Bruce Lee as an MMA Fighter?

Training
21

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

[quote]jackedmf-er wrote:
You’re all a bunch of peter puffers. Fighting is the same as it always has been. There are no new styles out there. The fighting styles of MMA fighters nowadays are all ancient fighting styles that were around even when Bruce Lee was. If a person was to read any of his writings or listen to a thing he said, you would realize that he was one of the best fighters to live. [/quote]

I would almost agree with you except steroids and strength training is much better now. I do think skills were much better back in Bruce Lee’s era. These young idiots now seem to think people worked on one thing and never sparred with each other.

They can’t seem to put two and two together and figure out that people from different fighting backgrounds respected him because they trained with him at some point to exchange techniques and applications. But then again I guess every modern day person who never trained against him knows more than all the people that did.[/quote]

“Jacked mfer” is clearly a bullshitter as well…probably this faggot vampire with a different handle. Save your breath with this topic, I’m telling you.

22

crap, i try to give a big and insighting post and the trolls get all the attention. Fuck you Vampires.

23

Kaiser,

Train wrecks get attention.

Such is life.

I remember Coleman winning the Grand Prix, he went from “washed up”, KO’d by Smith and Williams, to a best in the world candidate over night. Great stuff.

So, I will try to ask this in an intelligent manner?

Of the Hammer House group/hangers at HW on who was the best in pure wrestling, and who would have one in MMA? The choices being Tom Erikson, Randleman, Coleman, and Kerr. How do they stack up in wrestling to Lesnar?

Would any of the above in their prime beat Randy Couture at HW? (Before answering No in reflex lets consider how difficult Couture found it to work off his back against bigger men.)

Regards,

Robert A

24

Robert A,

Thanks for the kind words above, appreciate it.

In regards to your Hammer House question, I honestly think that had he not become addicted to pain meds/heroin, and had MMA stayed closer to true Vale Tudo events (which allowed things like headbutts) Mark Kerr would have been one of the greatest HW’s of all time.

But, mental toughness/emotional well being is part of what makes an athlete great, and he just didn’t have it.

25

I watched Mark Kerr beat Randy Couture in the NCCA finals in 1992
that was at 190- before steroids and other junk.

I would say Kerr had the most ability if he stayed straight but Im biased.

26

[quote]Robert A wrote:
Kaiser,

Train wrecks get attention.

Such is life.

I remember Coleman winning the Grand Prix, he went from “washed up”, KO’d by Smith and Williams, to a best in the world candidate over night. Great stuff.

So, I will try to ask this in an intelligent manner?

Of the Hammer House group/hangers at HW on who was the best in pure wrestling, and who would have one in MMA? The choices being Tom Erikson, Randleman, Coleman, and Kerr. How do they stack up in wrestling to Lesnar?

Would any of the above in their prime beat Randy Couture at HW? (Before answering No in reflex lets consider how difficult Couture found it to work off his back against bigger men.)

Regards,

Robert A[/quote]

Kerr is the Brock Lesnar from late 90’s, he showed how pure wrestling technique and muscle could steamroll every bjj practitioner and striker out there.

I do believe that Kerr would be able to put Brock on his back with relative ease.

Couture who weighed 220lbs came pretty close of putting Brock on his back on some attempts. Just imagine what a peak Kerr would do, headbutt to hell.

27

[quote]kaisermetal wrote:
Kerr is the Brock Lesnar from late 90’s, he showed how pure wrestling technique and muscle could steamroll every bjj practitioner and striker out there.

I do believe that Kerr would be able to put Brock on his back with relative ease.

Couture who weighed 220lbs came pretty close of putting Brock on his back on some attempts. Just imagine what a peak Kerr would do, headbutt to hell.
[/quote]

I think Kerr had quite a bit more grappling ability than Brock. Not only more technical wrestling, though Brock has farm more technique than many give him credit for, but submissions and sub-defense as well.

I do not see Brock, or Carwin, or Cain for that matter hanging with Ze Mario in an ADCC super fight. I just don’t see it. Sperry would have taken a submission home on any of those guys. He couldn’t with Kerr.

I completely agree with the rest of your post.

kmcnyc,

You say you are biased towards Kerr, is there history there?

Also, where does Dan Severn figure into this pecking order with regards to wrestling? He always struck me as a class act, and gets points for the whole “take off disgusting t-shirt, wipe armpit, wipe armpit, THEN WIPE FACE. Now slap yourself silly” pre-fight ritual.

Regards,

Robert A

28

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
mental toughness/emotional well being is part of what makes an athlete great[/quote]

Quoted for truth.

This is what keeps Tyson so far down on my list of great HW’s. He proved that he cannot handle adversity in the ring and absolutely melts down when forced to endure the kind of fouling/pro tricks Holyfield brought to the table. This is why I think he would do so poorly against many of the other all time greats.

Regards,

Robert A

29

Kaiser that was a fantastic post on Hammer house-
you are unblocked.

see - im not that mean.

RobertA

Kerr and I where teammates briefly.

you can do the math there I think right :slight_smile:

ok one clue Gene Mills.

he was wrapping up his time there and I was figuring out the red shirt situation
from taking time to go to the OTC.
and also realizing that I could not keep up at that level.

We where at such different weight classes our interaction was kind of minimal
strangely we where both in Arizona at the same time for a while too-

that is another story altogether.

Kerr is by far the superior technician and has superb take downs over Brock.
his ground work is better too

they would have never competed in college Kerr was 190 or 198 that year I thin it was 190.
and Brock well he was his same size then.

Coleman beat Kerr, and Randy, and kind of spanked most guys a year or two before like 90 or 91.
Coleman from what I remember kind of spanked guys on the freestyle team-too.
that was his peak.

Kerr Beat Couture NCAA in 92 and that was probably the last time he had his act together mentally.
It was a HUGE win as Randy was at Oaklahoma and this was probably SU best showing
at Midlands - and then NCAA finals since mid 80’s.

I feel like such a name dropper geez

I should just say me an Tate just squatted while I am at it

30

[quote]Robert A wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
mental toughness/emotional well being is part of what makes an athlete great[/quote]

Quoted for truth.

This is what keeps Tyson so far down on my list of great HW’s. He proved that he cannot handle adversity in the ring and absolutely melts down when forced to endure the kind of fouling/pro tricks Holyfield brought to the table. This is why I think he would do so poorly against many of the other all time greats.

Regards,

Robert A[/quote]

I have been lurking in the hope that someone would say something where I have a clue what they are talking about!

Tyson is an enigma. I think he is impossible to place. Tyson at 20-22 is the most formidable fighter I have ever seen. I truely believe that that Tyson would have faired well against any heavyweight in history, and I would personally put my money on him at that age, as that animal, to win.

Tyson was a totally different fighter post 23. Unrecognisable when compared with the fighter that went before. The Tyson that fought from Buster Douglas through to Lennox Lewis lacked many of the attributes that saw him decimate earlier opponents. His defence was gone, his extraordinary aggression was gone, and his desire to win was gone. I agree that this diminishes him as a fighter when viewed over the course of his career. But I am of the firm opinion that prime Mike Tyson, short as that period may have been, is the best heavyweight fighter ever to have fought.

31

[quote]kaisermetal wrote:
Bruce Lee was just a skinny asian actor with “tales” about his glory days on china, which no ones has recorded or ever saw.

[/quote]

dude, did you not just watch the video. those aren’t “tales”. those are facts. this guy trained with top fighters back then, and they all say, they couldn’t touch this guy. open your mind. the guy was a martial artist, long before he ever became an actor.

32

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:

go watch the ali vs foreman fight sometime. it only last 8 rounds. the first 3 rounds, ali was killing foreman. then ali just fought smart, foreman got tired, a few rounds later, ali knocked him out. no matter how foreman fought him, he get killed. if foreman didn’t attack as much, ali would dance around and pick him apart all night long. go watch the first 3 rounds of that fight.[/quote]

Fuck off man. Go somewhere else and do this shit. They should have banned your ass a while ago now douchebag.[/quote]

banned me for what. speaking the truth. have you actually even seen that fight. I bet you haven’t little man. they don’t bann people for speaking their mind and being honest. I have forgotten more about boxing, than you will ever know.

33

[quote]LondonBoxer123 wrote:
Tyson is an enigma. I think he is impossible to place. Tyson at 20-22 is the most formidable fighter I have ever seen. I truely believe that that Tyson would have faired well against any heavyweight in history, and I would personally put my money on him at that age, as that animal, to win.

Tyson was a totally different fighter post 23. Unrecognisable when compared with the fighter that went before. The Tyson that fought from Buster Douglas through to Lennox Lewis lacked many of the attributes that saw him decimate earlier opponents. His defence was gone, his extraordinary aggression was gone, and his desire to win was gone. I agree that this diminishes him as a fighter when viewed over the course of his career. But I am of the firm opinion that prime Mike Tyson, short as that period may have been, is the best heavyweight fighter ever to have fought. [/quote]

I can see why you would say that, but I see it a bit different.

The prime Tyson used skills that he seemed to forget later. Defense being a big one, but also setting up his punches. I think this meant that his aggression went from mind blowingly effective, to something to be countered.

My view, and I did not like coming to it because watching Tyson beat Trevor Berbick on TV was the fight that made me fall in love with boxing, is that Tyson was the best in the world at solving problems that were easy for him. If he could cut angles, slip punches, and land he would dismantle guys.

Two issues: Style, I never see Tyson beating George Foreman, bad style match up for him. Cus D’Amato supposedly told Tyson to never figtht a fighter like Foreman.

When he was “prime” we have tape of fights where everything goes right. The closest to difficult was the Bone Crusher Smith fight, but Tyson was never close to frustrated in that fight. I realize that under D’Amato and Rooney he looked unstoppable, but he also never ran into Holyfield or Lewis until later. The question with Tyson was always his mental game, and it was always weak. If a prime Tyson had the advantage the fight was over, but I think if ANY Tyson found himself at a disadvantage than he starts to break down.

Regards,

Robert A

34

I could never figure Foreman out. He seemed like he should lose a boxing match to a small mechanical sheep and yet was able to quite effectively block and land punches wayyy past his prime.

I would love to see Tyson in the ring with any hall of famer. I just happen to be of the opinion that he would lose to most of them.

Tyson vs. Joe Frazier FTW

35

[quote]Robert A wrote:

[quote]LondonBoxer123 wrote:
Tyson is an enigma. I think he is impossible to place. Tyson at 20-22 is the most formidable fighter I have ever seen. I truely believe that that Tyson would have faired well against any heavyweight in history, and I would personally put my money on him at that age, as that animal, to win.

Tyson was a totally different fighter post 23. Unrecognisable when compared with the fighter that went before. The Tyson that fought from Buster Douglas through to Lennox Lewis lacked many of the attributes that saw him decimate earlier opponents. His defence was gone, his extraordinary aggression was gone, and his desire to win was gone. I agree that this diminishes him as a fighter when viewed over the course of his career. But I am of the firm opinion that prime Mike Tyson, short as that period may have been, is the best heavyweight fighter ever to have fought. [/quote]

I can see why you would say that, but I see it a bit different.

The prime Tyson used skills that he seemed to forget later. Defense being a big one, but also setting up his punches. I think this meant that his aggression went from mind blowingly effective, to something to be countered.

My view, and I did not like coming to it because watching Tyson beat Trevor Berbick on TV was the fight that made me fall in love with boxing, is that Tyson was the best in the world at solving problems that were easy for him. If he could cut angles, slip punches, and land he would dismantle guys.

Two issues: Style, I never see Tyson beating George Foreman, bad style match up for him. Cus D’Amato supposedly told Tyson to never figtht a fighter like Foreman.

When he was “prime” we have tape of fights where everything goes right. The closest to difficult was the Bone Crusher Smith fight, but Tyson was never close to frustrated in that fight. I realize that under D’Amato and Rooney he looked unstoppable, but he also never ran into Holyfield or Lewis until later. The question with Tyson was always his mental game, and it was always weak. If a prime Tyson had the advantage the fight was over, but I think if ANY Tyson found himself at a disadvantage than he starts to break down.

Regards,

Robert A[/quote]

well put. But i would go further. everyone of tysons earlier fights were bums. total bums. Think of all the fighters tyson beat, not one was any good. Spinks" a blown up light heavyweight, lol. Trevor Burbick, that guy sucked. even in his so called prime, you saw certain guys, when they used a certain style, they frustrated tyson…"mitch blood green, as you said, bone crusher smith. there was another guy, when he was unifying the belts, can’t place is his name though. But the moment tyson fought someone really good, like holyfield, he folded and got knocked out.

36

Belfort is MMA version of Tyson

Yay i’m not blocked anymore /o/

37

I agree that Tyson would quite possibly loose to Foreman. I see it going fairly similarly to how it went with Smokin’ Joe, one of my favorite fighters of all time.

I think it is a very interesting debate to be had. I just don’t think there are many fighters that have had to contend with what Tyson had to deal with in the period that lead from him being the devastating 22 year old to the predictable version he was in later years. I did go through a phase of feeling that his mental weakness probably ruled him out of being a top all time fighter.

I don’t feel, seeing him being interviewed now, that he is a man who is mentally weak. Rather I feel he is a man who understandably lost all motivation to be involved in the sport following a run of abuse and ill-fortune which broke him down. I appreciate that sounds contradictory, so i will try, and probably fail, to make the distinction I believe exists.

In my limited, and exclusively amateur experience, I always felt that however technical a fighter you were, you always had to want to be in the ring. If you weren’t then you wouldnt be prepared to take the punches you needed to take at times. I don’t personally feel that a fighter who doesnt want to be in the ring and who suffers when questions are then asked is necessarily a fighter who is only capable of beating opponents he has an edge over.

I feel that the young Tyson, the motivated Tyson, before he had been brought down by the parasites, the jail sentence and all the bullshit, was a totally different animal to the later Tyson. I believe that in his early years as champion Tyson did have the wherewithall and nouse to deal with adversity. I don’t feel he lacked mental strength per se, but rather that he was the victim of an extraordinary amount of pressure from a lot of different people, all of whom were taking advantage of him.

I don’t think any fighter in history has suffered so much at the hands of so many. I think the understandable turmoil he was constantly experiencing diminished his resolve and his desire to find solutions when in the ring. I dont feel the young Tyson suffered in the same way, and I believe it is that version of Tyson that it is most fair to compare with other great heavyweights in their peaks. In such a comparison, I believe he fairs better than almost any.

38

[quote]kaisermetal wrote:
Kerr is the Brock Lesnar from late 90’s, he showed how pure wrestling technique and muscle could steamroll every bjj practitioner and striker out there.
[/quote]

Kerr only fought two BJJ practitioners in his mma career, Fabio Gurgel and Enson Inoue. Going by their Sherdog stats, Kerr had 40-50 pounds on them and won by decision. Kerr also trained in BJJ and striking so it wasn’t pure wrestling anyway.

In ADCC he only subbed one guy, Josh Barnett, the rest of his wins were by points, they weren’t all BJJ practitioners and some he outweighed by 70 to 100 pounds (Leo Vieira, Ricardo Almeida). Almeida actually armlocked him, and the arm popped, but Kerr didn’t tap (probably from all of the painkillers he was on).

Kerr is overrated in mma. He didn’t beat anyone of note. Look at his record up until his first loss against Fujita: they were either nobodies and/or he had a huge size advantage. Once he started facing better opponents, like Igor Vovchanchyn (who was a very small HW) and Heath Herring, he lost. Igor and Herring were second tier fighters in Pride as they were below guys like Fedor, Nog and Cro Cop. If Kerr couldn’t beat second tier fighters then just how good was he after all?

39

[quote]Robert A wrote:
Fucking epic.

Though Randleman is a test case for wrestling plus raw talent. He managed to starch a world class kickboxer with strikes, using essentially untrained standup skills.

Then he manages to get choked out by a no where near state level submission artist because why would a fucking wrestler ever need to learn about fighting on the ground? Yup, same opponent.

My what if is “What if Kevin Randleman would have trained outside his comfort zone and learned some boxing/clinch striking and submissions?” World beater?

In the same vein what if Georger Foreman would have used the jab and tightened up his punches when he was young?

Young “From the Windows George”

Old George

Would a young George that did not forgo the jab and set ups have beaten Ali?

For my part I think he may have actually killed fighters in the ring.

Sorry rougevampire, but this is sort of a “What if” thread so it got me thinking.

Any and all weigh in.

Regards,

Robert A[/quote]

Okay I lol’d hard at this. Absolutely hilarious.

Great musing there, Robert.

40

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]kaisermetal wrote:
Kerr is the Brock Lesnar from late 90’s, he showed how pure wrestling technique and muscle could steamroll every bjj practitioner and striker out there.
[/quote]

Kerr only fought two BJJ practitioners in his mma career, Fabio Gurgel and Enson Inoue. Going by their Sherdog stats, Kerr had 40-50 pounds on them and won by decision. Kerr also trained in BJJ and striking so it wasn’t pure wrestling anyway.

In ADCC he only subbed one guy, Josh Barnett, the rest of his wins were by points, they weren’t all BJJ practitioners and some he outweighed by 70 to 100 pounds (Leo Vieira, Ricardo Almeida). Almeida actually armlocked him, and the arm popped, but Kerr didn’t tap (probably from all of the painkillers he was on).

Kerr is overrated in mma. He didn’t beat anyone of note. Look at his record up until his first loss against Fujita: they were either nobodies and/or he had a huge size advantage. Once he started facing better opponents, like Igor Vovchanchyn (who was a very small HW) and Heath Herring, he lost. Igor and Herring were second tier fighters in Pride as they were below guys like Fedor, Nog and Cro Cop. If Kerr couldn’t beat second tier fighters then just how good was he after all? [/quote]

Arona decisioned all his fights on his ADCC career and is regard as a legend in submission grappling and even by some die-hard brazilian fans and the brazilian media, as a HUGE prospect on MMA who never fulfilled his potential due to his laid-back, relaxed, “i hate to train” style, so your argument over Kerr on ADCC is invalid.

Also, you should watch the documentary THE SMASHING MACHINE, before spewing BS like that about Mark Kerr who was an excellent athlete and had huge problems with painkiller and drugs.