The Emperor Had No Clothes: Fedor Emelianenko's One and Only MMA Loss
He's as dominant a champion as the sport has ever seen. He's been undefeated for nine and a half years. In that time Fedor Emelianenko has beaten a who's who of MMA heavyweights, running roughshod through jiu jitsu aces (like Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira and Babalu Sobral), Olympians( like Mark Coleman, Naoya Ogawa, and Matt Lindland), former UFC champions (hey there Andrei Arlovski, Kevin Randleman, and Tim Sylvia), and even a freak show opponent here and there (that's you Hong- Man Choi and Zuluzinho). He's won by devastating knockout, vicious ground and pound, submissions from the bottom, submissions from the back, and submissions from top control. Every way there is to twist, bend, or break a man-he's done it.
But despite this record of complete dominance, there is a blemish, a single mark in the loss column that prevents perfection. Yes, the Last Emperor, has tasted the bitter agony of defeat. The very thought seems impossible for many to process. We've seen him slammed on his head, wobbled by punches, and put on his back. He's always recovered to secure a win. Always, as predictable as the seasons, as death, as the tides. Yet, on one December evening in Osaka, Japan another man's hand was raised high. The organization was called RINGS. The man was Tsuyoshi Kohsaka. This is their story.
Story and videos after the jump.
Before there was the UFC, Pride, or even Pancrase, there was RINGS. A professional wrestling outfit run by a violent iconoclast named Akira Maeda, RINGS presented a unique style of pro wrestling. Even more so than its sister organization the UWF-I (whose main star was MMA pioneer Nobuhiko Takada), RINGS wanted to perpetuate the fiction that its wrestling matches were real. While Takada's group threw in some flashy throws and kicks, RINGS was a mat centric group. Men like Volk Han (and later Kiyoshi Tamura and Mikhail Ilioukhine) created spectacular matches that blurred the line between real and fake masterfully.
When the UFC grew from the mind of Rorion Gracie, RINGS was in trouble. It became obvious, seeing real fighting, that what the wrestlers were doing was mere pantomime. Still, Maeda's tremendous personal magnetism made it possible to sustain, to fend off the inevitable. The explosion of interest that followed Takada's decision to fight Rickson Gracie in Pride made the problem even more pressing. No holds barred fighting, as it was called at the time, had come barreling into the Japanese popular culture. RINGS needed to adapt or die.
Maeda made the decision, after mixing in the occasional real fight here and there for several years, to make a tremendous change in the way he did business. RINGS, kicking and screaming, went to all shoots, bouts that didn't have predetermined endings. At the age of 40, Maeda retired after a final match with Russian Olympic legend Aleksandr Karelin.Going forward, the promotion would be led by younger, hungrier, and more capable lions.
A new age was dawning and the need for legitimacy brought Tsuyoshi Kohsaka ("TK") into a more prominent role. Kohsaka had been an opening act for RINGS in the early 1990's before making a name for himself with the UFC as a fighter to be taken very, very seriously. Together with Frank Shamrock and Maurice Smith, TK formed "The Alliance" a training partnership that was one of the earliest attempts at serious cross training.
When Kohsaka was starting out in RINGS he was never a featured player. That all changed-in 1999, the promotion simply needed his legitimacy, needed him to help bridge the gap between the old era and the new. Splitting time between the UFC and RINGS, Kohsaka helped create a new star in Gilbert Yvel, took Rodrigo Nogueira to a draw, and soundly beat Randy Couture conqueror Iliokhine. The win left Kohsaka face to face with Iliokhine's Russian Top Team teammate, the then unknown Fedor Emelianenko.
It sounds ridiculous today, but in 2000, Kohsaka was considered a heavy favorite over the young Russian. TK had the UFC pedigree after all and had beaten Pete Williams and taken Bas Rutten to the limit in a bout to name a top contender for the UFC heavyweight championship. At the time, the strange stoppage was not at all earth shattering. Fans in the Osaka Prefectural Gymnasium, an 8000 seat arena known mostly for its yearly sumo matches, had no idea they had witnessed history.
Seconds into the fight Kohsaka swung and missed with a right hand. As his hand sped by, his elbow clipped Emelianenko on his right eye. Just moments later, the fight is stopped. A gaping hole appears, as if from nowhere, on Fedor's stoic face. Traditionally, a fight stopped early because of an inadvertent foul would be called a no-contest. There was no winner or loser in this bout-it was simply an unfortunate incident that stopped the fight early. But this was Japan, not Nevada, and the fight was part of a multi-show tournament to crown the RINGS King of Kings Champion. The show had to go on, as did Kohsaka, who lost to Couture in the tournament's quarterfinals two months later in Tokyo.
After their aborted battle of wills, Kohsaka and Fedor saw their careers head in remarkably different directions. Fedor, of course, never lost again. For TK, the trajectory was straight down. He lost five of his next nine, falling short against meaningful competition while feasting on lesser lights. A man who once competed for the UFC title suddenly seemed like the sport had passed him by. Undersized for a heavyweight, Kohsaka never seemed to find his place in the modern era of MMA. In 2005, Fedor finally got a shot at redemption. TK was brutalized in a fight that eventually had to be stopped by the ringside doctors. Emelianenko may have avenged his only loss, but when history is written in the years to come, Kohsaka will have the last laugh. No matter the circumstances the statistics never lie-on December 22, 2000 he beat the best fighter in the world.
Fedor Emelianenko vs Tsuyoshi Kohsaka (via Mateuspancano)
Emelianenko vs Tsuyoshi Kohsaka 1/2 (via panqueh)
Emelianenko vs Tsuyoshi Kohsaka 2/2 (via panqueh)
Jonathan Snowden is the author of Total MMA: Inside Ultimate Fighting and The MMA Encyclopedia (in stores this winter). You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook.
122 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
how dare you insinuate
that TK only won on a technicality? you and your damn liberal agenda, Snowden!
/jk
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Kid Nate on Jun 21, 2010 11:45 AM EDT reply actions 6 recs
RINGS scoring rewarded attempts to finish the fight, not ring control, takedowns or mount, because they don’t actually finish the fight. Because of that, Lay and Pray wasn’t nearly as good as it is today. Arona got the mount and takedowns partly because Fedor knew that submission efforts from the back counted more; he threw kneebars and kept Arona in a guillotine for nearly seven minutes. Arona did get some rib punches in the first round, which won him that round, but then he did nothing but hold onto Fedor in the second and got rocked in overtime to take the loss.
Frankly, I think Schilt was a much closer fight than Arona.
by Tim the Enchanter on Jun 21, 2010 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Best blow in the fight
was Arona kneeing Fedors face flat.
yeah under unified rules but they were fighting under different rules that they knew about so aronas plan of just takedowns and then doing nothing earned him a loss as he should have adjusted his game to fit the rules he was fighting under, that was a legit win for fedor so no need to try to discredit 10 years later!!
Maybe his official “loss” to Kohsaka could be attributed to some bad karma for his official “win” over Arona. For me, Fedor has one loss and that was to Ricardo Arona but Kohsaka gets to brag about it.
do you not understand that you cant go by the rules of chess when you are playing checkers?!
by Hades on Jun 21, 2010 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
All I am saying is that just because they choose to judge a fight using a particular criteria doesn’t mean I have to agree with it. They obviously saw the fight one way and I saw it another.
i see what ur saying but when you go into a match knowing you have to go for the finish but all you can do is hold onto your opponent then you deserve a loss
it could be that when someone is being controlled effectively it is because the person on bottom is becoming offensive so the person playing top game is fighting more conservatively to just control which imo is not a good way to win if you are being judged on effort to finish
many pride matches would have went the other way in the ufc so u cant discredit those decisions as well, when you go into a game knowing the rules you have to adapt your game to those rules or lose, arona needed to go for the finish
Using your rationale, all MMA fights should not be looked at the same way. If fights in different promotions or different eras are judged using different judging criteria we shouldn’t regard one win the same as another.
Personally, when I watch fights I use the modern, universally-accepted format for judging (in the United States anyways). It doesn’t matter if I’m watching a fight from 10 years ago or live. The judging format used today is the fairest way to judge a fight. To me they were using a flawed judging format. So, in my opinion, if a guy receives a win via a flawed judging format, that win is therefore flawed.
Even though the fighters are aware of the ruleset they’re operating under and that gameplans therefore change according to rules?
by Nick_ on Jun 21, 2010 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Correct
You shouldn’t view wins with different views the same.
I believe the gent above mentioned chess and checkers.
by Body Triangle on Jun 21, 2010 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions
But he also said that we shouldn’t discredit wins via a different set of judging criteria, which is the fundamental disagreement here (by different I mean the one they obviously used in RINGS and other promotions of that era, which I disagree with).
ah shit
you’re right. Well…i guess if you know the rules previously, you should play to the rules, and the outcome should be respected. But honestly…this is a murky situation
by Body Triangle on Jun 21, 2010 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions
So basically, if you don’t like the rules, you discount the win? You have basically just invalidated every sports result in history based on your whims. They changed the mound height in baseball in the 60s; do you discredit everything that came before that? What about basketball before the three point line? Boxing with the 15 round system? You might as well say that Super Bowl 36 didn’t count because there was a different definition of the five-yard interference penalty and it allowed the Patriots to mug everyone.
The fact is, everyone played by those rules, so the result is legitimate under those rules. You can say that the fight would have been different under different rules, which is correct, but it doesn’t mean Fedor didn’t win the fight. He won the fight under the rules by which it was judged, and his game plan was based on those rules. You can’t arbitrarily impose rules and then condemn someone for failing to meet them. That’s insane.
by Lordjimbo2 on Jun 21, 2010 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
How can you say my logic is insane when we are talking about sport with a loose scoring critiera that leaves the scoring of fights that go the full duration up to the "whims" of the judges? It’s not like basketball or baseball where the scoring systems are strictly defined and easily visible to the viewing audience. In MMA when a fight goes to a judges’ decision the winner is solely decided on personal interpretation. Yet I am not allowed to have my own? So what you’re saying is that I should accept any decision that judges make no matter how egregious I may feel it is? You’re portraying me to be the type of person who questions every result, no matter if it is a KO or submission (which are definable routes of victory); which I really don’t know how you came to that conclusion. I think you are totally off base and have deliberately misinterpreted everything I said so you go on your “whimsical” diatribe.
I actually agree with you generally that old MMA with strange rules should be viewed differently than modern MMA fights. But you’re off the mark in terms of calling Fedor’s win over Arona a loss because of how the fight would be judged under the unified rules.
All we’re saying is that if a fight has agreed upon judging criteria, and the fighters and judges understand it, you can’t use some other criteria and judge that fight afterwards.
Soccer kicks are illegal under unified rules. Do you consider all victories by soccer kick to be DQ’s? Of course not, because both fighters agreed to the rules beforehand. Likewise, they agreed about how they would be judged.
Use all ten points.
ok now u r basing wins on YOUR opinion and not who fought the best under the rules they went into contract with understanding, this is the point im tryin to make.
Who are u to say a judging format is flawed when you think the current judging formati isn’t, i think more people would agree the current judging using a point system based on boxing is more flawed than the Japanese way of judging a fight. The japanese go by effort to finish and damage more than awarding control. To me this is what matters at the end of the day. The Japanese judge fights like the way we did when we would see a fight in school, it doesnt matter what happens in the fight, it matters who walks away bloody and who walks away unhurt
i mean judging format when i say rules, they went into fight knowing how it would be judged so arona should have went for subs while he was on top since he couldnt strike, all he did was control where the fight was taking place but he was not going for the sub like fedor was so based on the judging format, arona lost, The Japanese view a fight on who came closest to finishing not who controlled the most, that is why you can be losing 99% of a fight but if in the last minute you beat the shit ouft of the opponent and that fighter barely survives the fight then the win can go to the opponent that only had that last minute rally
I distinctly remember Arona going for a few Americanas and a RNC (memory is a little fuzzy, haven’t watched that fight recently)
I made the distinction that what I was writing was my opinion. I understand that my opinion is not fact and we could go on all day about which judging criteria is better, but for the sake of not wasting either of our time lets not go there (because it will never get resolved). And it again, it is MY OPINION that Fedor beat Arona via flawed judging.
Again, the judging was correct, based on the rules. The rules may not have been comprehensive, but then again neither are the rules of the current UFC (no soccer kicks, knees, etc, have led to wrestling dominance). Heck, the whole sport doesn’t allow eye gouges, biting or fatal strikes, putting a lot of traditional standing arts at a disadvantage and making holds a lot more useful than they are in real life; does that mean that none of the results are legitimate? No. It means that, based on the rules of the organization, which both fighters agree to and tailor their game plans to, the result is legitimate. Don’t want to fight wrestlers? Go to DREAM and kick them. Don’t want to get kicked in the head? Sign with the UFC. Your win or loss will occur under those rules, and be legitimate.
You’re welcome to your opinion, just realize that it is logically indefensible.
MMA fights should NOT be looked at the same
because the fighters are not fighting the same fight. They’re looking for wins under the rules they’re competing in, and they’ve therefore taylored their style to those rules.
Example. Lets say we have 2 orgs, A and B. Org A favors control, org B favors damage. If the same fighter fights in both orgs, you can’t expect that he’ll fight the same way; the fighter will adjust his approach to the fight in order to win under the predetermined rules. For the sake of argument, lets say that our fighter used lay and pray to win his fight in org A, and then went on to win his fight in org B by letting his opponent control him the whole fight, but defending blows and landing a few of his own, one of which breaks his opponents nose and therefore draws a lot of blood.
Now lets say org C exists 20 years in the future, and operates under the modern, unified rules. What you’re doing, is looking back at our fighter, and saying that he really lost his fight in org B because he was controlled the whole fight, and under the rules of org C, that’s a loss. You’re imposing your own criteria, which has absolutely no relevance, and assuming that had these criteria been agreed upon at the time of the match, the fight would have played out exactly the same way. This is as wrong as wrong gets.
by Shaun32887 on Jun 21, 2010 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
That's absurd
The fighters understand the scoring criteria and therefore adapt their techniques to fit those rules. They’re not fighting to win a fight, they’re fighting to win a victory under the set of rules/scoring criteria they agreed to. To impose another set of scoring criteria and they rule it a loss is ridiculous.
This is like hypothetically saying that you rule the Randleman fight a loss, because you’ve independently determined that the first fighter to get suplexed loses. The fighters are not concerned with your criteria and therefore aren’t fighting to meet it. You have no way of saying that Fedor still would have gotten suplexed had he agreed to that rule, and similarly you have no way of saying that Fedor would have fought exactly the same way had it not been under the RINGS rules.
by Shaun32887 on Jun 21, 2010 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
What exactly are your intentions with this piece?
I’d read it for myself but I’m scared your writing would brainwash me into believing your sinister lies. Quick, someone call DanielH in here to help.
"Sometimes hype just ain't enough." - Jens Pulver on his win over BJ Penn
by lowellthehammer on Jun 21, 2010 11:53 AM EDT reply actions
especially
don’t trust the videos! They’re full up with Snowden’s evil “intentions”
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
Great Article
I really like these historical pieces. Please keep them coming.
Mr Snowden you’re the best MMA writer on the scene. When is your latest book on release in the UK? Bloody Elbow is the best website around cause it’s writers are genuine MMA fans who know its history, not come lately chancers like Davies and Mcneil.
by sheikybaby on Jun 21, 2010 12:00 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I hope in UK at launch but...
With Total MMA it took several months to get the book into the UK. I hope we do much better this time around. I will post details when I know more. Thanks for asking.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 21, 2010 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks. I appreciate your support.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 22, 2010 1:16 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions

"Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy motherf**ker" - Jules Winnfield
"A good word that I got from the Mike Tyson Documentary... I'm going to absolutley decimate this motherf**ker, I haven't been in the dictionary to see what it actually means but I'm guessing it's going to be something in the way of just killing a motherf**ker." -Paul Daley (on the definition of Decimate)
by WeaponElDeem on Jun 21, 2010 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
I don't get all the Snowden=leftist jokes in this thread.
Anybody care to explain?
If you fight, you fight. If you hope, you hope.
Go back through his posting history
He’ll throw in some slight political jabs here and there. That and he’s a fairly intelligent, well-spoken dude, so surely he must be a liberal hack. Mostly he’s just a dirty socialist (I keed, I keed).
"The mat is my church, the ground is my heaven, Jiu-Jitsu is my religion. And once you hit the ground you're in my world..."
oh man if TK never clipped him with his elbow, we would have had couture vs emelianenko like 11 years ago!!! crazy!!
by Hades on Jun 21, 2010 12:05 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I never even thought of that. Man. What a bummer.
by Tim the Enchanter on Jun 21, 2010 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions
I can't handle the truth Snowden!
this must be propaganda and tom foolery with photoshop with the videos…
Take ONE Karate class, if you're so into Karate... - Charlie to Mac
IF YOU CANNOT WRESTLE, FIND ANOTHER PROFESSION...
Not seen in the video?
Chuck Liddell sneakily poking Fedor through the ring ropes.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 21, 2010 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Was this before or after
he drastically overrated the talent of th LW division in the WEC?
"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 21, 2010 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
It was around the time Couture killed affliction…
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 21, 2010 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Affliction killed Affliction
Don’t bank your promotion on a fight you don’t have signed sealed and delivered. Nor own the rights to even if you do get it signed.
by MattParker117 on Jun 21, 2010 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Due to your leftist agenda I will no longer support you as a writer
It is obvious that Fedor didn’t lose and to insinuate that he did is laughable! He wasn’t beaten! LONG LIVE FEDOR!
Follow me on twitter @thisredengine
Also please check out SBnation's Red Bulls blog @ www.onceametro.com
Btw, another great piece of writing..
Take ONE Karate class, if you're so into Karate... - Charlie to Mac
IF YOU CANNOT WRESTLE, FIND ANOTHER PROFESSION...
Watch Fedor in the first video. When they were working on his cut and the ref called the fight, he actually looked pissed off for a blink of a second.
Behave with confidence
Title is a little too pithy though
Behave with confidence
by Postpubescent on Jun 21, 2010 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh give me a break
Emelianenko may have avenged his only lost, but when history is written in the years to come, Kohsaka will have the last laugh.
Typo aside, the notion that Kohsaka could conceivably brag about this is ridiculous. It’s a) one of the silliest ways to win and b) as we all know, he got blown up during the second fight where illegal strikes weren’t landed.
Is it a loss on the record? Obviously. It’s about as legit a loss as Jones’ to Hammil or Coleman’s to Takada back in that worked PRIDE match years ago.
Circa 2048, old man with his grandchild.
Child: So father, tell me how you beat the best fighter in the world
Old Man: I clipped him with an elbow in a fight where elbows were illegal. This opened up a big cut on his head and the doctors had to stop it. Since it was a tournament, and here in Japan the rules are fuzzy anyway, I advanced in the tournament instead of being disqualified. That’s how I beat the most dominant fighter of the era.
Child: … What’s on TV?
http://mixedmartialartsblogger.wordpress.com/
by Cory Braiterman on Jun 21, 2010 12:11 PM EDT reply actions
should be "so grandfather"
but meh.
http://mixedmartialartsblogger.wordpress.com/
by Cory Braiterman on Jun 21, 2010 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions
good read
"Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy motherf**ker" - Jules Winnfield
"A good word that I got from the Mike Tyson Documentary... I'm going to absolutley decimate this motherf**ker, I haven't been in the dictionary to see what it actually means but I'm guessing it's going to be something in the way of just killing a motherf**ker." -Paul Daley (on the definition of Decimate)
RINGS was not MMA!
I will shout this as early and often as I can. Without striking on the ground, it’s a different sport. It was hybrid wrestling or shootfighting or something, but not MMA. Take Randy Couture as the example. In those days, Randy had rudimentary stand-up and no submissions. How exactly was he supposed to win those fights? His takedowns did no good without the ability to ground-and-pound.
I know this insults people because they think it makes fighters’ accomplishments in RINGS seem less significant, but it doesn’t. Removing an entire facet of the sport does not mean a different rule set, it means a different sport.
Think about it this way: Can you really consider the records of football players in the era before the forward pass to be similar to those that came after? We may call them both football players, but they were playing a fundamentally dissimilar game.
by AnnieAgee on Jun 21, 2010 12:18 PM EDT reply actions 5 recs
In American football, the original rules called for a game similar to rugby, where you could not throw the ball forward, only backward and to the side. In 1906, the rules were changed so you could throw the ball, solidifying the position of quarterback, creating the position of wide receiver, and fundamentally altering the game:
when football first started back in the like 1800s, there were no forward passes allowed, so it was all run plays and backward passes, most plays incorporated what we call “the West Coast Weave” where players keep running forward and as they are about to be tackled they lateral to a teammate behind them to continue the play, a totally different game just like Rings and modern MMA
I don’t think RINGS was that fundamentally different. Limited striking on the ground, true, but essentially a very similar game. Would you consider UFC bouts a different sport prior to the Unified Rules?
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 21, 2010 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions
yes it is essentially the same fundamentally as both orgs have two competitors trying to ko or sub each other but the rules were different making the game different.
my point is that if Rings rules were in effect then Gegard is the LHW champ and all this talk that Gegard is overrated would be silly. But you make a slight rule change and everyone says Gegard is overrated so imo it is a totally diff game.
That is certainly a valid argument.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 21, 2010 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions
I’ve never gotten full clarity on the ground striking rules in RINGS. Were all strikes illegal or only strikes to the head?
In any case, I see a clear difference between modifying the legal strike types (headbutts, kicks, knees, etc.) and banning all of them. It boils down to the abandonment of an entire skill-set that we consider vital to success in MMA, namely ground-and-pound, or conversely, being able to land submissions while still having to worry about getting hit.
Consider the football analogy: How would Peyton Manning fare as a QB in arena football or in the CFL? My guess is he’d still be the best QB in either of those leagues, despite the fact that they employ variations on the rules. How would Peyton Manning fare in the sport of Rugby League (as opposed to Rugby Union)? Very poorly. Rugby League may be a very similar game to football, but Manning’s talents are useless, just like Couture’s were or Mark Coleman’s would have been.
Jonathan, do you have any way of tracking how many units your books moves per month? I’d be curious to see how many have sold in June, especially after DanielH.
I plan on picking it up myself after I finish The Fighter’s Mind.
I don't personally
The publisher does. I will look for a spike. Amazingly, a long time after the book was first released, we still see a spike with every major UFC event.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 21, 2010 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Great Article Jonathan
I also just picked up your book, the early history of MMA is some incredibly interesting stuff!
I hope it keeps selling well :)
"Alas, there is no time-share on my balls." -Luke Thomas
Thank you. I hope it keeps starts selling well too. :)
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 21, 2010 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions
You mean
that when you publish a book you aren’t automatically: 1. Invited on Oprah 2. Because of 1 you sell 6 million copies or 3. You can retire and rest on the royalties and money made from your book?!
My dreams are shattered :(
"Alas, there is no time-share on my balls." -Luke Thomas
If the book was selling incredibly well would he be slumming it with the likes of us?
"The only reason I'm cryin is cuz of the adrenaline."
by Earl Montclair on Jun 21, 2010 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah great article.
I appreciate the effort you put into this one. I had never seen the Fedor vs. TK videos before, and only read about the cut.
Thanks!
If you fight, you fight. If you hope, you hope.
Fixed
Thanks.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 21, 2010 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions
The TK rematch was in 2005, not 2000 as the article states
In 2000, Fedor finally got a shot at redemption.
Needs to be changed.
Good account overall.
Amazing Fedor-related news:
M-1’s Evgeni Kogan says official Fedor sweater in t-shirt form is in production!
"He hit like a bitch."
You say that something like this would never happen in Nevada. It did though, Kevin Burns won a fight against Anthony Johnson by way of illegal eye poke. It’s happened again since too.
Back to the story though, I’m always annoyed when people bring up this “loss” of Fedor’s record. Interesting back story, I knew TK was big in Japan but not to that extent. It helps to possibly explain why things ended the way they did. Either way the rules are clearer these days due to incidents like this one.
You are right about Bruns-Johnson. Indescribably bad decision.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 21, 2010 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions
I am unclear on the rules in the second fight and I obviously don’t understand Japanese. Was that kick to the head that Fedor landed while TK was down around the one minute mark in the first video legal, or was Fedor just getting a little revenge?
Ubereem is here to kill the Finkelstein monster!
Good stuff
This is really the kind of stuff which BE needed to be even better. Please keep it up.
Fedors loss reminds me of that pitcher who threw the almost perfect game but got screwed by the ump. Maybe there should be in asterisk in the record books*
I dont get the unfunny "Leftist" jokes
but this is a dimepiece, Jonster
Inhale deep, like the words of my breath—I never sleep, cause sleep is the cousin of death
by Anthony Pace on Jun 21, 2010 2:15 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Maybe you’d find it funnier if you weren’t a leftist yourself? ;~)
Check out my MMA highlight videos!
http://www.dailymotion.com/WheelchairBandit
I'm struggling to come up with a counter-argument
Inhale deep, like the words of my breath—I never sleep, cause sleep is the cousin of death
by Anthony Pace on Jun 22, 2010 12:45 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
TK's thoughts?
Has anyone ever read an interview or comment from TK regarding his “win” over Fedor?
I’d like for someone to ask TK, “How do you feel about being the only man to have a win against Fedor?”
My guess is that he wouldn’t consider it a legit win. If someone can find something on this from TK I’d be much appreciated
FWIW
TK never fought for the UFC heavyweight title.He was in two #1 contender fights in the UFC-one against Bas Rutten and one against Pedro Rizzo-and lost both.That’s the closest TK ever came to fighting for the UFC heavyweight title.
Check out my MMA highlight videos!
http://www.dailymotion.com/WheelchairBandit
Brian, if I had met you two months ago I would have hired you to edit the new book. Tremendous eye.
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 21, 2010 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Arona beat him, even under RINGS rules.
Yep, people can excuse the TK loss all they want but that still leaves Arona as Fedor’s lone MMA loss.
"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/
DAMN IT!
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 21, 2010 6:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Such a huge what if!
"The best book on the real history of MMA that I've seen," Dave Meltzer
by Jonathan Snowden on Jun 21, 2010 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions
That was serious BS in the first round of the second fight where they give Kohsaka like 3 mins to recover from the inital attack of Fedor.
Who’s to say that the punch didn’t cut Fedor,instead of the elbow?Matt Lindland cut Fedor pretty darn good with a very simmilar punch,minus the elbow.It doesn’t even look like the elbow lands in the video-it’s more of the forearm.
If I was Werdum on Saturday,I’d be throwing all the inline elbows I could while on the feet.If there’s one certain way to beat Fedor,cutting him is the way to do it.
Check out my MMA highlight videos!
http://www.dailymotion.com/WheelchairBandit
Overeem + elbow and knee liposuction = great success
I'm the best ever. You're the most average in a minute.
by slapjaw ackrite on Jun 22, 2010 12:44 AM EDT up reply actions

by 

























