- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 4,010
- Reaction score
- 1,608
True hahahaGame plans? You mean game plan. He always fought the same. Jab, jab, push kick, rinse, repeat.
True hahahaGame plans? You mean game plan. He always fought the same. Jab, jab, push kick, rinse, repeat.
Very hard choice... It is clear that Shilt was more effective due to his bigger stance and punching power. Hoost was not particularly powerful with his hands, however he compensated with skills. They have fought 3 times: 1 draw, 1 TKO and 1 decision, both in favour of Shilt. I don`t believe that he is technically the best kickboxer however he is very efficient.
Verhoeven certainly wouldn't be as dominant as he can get rattled by hard shots and those guys certainly delivered them, but from a technical standpoint he is incredibly sound and would easily be a top guy in that field. He wouldn't replace Semmy at the top that's for sure though.Verhoeven would be very mediocore in the prime era of Hoost, Aerts, Schilt, Leko, Hari, Sefo, LeBanner, Bojaski, Crocop etc.
Verhoeven would be very mediocore in the prime era of Hoost, Aerts, Schilt, Leko, Hari, Sefo, LeBanner, Bojaski, Crocop etc.
Technically speaking you would have to give it to Hoost, his lowkicks are a thing of beauty, or that Lowkick fake into a left hook into a lowkick when the opponents full weight is on that leg.
It seems to me Schilt could have been successful in karate (since it was his base) or Muay Thai (with his height and knees), but I don't recall him fighting much in either. I wonder why, maybe money?