Where would you put PRIME Chuck Liddell in today's LHW top 10?

[VegetaGD]

This is why VegetaGD wanted you guys to specify when Chuck's "Prime" was.

Exactly. It helps to determine the period in Chuck’s career in which it would have been most difficult to defeat him. I offered my take below and contend that the beating he took from Rampage actually laid the foundation for him to beat Randy twice as his second crushing defeat by a proficient wrestle-boxer (in a 3-fight span) forced him to adjust his game and catalyzed his 7-fight steak in the UFC

To me, PRIME Chuck's peak 5-fight showing started with his win over Overeem and ended with his first win over Randy Couture.

Additionally, this thread has come off the rails a number of times because multiple posters (pro AND anti Chuck) can’t seem to stay on message. This is not a bash or defend Chuck thread. It’s literally a thread that’s supposed to discuss:

Where would you put PRIME Chuck Liddell in today's LHW top 10?

Chuck was one of the best of his era and was a very effective fighter. Like him or not, he had dangerous power and knew how to go for the kill when he was controlling a fight while also being able to keep himself in the contest even if he wasn’t having early success. It is possible to respect Chuck’s accomplishments while providing an honest yet clearly subjective (given the fantasy nature of the thread) assessment of where he’d fit in today’s LHW landscape. Let’s not forget that Forrest Griffin had back-to-back wins over Rampage and Shogun and won a trilogy against Tito which includes a split decision loss over the same Tito that helped to define Chuck’s prime. I know the glory days are hard to let go of, but Chuck’s peers at LHW from 2004 to 2006 were not very good by today’s standards.

I'd like to hear someone walk me through a scenario where PRIME Chuck would sweep any one of today's top 10 LHWs in a three fight series. I'd 100% place a bet that Ilir Latifi would win one fight out of three against PRIME Chuck. Surely it's apparent that if Chuck can't sweep at least one of today's top 10 LHWs, he'd struggle to stay ranked in the modern iteration of the division.

 

[Mike]

I didn't say they were an amazing new breed. I already said I'd put Chuck somewhere in the middle of the top 10. I think he'd lose to the very top guys, Jones, DC, Gus, Volkan. Bader and Davis are better wrestlers but he'd have a puncher's chance His brawling style would have a puncher's chance against a lot of guys but that style would also give better diciplined fighters who hit hard a chance to crack that chin just like Rampage did. Something Tito and grapplers like Horn and Sobral had no chance at.

Bader lost to every fighter with a style like chucks that he ever fought. Up until he beat the ghost of rampage by laying on him. Davis also has struggled mightily with guys with good tdd and power.

Chuck did not fight only grapplers. But I've already made that point over and over so if you think every striker he fought was garbage, well you're entitled to your opinion.

 

[Mike]

Exactly. It helps to determine the period in Chuck’s career in which it would have been most difficult to defeat him. I offered my take below and contend that the beating he took from Rampage actually laid the foundation for him to beat Randy twice as his second crushing defeat by a proficient wrestle-boxer (in a 3-fight span) forced him to adjust his game and catalyzed his 7-fight steak in the UFC



Additionally, this thread has come off the rails a number of times because multiple posters (pro AND anti Chuck) can’t seem to stay on message. This is not a bash or defend Chuck thread. It’s literally a thread that’s supposed to discuss:



Chuck was one of the best of his era and was a very effective fighter. Like him or not, he had dangerous power and knew how to go for the kill when he was controlling a fight while also being able to keep himself in the contest even if he wasn’t having early success. It is possible to respect Chuck’s accomplishments while providing an honest yet clearly subjective (given the fantasy nature of the thread) assessment of where he’d fit in today’s LHW landscape. Let’s not forget that Forrest Griffin had back-to-back wins over Rampage and Shogun and won a trilogy against Tito which includes a split decision loss over the same Tito that helped to define Chuck’s prime. I know the glory days are hard to let go of, but Chuck’s peers at LHW from 2004 to 2006 were not very good by today’s standards.

I'd like to hear someone walk me through a scenario where PRIME Chuck would sweep any one of today's top 10 LHWs in a three fight series. I'd 100% place a bet that Ilir Latifi would win one fight out of three against PRIME Chuck. Surely it's apparent that if Chuck can't sweep at least one of today's top 10 LHWs, he'd struggle to stay ranked in the modern iteration of the division.

Latifi is slow as hell and has ok wrestling. He has power sure, but again that guy is slow.

 

[VegetaGD]

Latifi is slow as hell and has ok wrestling. He has power sure, but again that guy is slow.

I'd gladly concede that PRIME Chuck would beat Latifi 2 out of 3 times, but again, that puts us in a difficult position. If PRIME Chuck is losing 1 out of 3 against the bottom half of the top 10, 2 out of 3 against the bottom half of the top 5 (Bader, Davis, Volkan) and is getting shut out by DC and Gus (and of course Jones/Rumble), it would be hard to establish himself firmly in the top 10 for an extended period.

 

[Mike]

I'd gladly concede that PRIME Chuck would beat Latifi 2 out of 3 times, but again, that puts us in a difficult position. If PRIME Chuck is losing 1 out of 3 against the bottom half of the top 10, 2 out of 3 against the bottom half of the top 5 (Bader, Davis, Volkan) and is getting shut out by DC and Gus (and of course Jones/Rumble), it would be hard to establish himself firmly in the top 10 for an extended period.

Well you're taking your hypothetical and then saying that's a fact. Of course there's no way to ever know for sure, but I don't see Latifi beating chuck. The only wrestle boxers he lost to were the ones that could hold him down and hit him with heavy gnp. Only Randy and Page were ever able to do it, and Randy just 1/3 times

 

[VegetaGD]

Well you're taking your hypothetical and then saying that's a fact. Of course there's no way to ever know for sure, but I don't see Latifi beating chuck. The only wrestle boxers he lost to were the ones that could hold him down and hit him with heavy gnp. Only Randy and Page were ever able to do it, and Randy just 1/3 times

I certainly don't intend to position any stance on a fantasy-type of evaluation as fact. I’m well aware that we’re deep in the realm of make-believe here and neither of us will ever have closure so I’m willing to set aside the fact that the world will never know to have a little fun.

I wouldn't be shocked if Chuck swept Latifi, but I also wouldn't be shocked if Latifi did better than winning 1 out of 3. There are a couple of flaws in the logic that you're using to support the idea that Ilir Latifi couldn't pick up 1 out of 3 against PRIME Chuck:

Rampage - Rampage pulverized Chuck when they met in Pride. Chuck had very limited success in the fight and zero success in their second meeting. Therefore, I wouldn’t have to argue that Ilir Latifi is as good as the version of Rampage that beat Chuck. All I’d need to argue is that he would be able to pose enough problems to pick up 1 out of 3 over Chuck. Watching Keith Jardine decision Chuck a year after he stopped Tito for the second time gives me this confidence.

Randy Couture - Randy also pulverized Chuck in their first fight so same argument for Latifi here. In the second and third matchup Randy was roughly 42 years of age. To put this in perspective, Chuck lost his last 3 fights by KO as he transitioned into his 40s. Randy was still good, but very much past his prime.​

In evaluating the most recent version of Ilir Latifi (against OSP) it appears to me that he has what it takes to grab 1 of 3 from PRIME Chuck.

 

[Mike]

I certainly don't intend to position any stance on a fantasy-type of evaluation as fact. I’m well aware that we’re deep in the realm of make-believe here and neither of us will ever have closure so I’m willing to set aside the fact that the world will never know to have a little fun.

I wouldn't be shocked if Chuck swept Latifi, but I also wouldn't be shocked if Latifi did better than winning 1 out of 3. There are a couple of flaws in the logic that you're using to support the idea that Ilir Latifi couldn't pick up 1 out of 3 against PRIME Chuck:

Rampage - Rampage pulverized Chuck when they met in Pride. Chuck had very limited success in the fight and zero success in their second meeting. Therefore, I wouldn’t have to argue that Ilir Latifi is as good as the version of Rampage that beat Chuck. All I’d need to argue is that he would be able to pose enough problems to pick up 1 out of 3 over Chuck. Watching Keith Jardine decision Chuck a year after he stopped Tito for the second time gives me this confidence.

Randy Couture - Randy also pulverized Chuck in their first fight so same argument for Latifi here. In the second and third matchup Randy was roughly 42 years of age. To put this in perspective, Chuck lost his last 3 fights by KO as he transitioned into his 40s. Randy was still good, but very much past his prime.​

In evaluating the most recent version of Ilir Latifi (against OSP) it appears to me that he has what it takes to grab 1 of 3 from PRIME Chuck.

Even by the time of that second Tito fight it was clear he was declining. Just because a guy isn't losing doesn't mean he's in his prime. Ex: Fedor demolishing Tim and Arlovski, even after his own camp admitted he was slowing down.


Randy was a special fighter, far greater than his w-l record would indicate. He did beat chuck, tito, and vitor 2x. Soundly outwrestling all of them. Rampage also had highly underrated wrestling in his prime before knee and back problems. I don't think Latifis mma wrestling is at all on the level of page or Randy.

 

[VegetaGD]

Even by the time of that second Tito fight it was clear he was declining. Just because a guy isn't losing doesn't mean he's in his prime. Ex: Fedor demolishing Tim and Arlovski, even after his own camp admitted he was slowing down.

We're in complete agreement:

To me, PRIME Chuck's peak 5-fight showing started with his win over Overeem and ended with his first win over Randy Couture.

I don't think Latifis mma wrestling is at all on the level of page or Randy.

We’re in complete agreement:

Therefore, I wouldn’t have to argue that Ilir Latifi is as good as the version of Rampage that beat Chuck. All I’d need to argue is that he would be able to pose enough problems to pick up 1 out of 3 over Chuck.

Randy Couture - Randy also pulverized Chuck in their first fight so same argument for Latifi here.

Remember, I don’t have to argue that Ilir Latifi is the equivalent of the versions of Randy and Rampage that obliterated PRIME Chuck. I simply have to argue that he’s good enough to beat him.

 

[Mike]

We're in complete agreement:





We’re in complete agreement:





Remember, I don’t have to argue that Ilir Latifi is the equivalent of the versions of Randy and Rampage that obliterated PRIME Chuck. I simply have to argue that he’s good enough to beat him.

 

[anuscakes]

Chuck's never been the #1 LHW in the world. When he held the title in the UFC it was the B league. He never fought the best of the best in the UFC and when he did he lost.

 

[marvinparsons]

He'd be like a LHW Overeem that could theoretically beat anyone or get KO'd by anyone with power.

 

[VegetaGD]

YOU'RE the only one saying he'd lose 1 out of 3 to the bottom half of the current division. And the only one saying he'd lose 2 out of 3 to the bottom half of the top 5. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But don't go around here spouting that shit as if it was fact, or even the majority of people's opinions.

I certainly don't intend to position any stance on a fantasy-type of evaluation as fact. I’m well aware that we’re deep in the realm of make-believe here and neither of us will ever have closure so I’m willing to set aside the fact that the world will never know to have a little fun.

It will be really helpful if you slow down with the high-volume posting, and take a moment to review (in detail) the content of the thread that you're weighing in on. You started this thread and I've yet to see you provide any type of logical analysis to support your position. I'll take you a little more seriously if or when this occurs. How about you take a moment to define the PRIME Chuck you're referencing and walk us through what a 3-fight series would look like with each current top 10 LHW. I think that would be a good start!

 

[egk]

Chuck was one of the best of his era and was a very effective fighter. Like him or not, he had dangerous power and knew how to go for the kill when he was controlling a fight while also being able to keep himself in the contest even if he wasn’t having early success. It is possible to respect Chuck’s accomplishments while providing an honest yet clearly subjective (given the fantasy nature of the thread) assessment of where he’d fit in today’s LHW landscape. Let’s not forget that Forrest Griffin had back-to-back wins over Rampage and Shogun and won a trilogy against Tito which includes a split decision loss over the same Tito that helped to define Chuck’s prime. I know the glory days are hard to let go of, but Chuck’s peers at LHW from 2004 to 2006 were not very good by today’s standards.
.

This is why I asked for a name of any of the opponents Chuck beat who they thought would do well today at LHW. You have to put Chuck in the context of who he fought. Randy is the only obvious answer unless you count a roided up Belfort at LHW. I think Randy would get outclassed by the better wrestlers and he wasn't a particularly dangerous striker. Chuck was dangerous but he had no jab to speak of and his own defense relied on his chin. I just don't see it going well for him. I think Rampage from that era would do better than Chuck and he'd still lose to those at the top.

Naturally the way to explain Griffin is he only beat guys who, wait for it.... were out of prime.

 

[VegetaGD]

I think Rampage from that era would do better than Chuck and he'd still lose to those at the top.

That's my thought too. It took horsemeat Wand to best PRIME Rampage. That Rampage was, without question, a superior fighter to Chuck based on two head-to-head beatdowns. He should really be the LHW that we're discussing when we evaluate the old guard vs the new guard. I still think he would struggle to stay relevant in the modern era.

 

[MRDOG]

I put him near the top with the potential to be champion but as the saying goes styles make fights.

If Anthony Johnson was still in the division ... I would bet money on Chuck losing to him. I just dont see how Chuck beats him other then having a punchers chance.

DC is the other that likely beats him but would be interesting to see. Chuck has been wobbled in his prime by Overeem and KO by Randy so I think DC may KO Chuck as well.

I think Ryan Bader Panic wrestles and we get to see Chucks ground game ( which I remember Rogan use to mention when Chuck fought ) so that would be an interesting match. If Chuck can stop the takedown then its his fight. If not then who knows.

In short he would be in the mix with all the top guys.

 

[3sumrock]

That's probably because I don't think he is.

You honestly doubt that chuck is less skilled than gus?
A guy that you can argue beat both Jon jones and dc vs a guy that made a career of beating wrestler with ok striking

 

[Jon Stark]

1

 

[Mike]

You honestly doubt that chuck is less skilled than gus?
A guy that you can argue beat both Jon jones and dc vs a guy that made a career of beating wrestler with ok striking

No I think it's an entirely different style matchup than those fights. Gus is hittable and neither guy is known for one shot power. Chuck was hittable too. So it would likely come down to a firefight, in which case I favor the man with heavier hands.

 

[Mike]

That's my thought too. It took horsemeat Wand to best PRIME Rampage. That Rampage was, without question, a superior fighter to Chuck based on two head-to-head beatdowns. He should really be the LHW that we're discussing when we evaluate the old guard vs the new guard. I still think he would struggle to stay relevant in the modern era.

This era of largely wrestle boxers with much worse standup, less power, and inferior wrestling? I feel like some of you guys didn't really watch prime rampage

 

[3sumrock]

No I think it's an entirely different style matchup than those fights. Gus is hittable and neither guy is known for one shot power. Chuck was hittable too. So it would likely come down to a firefight, in which case I favor the man with heavier hands.

No he’s not very hittable.in fact he got good striking defense and counter striking.and you can’t beat gus with power alone.