babalu" Sobral in 2002 that really established Chuck at the very top. Belfort was already known as more erratic than phenomenal, but he still remained very dangerous and brought a 10-2 record to the fight. And Vitor gave Chuck a great fight. Belfort's 1998 annihilation of Wanderlei Silva also gave MMA-thmeticians plenty to bolster claims of Chuck > Wanderlei after Chuck dropped Belfort in the third to take a hard fought decision.
Beating Sobral in 2002 was impressive, but arguably less impressive than beating him again in 2006. But nevertheless, Babalu was the epitome of the dangerous wrestler/grappler that Chuck just feasted on. Babalu already had a 20-4 record and Fedor, Dan Henderson and Kevin Randleman had all been forced to be satisfied with decision wins over Sobral. Part of Sobral's image problem today comes from Chuck's highlight reel KO's over him. He would go on to put together a very impressive ten fight streak before losing again to Chuck. MMAthmeticians noted Sobral's 2003 win over Shogun Rua when trying to compare the UFC vs PRIDE.
Chuck had a rough 2003, getting finished by both Randy Couture and Rampage Jackson, but he did finish Alistair Overeem. Obviously the 205lb Overeem was not the monster he is today, but it's still a solid win on the Liddell resume.
Then Chuck finally got locked in the cage with Tito Ortiz who'd been avoiding fighting him for years at that point. Tito's best days were already behind him, but let's not forget he was 10-3 with his only unavenged losses coming to Frank Shamrock at his peak and Randy Couture. Tito's six fight run as UFC light heavyweight champ is still unmatched. Chuck showed with this fight that he truly had the formula to beat the best ground and pound artists in the game.
For me, it was Chuck's two wins over Randy Couture to avenge the 2003 loss in 2005/2006 that represent his apex. Couture had shown a way to beat Chuck in their first fight, using sharp jabs and tight footwork to get inside on Chuck and then beat him down in the clinch. Liddell showed he could adjust his game plan by dismantling Randy twice.
It's not often mentioned, but the great Chuck vs Randy vs Tito vs Belfort series is one of the best round robins in the history of the sport. After seeing each of the four face each other, a definitive pecking order was clearly established, with Chuck at the top. I really wish Babalu had gotten to face any of the other three because I believe he might have been the second best fighter of that group at his peak.
NOTE: It's absolutely critical to establish that post-facto evaluations of fighters to degrade wins over them is not valid. There are too many moving factors in MMA to allow for the kind of "in retrospect fighter XX wasn't really any good because he later lost to Y and Z". That's horseshit and infuriates me. There are too many variables in an MMA career for us to ever have perfect knowledge. When two fighters at the top of their career arcs meet, we can only rate the winner based on how his opponent was ranked before the fight.
235 comments
|
16 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
What's to flame?
The numbers don’t lie. Chuck has a lot of haters, but hopefully even they can acknowledge that he was the best in his era.
chuck beat a bunch of wrestlers and was destroyed by anyone with decent hands. it’s not an age thing, it’s a style thing. chuck was never really that good, but had really powerful hands against wrestlers that couldn’t take him down.
that’s it.
everything dana white says is a complete lie
by slantedwindows on Jun 14, 2010 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
the vitor that lost to chuck went 2-3 in his next 5 fights. that is not the vitor we all know and love.
overeem – again – not the same overeem we know now. he was fighting cans and losing to big names.
couture – everyone loves him, but you gotta admit his record’s just not that good. for fuck’s sake, the guy fought for a belt about 25% of all of his total fights.
everything dana white says is a complete lie
by slantedwindows on Jun 14, 2010 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
and yet Randy kept winning at the highest levels
He only lost to the best.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
you're walking on thin ice
good god. Chuck might have had stylistic weaknesses, but he WAS “really that good”.
You might be able to say “Chuck was never flawless or invulnerable” but you can’t say “he was never really that good.”
for fuck’s sake, how can anyone who’s ever done anything in their lives have so little respect?
Chuck was at the top of the sport for a decade.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Nate Wilcox on Jun 14, 2010 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 21 recs
Chuck was awesome
Some people are reading my early article as a dismissal. If anything, I’m disappointed because Chuck was SO GOOD that his potential was astronomical.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Yeah, it took me a bit to catch that. Didn't get that you meant his prime could have been extended.
I eventually remembered that Chuck’s striking got technically worse and less diverse as his career went on. Maybe with more dedication he could have been a high level striker and beaten guys like Jardine soundly, even as he aged.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
I feel like the best Chuck we ever saw
was the Overeem fight. he was the total package in that fight, and it was shaping up to be one of the best fights ever if Overeem hadn’t gassed and Chuck straight nuked him
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 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions
I enjoyed your article Snowden..
I thought it was a very well written piece and illustrated a good amount for both sides..
Exposition at it’s finest.. lol
My only take was in that the “party” or “lifestyle” angle might be overplayed a bit.. Chuck peaked at his natural time.. For all the talk of Chuck not evolving, I never thought that was the case. I thought Chuck was merely ahead of his time in the way that Royce was.. Chuck was hands down the best LHW fighter to date. The sport didn’t pass him by and his lifestyle didn’t slow him down.. His age did and it showed very clearly post Ortiz 1..
8-29-09
Keith Jardine is now known as "The Dean of Antihistamine" because he is always sleeping early in fights..
rec'ing the hell out of this
not a huge Chuck fan, but the guy was one of the greatest in the sport. period. end of discussion.
anyone who doesn’t think so is living in their own fantasy world.
visit my website: http://bobthewriter.com
by bobthewriter on Jun 14, 2010 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 9 recs
i did, i swear! lol
visit my website: http://bobthewriter.com
by bobthewriter on Jun 14, 2010 7:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe it was just the production of Pride, but Liddell’s wins were never as exciting to me as Wandy’s or Shoguns. I wish in my heart of hearts Chuck and Wand could have fought under Pride rules in the GP Final, but alas…
One reason might be that part of Wandy’s rep was built around him beating significantly inferior opposition. Don’t get me wrong, in his prime The Axe Murderer was everything his nickname implied and more, but facing 0-0 fighters doesn’t exactly sound like credible challenge.
by Monday Morning Martial Artist on Jun 14, 2010 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Definitely
Compared to Wand, Chuck didn’t have nearly as many softballs thrown his way.
by Worldisart on Jun 14, 2010 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I agree with one big point you made:
Babalu Sobral doesn’t get the credit he deserves, and it’s because of Chuck beating him twice.
Read me trying to be funny at:
www.huggingnuts.com
And it was such a horrible stylistic matchup for Sobral that he looked awful.
Bolts from the Blue // "He looks like a catfish" - Nick Hardwick on Brandon Siler
Bloody Elbow // " looks like your comment violated rule #4. and it’s a heck of a rule, rule #4" - Kid Nate
by Richard Wade on Jun 14, 2010 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Fighters will be respected
Yet you call Randleman a “clownish loser” and declare Pancrase doesn’t count.
Other than that I mostly agree with all your points.
by Electro Boy on Jun 14, 2010 3:39 PM EDT reply actions 4 recs
Pancrase wasn't MMA rules
it was awesome and I watched it during the day, but it just wasnt’ the same.
And Randleman’s antics during the PRIDE era speak for themselves. The guy tarnished his legacy.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
In late Pride, yeah. But his performance from 2002-2004 was legitimate, and he did author the greatest wrestling moment ever in the sport. It makes it all the more impressive that Chuck beat him, although there is an asterisk there that it was at 205, same as the Overeem fight. Simply because late Randleman became a cartoon to try and stay relevant doesn’t poison his achievements prior to that. After all, Frank Mir, Koscheck and Sonnen aren’t far from that.
that's why i included Randleman
on my top fighters list. He was a champion.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
no
my word choice wasn’t the best but I wanted to point out that the Randleman that Liddell beat was not the Randleman fans just saw lose to Roger Gracie.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
Just thought I’d choose an arbitrary post to say ‘great article’.
by David Castillo on Jun 14, 2010 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions
I didn’t read this before I posted about that too. It made me laugh.
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito Ortiz on Vitor Belfort at Affliction:DOR
by Rundownloser on Jun 15, 2010 12:14 AM EDT up reply actions
When you put it that way, it makes a lot of sense.
My only possible disagreement would be In Shogun’s case. Nakamura was ranked in the top 10 by many sites when Shogun beat him, and Overeem should probably count. Still doesn’t add up to Chuck’s list in terms of quantity, but you could make the case in terms of quality.
Otherwise, excellent piece.
http://www.twitter.com/TB_Money
Nakamura
could be counted for Wandy and Shogun, arguably. I chose not to count him.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
"Tell Wanderlei to shut the fuck up!"
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.
by Chris Barton on Jun 14, 2010 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions
It's interesting
I wonder why Amar Suloev was considered a top win for Chuck while Kiyoshi Tamura wasn’t listed for Silva? Tamura had beaten Menne, Renzo Gracie, Horn and Miletich.
What about Yuki Kondo?
I think there may be some selective accounting going on here…
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 3:44 PM EDT reply actions
Tamura could've been counted
Kondo too. Still doesn’t catch Wandy up with Chuck
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
No, but all top 10 wins are not equal. For example, is it fair to consider Sakuraba in his prime the qualitative equal to Vladimir Matyushenko as this list does?
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions
well when you factor in
Sakuraba’s size deficit, yeah. Vladdy fought for the UFC heavyweight title. Sakuraba was barely a middleweight and he was fighting 200 pounders.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
Right. Landi Jons, Tanner, Suloev, Lindland…a lot of middleweights lurking around on these lists.
Of course, the best fighter in this division all-time came just before this era and his name was Frank Shamrock….
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions
In 2000-2004? Give me a break.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions
on another day
i’d probably agree with you.
but by this criteria, frank retired too soon to rack up the quantity of top wins.
For sure no one has ever gone on as dominant a run at the top as Frank did.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
Pele was a WW, and there was a WW division in the UFC soon after.
Suloev and Lindland and Bustamante were all 185 lbers in the UFC.
but Bustamante
fought Chuck at 200lbs.
He was undersized and today would prolly be a welterweight, but it was what it was.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
Excellent piece Nate
May your hammer strike swift and true! :)
by Worldisart on Jun 14, 2010 3:45 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Wanderlei Silva and Chuck Liddell
Liddell had the most dominant single reign of any light heavyweight, but over the course of an entire career, the Axe Murderer has him barely beat.
I’m going to use statistics to illustrate the argument, but not in the sense that they prove anything. Here the good people at fightmatrix compiled some all-time lists. The first two are “absolute” performance over a career, and then “peak dominance”. Silva just barely beats Chuck for absolute performance, but loses for peak dominance.
http://www.fightmatrix.com/all-time-mma-rankings/
I admit that Wanderlei’s claim to being as great a light heavyweight as Liddell rests largely on the fact that his career has been longer, but when discussing historical greatness longevity (and luck) both matter.
by Lauren J Darkbloom on Jun 14, 2010 3:45 PM EDT reply actions
The same fight metrix has Nate the great more dominant than Rich Franklin. With that being said, I smell bogus.
"50% of this sport is 90% mental" - Tim Sylvia
well, not really
The list you are looking at isn’t dominance, it’s lifetime performance at the specific weight-class of middle-weight.
Marquardt started fighting ok competition before Franklin did, so he gets a head start on the life-time list. And then Franklin gets totally screwed because his fights recently (including the ones at 195) all count as LHW fights, and don’t help him out in the MW division.
This is also why Dan Henderson is so low at MW.
by Lauren J Darkbloom on Jun 14, 2010 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Appreciate the plug.
For the record, Liddell/Silva at LHW is razor thin. Another successful 6-12 months by Liddell would have him take the top spot.
Creator of the FightMatrix rating system.
This sentence is odd
“It will forever remain unknown if the Chuck of 2005 could’ve beaten the Shogun of 2005, but I’d wager that based on their 2007 bout that Chuck would’ve beaten Wanderlei. "
Great article Nate. When I saw Chuck go down this weekend I felt sick. Another hero of my adolescence had fallen. I didn’t feel like it, but I did it anyway. I took out that dusty old box that had all of my hero’s from my teen years in. Its ok Chuck, I put you right between Michael Jordan and Ken Griffey Jr.
I get more rec's then a Toyota!
I can honestly say
that I have NEVER been a fan of Chuck Liddell…. but Jonathan’s breakdown of his lifetime career, is certainly a very, very impressive fighting resume that most of the top fighters of this generation will never, ever top.
I think a record like his would put him near the top if not the top at his weight class…. as one of the best ever!
I too ALWAYS rooted against Chuck
year in year out. Just didn’t like his style. Thought it was boring and frustrating waiting for him to land the big KO while avoiding the ground.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
I just didn't like the usage of the word unorthodox
by Goldie and Rogan. All the time with it. Couldn’t watch him fight without hearing that shit.
Strangely enough
It was Goldie and Rogan made me root against Chuck, due to their constant cheerleading of him.
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 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions
the only cheerleading i can think of as bad as what the did for Chuck was when it was Goldie/Rogan/Bonnar calling a Forrest fight, I can’t remember which one
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 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Mir during Torres vs. Mizugaki?
Sounded like Miguel trounced a guy who had no right to be there the whole way through when he really had an awesome come-from-behind win. Mir actually destroyed what was a very dramatic fight in his attempt to sell dominance. It’s one thing to fawn over a talented fighter, it’s another to wreck a good fight by being deluded.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
ah, i’ve only seen that fight online, minus audio, during a flight. this must be why i’ve never really bought the Mir/Torres nuthugging jokes
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 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Lucky.
That’s one of the only fights I actually turn off the audio for because it is the verbal equivalent of fellatio. Worse than the Strikeforce triumvirate once they pick their winner.
Keep in mind that I’m one of the biggest Torres supporters, and know him personally. Even through my eyes, it’s bad.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
yeah, I remember Bonnar going “IT’S TIME TO SLUG IT OUT1” and then nothing happened to end the fight
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 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Exactly
At one point, Forrest caught Tito with a left hook and right after it landed Bonnar screams, “YES!”
He was nuthugging hard in that fight.
Overall body of work
you have to give it to Chuck. After time goes by someone will take over but for now, it’s him.
Tito Ortiz is not an immortal though. Cannot agree on that one. Good with everything else.
by Geno Mrosko on Jun 14, 2010 3:52 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I just wouldn’t put Tito up in that category. At the time Tito wouldn’t fight Chuck and Chuck was knocking off #1 contenders left and right. Tito’s still good, but his legacy is kind of tarnished (to me) because of that.
I get more rec's then a Toyota!
Tito had a longer run at the top
and it was his run to the top that really put the fear of god in people. Yeah Frank beat him, but it was clear who the stronger, fiercer fighter was. And the beat downs he put on Mezger and Bohlander, jesus. He beat Wandy too. Tito carried the UFC through the dark ages and did as much as Chuck to put them over the top in the golden years.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
I need some education.
I came into being a fan of MMA late enough to not know how things were back before Zuffa. From everything I have ever read about the history of it, Tito Ortiz was apparently ducking all the top competition. Is this not the case? If it is not then please put me in my place. I’ve heard that he had plenty of impressive wins but they weren’t against the top guys as relating to the era. Help?
no
Tito won his share of battles. He did duck Chuck for a while, but injuries may have been involved in that as well. Tito on his way up was a rampaging monster who ground and pounded the Lion’s Den right out of the top of the game and dominated Wanderlei Silva thoroughly.
When he mauled Evan Tanner it was just scary. Tito has earned his place in the sport but his poor relationship with Zuffa keeps his story from being fairly told.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Nate Wilcox on Jun 14, 2010 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Tito wasn't ducking Chuck as much as...
…looking for $$. It always boils down to dollars in the fight business.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 8:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I remember the story of Chuck and Tito being training partners prior to their dispute. There were rumors that Tito never had anything against Chuck during the sparring sessions..
Chuck vs Tito too was the most demanded fight when Liddell was on the rise, that was guaranteed money.
I am. I think. I will. - Ayn Rand
Yes, Chuck did well in training against Tito (and in two fights). That has nothing to do with Tito looking for a pay day.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 8:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Plus
since you say that Coleman and Randleman have tarnished their reputations doesn’t that also apply to Tito in some way for all the things he has done since the time that he was the champion?
you missed my point
I wasn’t saying that Randleman’s later fall tarnished his abilities at his peak, in fact I was saying just the opposite.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
The debate on this topic is endless, and it is the one comparison that blows MMA math out of the water.
Couture>Ortiz>Silva>Jackson>Liddell>Couture
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 3:58 PM EDT reply actions
Or you could go
Shamrock>Ortiz>Silva>Jackson>Liddell>Couture
Damn Snowden, you were right all along!
"Old Dogs does to the screen what old dogs do to the carpet. It's unfortunate that only the latter can be taken out and shot." -Kyle Smith
watchkalibrun.com
by Nick Becker on Jun 14, 2010 4:08 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Simple math
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions
That's...

….a bold statement
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Ha. I think you are right! I was thinking it was in the Burger talk.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 4:53 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
"Hamburgers. The cornerstone of any nutritious breakfast. "
No worries I would have posted a picture of Jules instead anyway.
Great write-up Nate
I owe you an apology as your recent write-ups did not give me the impression that you would highlight Chuck’s career in this light. I have to give credit when it is due.
"50% of this sport is 90% mental" - Tim Sylvia
did you miss this one?
on Chuck’s importance as a stylistic pioneer?
I may give Dana a hard time, but I’m all about appreciating the fighters.
and thanks for saying something, it’s appreciated.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
Holding the belt
One thing i have noticed as well is the fact that Chuck has held the belt the longest out of your most recent champions. Chuck got beat by Rampage and lost the belt. Rampage defends it once and get’s beat by Forrest. Forrest defends it once and loses to Rashad. Rashad defends it once and loses to Machida. Machida defends it once and well….. should have lost it to Shogun and in the rematch he did.
Either competition is much stronger now or Chuck was simply the man of his era and when he had a chin. If anything fighters need to learn that if you want to last a long time in this sport you can’t take a punch to land a punch. Once that chin is gone then it is gone.
As an athlete I feel for Chuck because I know he still has that desire to compete and down deep he knows he can win. Unfortunately for him he just doesn’t have the chin anymore. I hope he can find something to feed his competitive fire.
Shut up, Tito.
by TruthSeeker1223 on Jun 14, 2010 4:10 PM EDT reply actions
Just to clear that up, Rampage did successfully defend the belt by beating Henderson. Then he lost to Forrest.
Forrest did not defend the belt, losing to Rashad.
Rashad did not defend the belt, losing to Machida.
Machida officially defended the belt once, against Shogun, but we know that story.
I think what he meant by defends it once was them going up for their defence and losing it. Good point though that as many title fights Chuck had, there was different champs.
"50% of this sport is 90% mental" - Tim Sylvia
That may be what he meant, but that does not pertain to Rampage, and his reign was described the same way. Rampage won the belt, defended it against Henderson, and then lost his next fight.
You’re right Hardcharger. I forgot about Rampage fighting Henderson. Thanks for pointing that out to me and not calling me a retard or anything. :)
Shut up, Tito.
by TruthSeeker1223 on Jun 15, 2010 10:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Wrong..
A. Silva has held the belt the longest of any fighter in UFC history (current or past)..
Chuck is close to Hughes in terms of time holding the belt.. For all the talk about Tito.. He held the belt a long time but didn’t defend it as much as Hughes or Liddell..
8-29-09
Keith Jardine is now known as "The Dean of Antihistamine" because he is always sleeping early in fights..
Correction..
I forgot that Hughes had two fights that were non title matches while being the champion (Riggs & Gracie).. Riggs failed to make weight..
Title defenses:
Tito has 5 over a span of just under 3 years
Chuck has 4 in less than 2 years
Hughes has 7 (five on the first title run and two more after winning the belt back against St. Pierre)
A Silva has 6 over a span of almost 4 years to date. (Silva owns the record for longest title holder, longest title reign, and most consecutive wins in the UFC.)
8-29-09
Keith Jardine is now known as "The Dean of Antihistamine" because he is always sleeping early in fights..
I wasn’t saying Chuck has held the belt the longest out of any weight class. I was just talking about LHW. I was making the point that since he has had the belt no one in that weight class has defended it like he did. Sorry if I didn’t not make that more clear.
I’m sure A Silva will break all records. He shouldn’t lose if he continues to fight smart and stay motivated.
Shut up, Tito.
by TruthSeeker1223 on Jun 15, 2010 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Great piece only problem I have with it is with the title, because “Chuck Liddell IS the best LHW in MMA history, and it’s not close”.
"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/
i simply think that there is no greatest lhw of all time
theres a bunch of guys who were real good but on a given night in their primes there is no one guy who woulda been dominant over all the others
wandy, chuck, tito, shogun, randy, rampage, sakuraba and frank shamrock were all excellent fighters in their primes but no one fighter was more dominant than the others, its similar to the current deadlock between mw contenders demian maia, chael sonnen, and nate marquadt where chael beats nate, nate beats maia, and maia beats chael.
in my opinion theres simply a deadlock at the top between all these guys and the clear cut most dominant lhw ever has yet to emerge
We have a saying back home that if your coming on, COME ON!!!!
you're missing the point
and i agree that we’d never know who would’ve done what. just like we don’t know who will do what.
But what we do know is who DID what. And the what’s Chuck did, are more impressive than anyone else’s.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Nate Wilcox on Jun 14, 2010 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
sure chucks achievements may be somewhat more impressive
but i hardly think that qualifies for calling him the best ever and it not even being close
in each division in mma that argument can easily be made, bj is by far the best lw, gsp is the best ww, andersons the best mw, and fedors the best hw
these are examples of the best fighters of a division and it not even being close, chuck is one of the best lhws to ever live yet in the lhw division thats all u can classify a fighter as, one of the best because there simply is no best lhw ever, everyones accomplishments are way too even to pick one guy and say that hes clearly better than everyone else
its like saying joe montana is by far the best quarterback ever and its not even close, while i think montana was awesome and his 4 rings are better than anyone elses simliar to how chucks achievements are better than everyone elses, people are still gonna say johnny unitas was better or marino was better or elway or peyton manning or terry bradshaw or brett farve
summing it up there is no best lhw ever everyone has their favorite and theres no one guy u can say was by far the best
We have a saying back home that if your coming on, COME ON!!!!
It's who DID what
no truer statement when debating MMA.
I consider myself a softcore fan.
the sport has evolved wayyy past Chuck
but he’s one of the reasons why the fighters evolved.
by Rucker on Jun 14, 2010 4:25 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
No, it hasn't
He’s just not as good as he used to be. Chuck from 2004 would still be probably a top 5 LHW today, it has nothing to do with “evolution”.
Nice article... Well done Nate.
Now is a time to honour a great of the sport, not to shat on he resume… :)
Chuck was the man for a long time and he would of had that belt for longer if Tito hadn’t ducked him for so long. Still I also agree that if Shogun could put together 3 or 4 title defenses then he will definately surpass him as the best lightheavyweight of all time. Of course since 2007 no champion has been able to get through more than one successful defense before dropping the belt. Best light weight ever will probably be short lived for him but best light heavyweight of his era is definately going to stick.
Did you just call...
Kevin Randlemen a “Clownish loser of the Pride era…”? Weren’t you the one preaching not to bash fighters?
I hope your “ban hammer” applies to everyone.
Thanks to Chuck Liddell for so many great moments in MMA.
my house, my rules
but Randleman and Mark Coleman and Phil Baroni are the ones who diminished their own reputations in the PRIDE era.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
What did Coleman do in PRIDE?
other than lose to Fedor, Cro Cop and Nogueira, the three best heavyweights ever?
He beat Shogun, Igor and Allan Goes, the latter two in devastating fashion.
it's really just the 2nd loss to Fedor
and his unfortunate final UFC run that made modern fans forget how great he was in his day.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
I love a good laugh, did you see Hammil beat Bones Jones? No wonder he’s getting a crack at Jardine.
by Bob Boblaw on Jun 14, 2010 9:00 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah
getting elbowed illegally in the face is the same as getting your arm broken while being slammed.
You fail, hard.
Not to mention
Hamill won via DQ. Coleman (not Shogun) won via a broken arm that he caused by legitimate means.
I'm not the one...
who has the problem with fighter bashing. I don’t really care if it’s fair or not…..just a bit hypocritical considering your ‘ingnoramus’ label a few paragraphs previous.
That being said, can I call Bob Sapp a buffoon?
Off topic. Apologies.
Old Randleman > Clownish loser Randleman. Got it.
I don’t understand why this is such an issue all the time.
Kid Nate can bash fighters because this is his website and he has to deal with the repercussions of what he says.
We can’t bash fighters because we’re anonymous idiots on his website and Nate has to deal with the repercussions of what we say.
If you want to bash someone, start your own website, post under your real name, and deal with the repercussions.
by Phildo on Jun 14, 2010 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
wait..
are you telling me, his actual name is Kid Nate
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 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don't use my real name, but sadly
the fighters and promoters know it and can track me down.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
It's not an issue...
I just can’t stand hypocrites. It’s your website and you can do what you want I guess. Just don’t call everyone else an “ingnoramus” for doing what YOU are planning on doing anyway simply because it’s YOUR website. Practice what you PREACH for F%$!’s sake.
I love this website but this is the type of hypocricy that tarnishes it’s credibility.
“Clownish loser in the Pride era” – Kid Nate describing Kevin Randleman but NOT being an “ingnoramus”
Dave Yipp
Calgary, Alberta
yippdr@hotmail.com
thanks for the honest and passionate criticism
if I had it to do over again I’d probably use milder word choice.
My intent was to emphasize to newer fans who have seen Randleman losing a long string of one sided fights, failing drug tests and getting arrested for nonsense that the man was once a UFC heavyweight champion and that when Chuck beat him in convincing fashion it was a win for the ages.
But regarding BE you’re missing the point, we hold our commenters to a very strict standard, our staff to a slightly looser standard and the editors to an even looser standard. That way we can call ‘em like we see ’em for the enjoyment of you, our readers, without being bland and milquetoast and at the same time maintain a level of decorum in the comments.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
Great article Nate.
It’s always hard to say Athlete A is/was better than Athlete B, no matter the sport, but when it comes to MMA, it’s almost impossible. Even when fighters have met face to face, people will still make a case that the loser was better than the winner, and be able to justify that stance.
In the end, it doesn’t really matter. Chuck was great, has one of the best highlight reels in the sport, was the first real SUPERSTAR that MMA produced in North America and will always be remembered among the all time greats of the sport.
Good write-up I'd place him just behind Saku though
Maybe that’s the PRIDE fan boy in me but he was a wrecking machine fighting guys bigger than him and fighting way too often.
The more I think about it Saku vs Chuck might have been a pretty good matchup back in the day.
Check out my pic a day for a year project-
Life Through My Lens
Regardless of the quantity of good fighters he beat, how could Liddell possibly be the greatest in the division when he got knocked out by the same guy twice at the two highest peaks in his career?
Shogun so far – Most longevity as an elite fighter, best collection of trophies
by smoogy2 on Jun 14, 2010 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Shogun is the only LHW to be at very top of the division through two distinct epochs
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 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions
I would have to agree.
Shogun also secured devastating wins against guys who were elite in each era – Rampage and Arona in PRIDE (beating the guy who beat another contender for best ever, Wanderlei), and Machida in the UFC. He’s also got names like Rogerio, Overeem, and Liddell on his list of victims.
If Shogun
goes on any sort of run with the UFC belt then he will overtake Chuck. His credentials for being so young are just insane.
I agree with this. Shogun is on the cusp of taking the “greatest” title away if he can make a run as champ at LHW, but for now it belongs to the Iceman.
yep
As a huge Shogun fan, I’m horribly frightened by his continuing knee problems, however
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 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions
It's really disheartening.
Makes me wonder how he’ll do against Rashad if Evans is shooting on him all night. I would hate it if he didn’t come back strong from this surgery.
Lately, there’s been a bunch of “oh, bummer” moments when it’s come to older MMA favourites, but nothing gave me a worse feeling than hearing Shogun had to go back for another knee surgery. I really hope he comes back just as strong as he looked against Machida.
I'm just hoping he doesn't feel compelled to rush
He’s the champ, people have to wait on him now.
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 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions
I’ll also add (which I touched on), that Shogun has wins over the most impressive list of fighters, and all of the guys he’s beaten have wins over the rest of the top LHWs in history. So although Shogun hasn’t fought everyone, the guys he’s beaten have. Much like GSP with Fitch and Alves at WW, GSP has beaten the top 2 contenders, who in turn have beaten everyone else. It helps create a hierarchy at that weight.
It doesn’t mean Shogun wouldn’t ever lose to anyone on that list, but he’s connected in a favorable manner to every top LHW of those eras.
His career has wins over Rampage, Arona, Overeem, Rogerio, Machida, and Liddell. From that, those fighters hold wins over prime Liddell, Henderson, Rashad, Wanderlei, Ortiz, Franklin, Belfort, and Couture.
because for the purposes of accounting overall career accomplishments
a quantitative assessment makes sense. Chuck did the most for the longest.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
I’ll admit that was more than I was thinking but my opinion is shaped upon the sharks pool that has becoms the 205 pound division.
let’s say he beats Rashad, then avenges the Forrest loss… that puts him right there.
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 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Who does Forrest beat to get to Shogun? This is a really tough question for myself to answer. Lil Nog, Lyoto, Bones Jones, Franklin?
Franklin.
Bolts from the Blue // "He looks like a catfish" - Nick Hardwick on Brandon Siler
Bloody Elbow // " looks like your comment violated rule #4. and it’s a heck of a rule, rule #4" - Kid Nate
by Richard Wade on Jun 14, 2010 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions
We'll see what happens in the future
Luck matters, and hopefully Shogun’s knees don’t give out. But three knee surgeries—that is a lot.
Also, many of the wrestlers Chuck fought might have been kryptonite for Shogun. Babalu did fight Rua once, at the beginning of Mauricio’s career, yes, but they fought.
by Lauren J Darkbloom on Jun 14, 2010 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions
I would never hold that against Rua, he was simply very young and inexperienced when that fight happened. Imagine Rua vs Sobral today, its not even competitive.
I am. I think. I will. - Ayn Rand
I think Babalu got passed up before that fight
it was after Chuck blasted him with a kick and was it Jason Lambert that KO’d him shortly after? Don’t get me wrong I would love to see Renato return to his old ways just like so many other fighters I remember watching when I first really got into MMA.
Babalu's last fight in the UFC
showed some spark. He battered David Heath like a….insert politically correct analogy here.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
you should clarify this post with something like
“at this moment in time, chuck liddell is the best light-heavyweight ever” which you’ve certainly made a strong case for. But very very soon, there are a large number of multi-faceted crazy talented fighters that will eventually blow by him and his eulogy will read something like “best light-heayweight of his era, but was just too one-dimensional to stand the test of time” and i think that is most people’s issue.
well that and how bad he got punked by rampage
everyones favorite whipping boy
Nice Article Nate
Glad you changed the Article Title too :)
"Alas, there is no time-share on my balls." -Luke Thomas
Best LHW in UFC History.
I think Shogun is the best in MMA history.
1. Chuck
2. Wanderlei Silva
3. Tito Ortiz
Shogun will have his run and probably overtake the 3, but right now, this is the best of all time.
Seeing how Chuck can destroy arms with leg kicks and take down beautifully, Snowden is probably right. He could have been more.
Add Nogueira on the immortal list then we are good to go.
I am. I think. I will. - Ayn Rand
One of my favourite memories of Chuck...
That insane flurry he threw at Tito Ortiz that saw him collapse against the cage and crumple to the ground.
I’ll leave the “best in history” argument to everyone else. All I wanted to add is that Chuck was a fighter with a killer instinct and some of the best defensive wrestling in the division, if not the sport, and is without a doubt a legend.
Get rid of the ramp!
Everyone Hates Tito
How come beating Forrest doesn’t count? Cause it wasn’t for a title?
oh I forgot about that fight
since it happened so late in Tito’s career. Also Forrest wasn’t top 10 at that point.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
Chuck has everything that makes him the best ever
1. Exciting knockout artist
2. Had the overall skill to fight fights exactly where he wanted all the time.
3. Had perfect foils like Tito Ortiz AND Randy Couture. Tito in the ring and Randy on TV
4. Was the first big money MMA fighter
5. Transcended the sport
Sadly the fighters these days are just too good for a 40 year old timing-based fighter who’s been knocked out too much. But Chuck is the man not just by who he’s beat or how he’s beat them, but how he lead the growth of the sport.
The UFC Mount Rushmore is Chuck Liddell, Randy Couture, Tito Ortiz, and Matt Hughes for the big fighters that turned it from fighting in Doltham, Alabama to a mainstay in Las Vegas.
Vote Quimby
no love for Rich on that Mt. Rushmore?
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 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Dothan, Alabama
A UFC Mount Rushmore without Ken Shamrock or Royce Gracie? Um…
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 8:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Was Ken really that important? I know you have mentioned a few times that he was the “star” at his time, but I really don’t see anything important he has done besides being the legend every up and comer has beaten.
I am. I think. I will. - Ayn Rand
Besides being the biggest draw through three eras?
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 8:31 PM EDT up reply actions
It would be fine...
…to have a UFC Rushmore without Ken AND Royce. It’s crazy to have one without either man.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Royce definitely, but Ken is very iffy imo. I guess its his Pancrase career.
I am. I think. I will. - Ayn Rand
let's not forget that
Ken fought Royce to a draw that would’ve been a dominating decision under today’s rules at UFC 5, took the first ever Superfight Title (the direct ancestor of Fedor’s linear heavyweight championship) by beating Dan Severn at UFC 6, went on to beat Oleg Taktarov (technically a tie) and Kimo Leopoldo in further superfights.
True he never won a tournament, but I think being the first ever MMA heavyweight champion of the word counts for……A HELL OF A FUCKING LOT.
And that’s not even counting his Pancrase titles, which were considerable.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
Besides
giving Royce a beating in the rematch (draw, no judges), beating Severn, giving Taktarov a beating (draw, no judges), and beating Kimo when everyone thought he was badass?
Ken Shamrock was the best fighter in the world for a while after giving Royce that beating in the rematch.
I don’t like Ken and never have, but stop trying to deny his accomplishments.
/\ this
and you didn’t even mention beating Rutten, Funaki and Suzuki in Pancrase and basically helping to invent MMA.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
And
Answering the call to outdraw Matt Hughes 4-1 in early era Zuffa. And returning again to show the UFC brass the full potential of TUF. Brilliant career.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 14, 2010 9:11 PM EDT up reply actions
relax. The first Severn and the Taktarov fights were impressive I’ll give him that. I won’t acknowldge the Gracie fight though, all I remember was LnP, and the shoulder hits. but yeah, I can acknowledge his importance now, Thank You.
I am. I think. I will. - Ayn Rand
Yeah, he layed and prayed him so bad
Royce had to be carried out of the Octagon like a war casualty.
For me it’s Wand. When Chuck and Wand fought they were both way past their primes and I don’t think it decides who was the best lhw of all time.
In my view Pride had the best lhw’s throughout Chuck’s run and not fighting the bulk of them and losing handidly to Rampage makes me put Wand above him as well as Shogun.
Seeing Randy outstrike Chuck in some of their fights showed that his best strength wasn’t all that great. In my view Chuck is one of the best ever, definately top five, but his striking – in my view – was never that strong, his grappling never that great. Technically he could never have competed in K-1, only the small gloves – in my view – meant that his big right hand was any good at all.
I would have it Wand, Shogun, Lyoto, Liddell & Rampage …
Chuck couldn’t compete in K-1? Neither could Wand (who would have been creamed even worse than Chuck) or Shogun.
The problem with comparing the LHW’s in Pride versus the UFC is that people tend to overlook how drastically different the confluence (sorry…love that word) of styles were. The UFC was heavy with grappler/wrestlers. Pride was heavy with strikers/grapplers. Where Pride lacked in high level wrestlers, it could be said that the UFC lacked in high level strikers…at least in proportion to each other.
Pride may have had a deeper division, but I think guys like Couture, Ortiz, and Babalu (who was something special back then for those that remember) would have been tough matchups stylistically for guys like Wand, Shogun (when he was less polished), and Lil Nog. The critics always play up the one-note styles Chuck faced. What about the lack of wrestlers in Pride’s LHW division? If we’re gonna be hyper-critical about one (UFC), the other (Pride) is equally fair game.
Wand is a great fighter, and a legend, but what hurts him is that he didn’t fight the best fighter in his division at the time (Shogun, training partner or not), and could easily be 0-2 against one of Pride’s then top 3 in Arona.
by David Castillo on Jun 14, 2010 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
It’s absolutely critical to establish that post-facto evaluations of fighters to degrade wins over them is not valid. There are too many moving factors in MMA to allow for the kind of “in retrospect fighter XX wasn’t really any good because he later lost to Y and Z”.
Thank you Kid Nate! There are too many people who just don’t understand this.
I'm just a 16 year old kid who loves MMA.
I agree
Overall Chuck’s accomplishments narrowly put him #1. I would put Shogun (so far) as #2 for his 2006 run alone. While it’s true that Chuck faced many more “wrestlers” than “strikers” (then you could actually make those distinctions and they meant something unlike now with the evolution of the sport which should be represented by Mt. Helio: Royce/Rickson, Coleman/Kerr, Chuck(with a nod to Maurice Smith and Igor V.), and GSP?(or BJ or Anderson)) but Wand was at least as protected. No Shogun or Lil’ Nog. Shogun LOST to Mark Coleman. Get over it. He broke his arm trying to defend a takedown. A “lucky punch” is a bad enough copout but a “lucky broken arm”????
It is only fitting that this class is the one that doesn’t have a clearcut #1 since it has generally been considered the best/most competitive.
You will be missed Chuck
He helped get this sport where it is today, always put on exciting fights, and beat tito’s ass twice… I could not ask for more
Um...
Fighters will be respected in this thread. I don’t want to see a single “Jerry Bohlander?!? He sucked” from you ignoramuses.
The Randleman that Chuck destroyed bore little resemblance to the clownish loser of the PRIDE era that Randleman became.
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito Ortiz on Vitor Belfort at Affliction:DOR
I’ve never been a huge Liddell fan, but he’s undoubtedly ONE of the best, and I believe most mma fans realize that…
However if someone disagrees and wishes to post a reply saying so, I will not attempt to disprove their opinion by belittling them..
With that said… I think Anderson Silva is the best light heavyweight of all time… better than Chuck even…
by SkeezinSteevin on Jun 15, 2010 1:33 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
great piece Nate
I love your articles about history as well as the fight analysis. Keep them coming, they are very important in terms of educating fans like me who weren’t around or even knowing MMA existed during the Pride days (or earlier)
follow me twitter.com/GotaHemmi
by Brian Hemminger on Jun 15, 2010 10:45 AM EDT reply actions
Wanderlei Silva Is better than Chuck.
I think Wanderlei and Chuck have a lot in common. They both had long reigns when the sport was forming, and they both had some sub-par competition. However, where are they today?
Wanderlei has diversified his bonds and uses his ground game to finish fights. His training has always been top notch and he has even gone down to a different weight class because of his frame size, which I think is a great move.
Not to mention he CHANGED THE PHYSICAL STRUCTURE OF HIS FACE. When your nose is screwed up and it controls 30 percent of your cardio, it shows a level of pure commitment that I’ve never seen from Chuck.
If you look at their last few years of fights you see a sharp contrast. Wand had one brutal ko at the hands of Rampage Jackson, gave out a brutal KO to a guy who beat chuck, Keith Jardine, and lost two decisions to Franklin, and Chuck.
He then Beat a much younger fighter in Bisping and has a match with another active contender in Akiyama.
Chuck has had one brutal knockout after the other.
Wanderlei is improving, and staying competitive where chuck has stayed very one dimensional.

by 




























