Did Ken Shamrock make the most out of his potential?

Intermission

Brown Belt
@Brown
Joined
Nov 2, 2024
Messages
4,111
Reaction score
2,204
If I think of the scariest fighter back in the day it would be Ken. His reign didnt last long and thats the main thing that is held against him.

Biggest feat probably his win over Dan Severn. If Im not missing anyone...

Could Ken have trained differently or smarter and made it to Fedor status or did he make the most of what he got?

How good of a submission wrestler was he at his best?
 
He was pretty dangerous

ken-shamrock-entrance.gif
 
I know muscles dont mean anything so thats why I love mentioning it:cool:

He was jAAAAAACKED....
 
Nah. He should have fought Tank, and Kimbo in 2009

Alot of big fights he just took himself out of, esp early on.

I mean i give him credit, he got huge doing the WWE stuff, but when he came back from that, he wasnt the same. He was like out for 4 years, and older.

Spent alot of time from 2000 on taking serious BEATINGS
 
He did OK in WWE and made life changing money
 
No, but it was difficult to back then. The diversion back to pro wrestling hurt a lot, so did being the face of his own gym/team, so training with others would (in some eyes) have made the Lion's Den look weak as their top guy needed help. The guy was super athletic- fast, strong, agile, and considering he was a folkstyle wrestler that went into pro wrestling at a young age and was basically trained submissions by Funaki and Suzuki (according to Ken himself) when he got into Pancrase, and had no formal striking training, he picked up the "game" fast. Take a guy like Ken and bring him up in the modern era and he'd be super dangerous. Same with someone like Matt Hughes.
 
No, but it was difficult to back then. The diversion back to pro wrestling hurt a lot, so did being the face of his own gym/team, so training with others would (in some eyes) have made the Lion's Den look weak as their top guy needed help. The guy was super athletic- fast, strong, agile, and considering he was a folkstyle wrestler that went into pro wrestling at a young age and was basically trained submissions by Funaki and Suzuki (according to Ken himself) when he got into Pancrase, and had no formal striking training, he picked up the "game" fast. Take a guy like Ken and bring him up in the modern era and he'd be super dangerous. Same with someone like Matt Hughes.

It wasnt all a disadvantage though. He had an edge in leg locks with his Lions Den compared to the Gracies.

Kenny had great natural fighting abilities and a strong chin. Looked like an Action Doll. Terrifying opponent.
 
If I think of the scariest fighter back in the day it would be Ken. His reign didnt last long and thats the main thing that is held against him.

Biggest feat probably his win over Dan Severn. If Im not missing anyone...

Could Ken have trained differently or smarter and made it to Fedor status or did he make the most of what he got?

How good of a submission wrestler was he at his best?
Just judging from the way the trained, or attempted to train, the guys in the TUF house, I'd venture to say that he probably didn't capitalize on his potential.
 
At that time, it was a smart move for him to go to the WWE. He never evolved as a fighter. He was the same Ken Shamrock since UFC 1 and the sport evolved past his skill level.
 
No, but it was difficult to back then. The diversion back to pro wrestling hurt a lot, so did being the face of his own gym/team, so training with others would (in some eyes) have made the Lion's Den look weak as their top guy needed help. The guy was super athletic- fast, strong, agile, and considering he was a folkstyle wrestler that went into pro wrestling at a young age and was basically trained submissions by Funaki and Suzuki (according to Ken himself) when he got into Pancrase, and had no formal striking training, he picked up the "game" fast. Take a guy like Ken and bring him up in the modern era and he'd be super dangerous. Same with someone like Matt Hughes.
100%. Ken left the sport around 1997 when he was still one of the best fighters. Then he took a 4 year break while the sport evolved, he got older and he got more injuries from pro wrestling. I think he had 4-5 more good years if he hadn't left NHB, maybe at the elite level for a couple of more years before age, damage and evolution of the sport got the best of him (like it did to all other early fighters). I understand he left for money and (I think?) because the WWE paid for his surgeries, so I can't blame him.

Don Frye and Tank did the same thing. None of them were the same when they came back around age 40 to a much different sport.
 
I think beating The Rock to become King of the Ring was a bigger achievement then Severn
 
Ken had a good 3-year run where he could have been considered in the upper echelon of fighters (93-96), right up there with Royce Gracie. By the time he returned in 2000 I think the sport had already pretty much passed him by, but he was able to make some good money for several more years by parlaying his MMA fame into a short but notable run in the WWF, and parlaying that into a second MMA run with Pride and UFC where he had big fights that he pretty much all lost.

Ken attained more mainstream recognition and earned more money than any of his peers from that same time period, despite his very short window of time as a legitimately top level fighter. While his contemporaries or near-contemporaries achieved more than Ken in terms of the sport, none of them broke through into the mainstream the way Ken did.

Finally, I actually don't think Ken had a fighter's mentality. He had a great physical look and he was a good front runner, but he just never had the natural talent or grit that Frank Shamrock, Don Frye, Royce Gracie, or Dan Severn did. I'm not shitting on Ken at all when I say this. I always liked Ken and nearly always rooted for him, but I don't think he was an underachiever by any means. From a holistic standpoint, I actually think Ken maximized his career better than almost any of those early fighters.
 
Back
Top