In response to some flack that I have caught in recent days concerning the article that I wrote last week about the Liddell/Evans fight, I would like to explain why I feel the way I do about certain big-name fighters such as Bernard Hopkins, Lennox Lewis, and, yes, Chuck Liddell.
I was quoted as saying that Chuck Liddell is mostly "one dimensional." Okay, maybe he is not so one dimensional considering his training. But he fights very much one style all the time.
Is it effective? Oh yes, in many consecutive fights.
Is it something that makes me want to come back and pay to see him again? Not exactly.
Let's compare him to a couple of boxers who have the same dilemma.
Bernard Hopkins
If you're talking about winning numbers, he's one of the best without a doubt. However, he's one of the worst if you are looking for all out action.
- B/R Ticket Guide
He holds, fights dirty, and even scampers to the crowd's constant disapproval. ZZZZZZZZ...
Lennox Lewis
He seemed to be brave enough against the fighters that he thought would not give him trouble. But against the giant Vitali Klitchko, even though he won, he knew, just like the rest of us, that if that fight would have continued, he was going down.
He won by cutting his opponent. Bravo.
The problem came when he had the chance to prove himself to all doubters in a rematch that I think he might have won. Instead? He retired.
Not to discredit the last big win of his career, but he, instead of going out a winner, might have gone out a winner with the exclamation mark to silence all naysayers forever.
Chuck Liddell
I have much more respect for this guy than either of the aforementioned. Chuck would rather go out on a stretcher than be booed for running from an opponent.
But would you rather see Chuck stand in and get knocked out, or see him adapt his style to the one in front of him a tad better and reign a little longer as a complete fighter? We all know the answer.
All the technical training in the world doesn't make a bit of difference if a fighter is unwilling to use it in the ring.
Summary
Hopkins and Lewis: All skill and conditioning, not enough heart.
Liddell: All skill and heart, but too prideful to change.
Maybe his knockout loss to Rashad Evans will prompt Liddell to give us all what we want to see. A Chuck Liddell that can win even when plans "A" and "B" fail. Changing up the game will give him a much better chance at beating the guy with the age and speed advantage.
comments (14) write a comment »
write a new comment
2 months ago
Please don't change your stance on an issue just because you receive a lot of negative criticism. I allowed myself to be bullied into changing my opinion of Brock Lesnar and will never forgive myself. I have, however, remained faithful to my views on BJ Penn regardless of being heavily criticized and will never change my mind unless he convinces me he is not a dirty fighter when he next meets GSP in January.
I do not like Chuck Liddell and believe he is a one dimensional fighter. He knows better, but for whatever reason does not use his other/wrestling skills when he fights. Maybe he has a physical weakness which he has been hiding. Who knows? Only Chuck and perhaps John Hackleman, neither of whom will be telling us of any weaknesses anytime soon. Once his bluff was called by Rampage and fighters found out Chuck was not invinceable, he has had his bell rung by all who will venture within his reach and duke it out with him. I think he got lucky with Wanderlei--it was close, and Wanderlei didn't jump on Chuck when he went down. Anyway, I am not sorry he has been exposed. A mortal after all, just as I suspected!
from 2 months ago
Thanks dorothy but my opinion of Liddell has not changed. I wrote this to explain "why" I wrote what I did about him, not to have any undue mercy on his laziness. Hes a great but limited fighter who just as you said has either some physical ailment he is hiding or his heart is just not in it any more and never was else he would have adapted like the rest of MMA.
However, I do think that Chuck "the man" is a real guy who deserves respect for his accomplishments, regardless of his lack of understanding (of his need to change the fight plan).
He is a stubborn fighter who just ate the fruit of the error of his ways.
Good point BTW on the possible physical weakness aspect. he very well may not be able to attack differently because of some hidden injury or weakness that may cause him permanent harm. If so then he is smart for hiding it and taking the knockout, else I dont think people would watch his fights anymore knowing about a certain weakness.
from 2 months ago
Oh and Brock Lessnar is the Shizz nizzl in my book. (that means I like him) He is already proving that he can get the job done even when it's not pretty. I think he will have no problem making the adjustments he will have to make in the near future as his foes begin to figure him out.
from 2 months ago
you don't have to change your stances for anybody Dorothy, but if you receive a lot of negative critcism on a consistant basis, it might be time to see if people are being critical because they disagree, or just because you are wrong.
Its always cool to have strong viewpoints, but don't you have to let them go if they are proven to be wrong? For example I'm sure a lot of fans thought Brock Lesnar is just another big wrestler type, nothing to get excited about. But at some point, even if you don't like him, if he keeps winning don't you have to at least admit you were wrong initially?
I think of some of my favorite writers/bloggers on the web and the one thing I learned from those guys is even when you are the foremost authority on something, you will still be wrong from time to time.
You have admitted you were wrong several times before, and even though I don't agree with you much, I have a great deal of respect for you being able to do that.
2 months ago
Bernard use to be a more exciting fighter in the sense that he still had the ability to stop guys after figuring them out. He is probably the single best tactician in the game today ala Randy Couture, but his body simply no longer keeps up.
At his prime he was quite the anti Chuck Liddell, as with Bernard, he would take away his foe's best weapon, then slowly pick him apart while using whatever dirty tactics he could get away with. He also brilliantly switched his style from fight to fight, fighting dirty when he faced better boxers, and boxing when he faced better brawlers.
All that said, he needs to stop fighting, and just perhaps, so does Chuck.
2 months ago
I think it is very difficult for Chuck to change his style and it's not fair to call him unwilling. He's been fighting for a long time (both in and out of the cage/ring) and has been hugely successful. Whereas with GSP, I get the feeling that he has never been in a fight that isn't sanctioned, and everything he takes into the cage he probably learnt in training so it's easier for him to change things. When I watch Chuck it sometimes looks like he's fighting on pure instinct.
2 months ago
Anybody who think Chuck got lucky against Wandy, doesn't know a goddamn thing about MMA. Are you kidding me, he beat his face into a bloody mess, avoided the big shots, took the ones he got hit with, and of all things Chuck had the marbles to put Wandy on his back. In my opinion, Wandy is the best fighter at LHW in the world when he is healthy and he totally repsected Chuck and got clobbered for three rounds. Chuck is so far from a one dimensional fighter that if you have trained BJJ for one second you know what a nightmare this guy can be. He is the only "one dimensional" fighter that I have ever seen that doesn't end up on the ground. Chuck is a KO artist and has never claimed to be anything more. His biggest downfall is that he doesn't wait for his opponents to come to him as much as he should.
2 months ago
Did you start watching Hopkins before or after he was forty because I followed the executioner before he beat Tito Trinidad back in the day. The man is incredible with a right hand that destroyed opponents by breaking them down tactically and mentally.You speak of the Hopkins over forty and honestly he should not be on your list. He is one of the slickest most dynamic boxers ever. Liddell and Lewis fit your article but B-Hop never been KOed and even in lack luster performances is far from the other two.
from 2 months ago
I started watching him around the Antwun Echols fight. Yes he is one of the slick dynamic pillars in boxing. but I put Hopkins on that list because, well I would say "No entertainment value" but we are all entertained by His talent and killer instinct, so I guess I'll have to say "No satisfaction factor". I'm never satisfied when I watch any of this fights. Maybe the beautiful losses of his career outshine some of his victories. Maybe that's why I am such a fan of Mickey Ward.
Hopkins is what he is down to the day that he never steps in the ring again. Not just the good ol days. Over the years, he has turned into an angry racist old fart, with an attitude problem. That just makes me want to watch him get his butt kicked.
Unsatisfied
2 months ago
Chuck lost against Rashad the exact same way he lost to rampage the 2nd time, with that same uppercut that leaves his head wide punch. Rashad is good but has no real business beating someone like chuck. Forrest will beat Rashad, and Machida will take the title from Forrest!
from 2 months ago
Forest is a scary dude y'all. How he wins half of his fights is beyond me. He surprises the heck outta me in every single fight. Win or lose I'm always left scratching my head.
2 months ago
I don't believe Chucks "one dimensional" style is the reason why he hasn't been succesful lately. I honestly believe his age is catching up with him. He doen't move the way he use to, and I don't think he's packing the same punch at this point either. His style has been one dimensional, but its worked for him his entire career and its highly exciting. If you can knock out every opponent put in front of you then whats there to change. I'd rather just watch some good 'ol high lights reels of chuck then watch him try to adapt at this point in his career. And yes Rod, Chuck deserves a lot of respect, and should be given a lot of credit for how popular MMA has become.
2 months ago
No fighter in MMA is a one dimensional fighter. Guys just tend to use their dominant martial art which gives them the best chance to win a fight. Look at wanderlei too. He's a black belt in jiu-jitsu but when is the last time you saw him trying to submit a guy on the ground? The best chance for him to end a fight is standing and the same goes for chuck.
Three or four years ago there may have only been a handful of guys with the standup to go toe-to-toe with liddell and be successful, but nowadays guys are so much more well rounded and there are plenty of guys who can stand with liddell. Age is a big factor as well and I don't see liddell switching up his game plan at all. Maybe he will switch up his training approach but when he steps inside the octagon again I expect him to revert back to what he has always done simply out of instinct.
2 months ago
I think this article is one dimensional crap!
write a new comment