Why was one dimensional wrestler Tito such a bad matchup for Ken Shamrock back in the day?

Tito was a much better fighter than I ever thought, based on the end of his UFC run. His performances against Rashad, Forest, Machida and Bader were so much better than I ever thought he was capable of.
 
Did anyone say "Ken was never that good" yet??

In his defense, he was damn good and scary for a first generation/pioneering NHB fighter. Sadly, he never evolved and got old quick.
 
Ken has always been awful off his back. People tend to overrate his grappling ability but he has never really shown anything impressive against quality opponents.
 
Ken took time off (rusty), was old, had a ton of mileage, and didn't evolve as a fighter.

Tito was stronger, more powerful, quicker and basically better at everything, at least by the time they fought.
 
Tito had a wrestling advantage, which was a big problem for Ken. But also, Tito was part of that next generation. He was a better athlete with better conditioning, and his overall training was probably better. You could see Tito rough Ken up in the clinch in their first fight. Ken was technically outgunned everywhere on top of being physically outgunned.
 
Did anyone say "Ken was never that good" yet??

In his defense, he was damn good and scary for a first generation/pioneering NHB fighter. Sadly, he never evolved and got old quick.
I would say Kens striking seemed like it evolved, early on in his return it looked pretty good.

As far as fighting Tito goes I think its partly evolution with Ken having to deal with a top game wrestler with good sub defence but I do think even by the first match physical decline was an issue, after the fight with Don Frye Kens knees were seriously messed up and by the time of the 2nd and 3rd fights he was WAY past his best.

You look awhile previous and Ken was able to shut down Fujita's wrestling.
 
Ortiz is highly underrated on these forums…

The guy is an idiot and a tool, but he was a great fighter. Wins over Belfort, Silva, Bader, Griffin, Mezger, etc.

One dimensional wrestler Tito was pretty much a bad matchup for anybody not named Liddell or Couture at that point of his career.
 
I'm guessing everyone vs someone who is 10 years younger than them and technically superior in every facet of fighting = bad match-up
 
Ken was far from his best by then due to age and injuries.
He would've lost to Tito at any point in his career imo but at his (juiced up) best he would give him a much tougher fight and would not get outgunned nearly as much
 
The only people that were beating Tito back then were Chuck and Randy, who both had excellent wrestling.
 
Tito was bigger, stronger, younger and more durable than Ken. He also kept putting in the work and didn't go off to WWE. Ken was 38 in their 1st fight and like 42 in the next 2. Way too old to fight a young hungry guy like Tito.
 
Shamrock was 38 when they fought. Most fighters are completely washed by that age. We saw Glover win the title at 40 but that is a rare example. Most fighters fall off long before that, even at the higher weight classes.
 
Ken wasted the end of his MMA prime in WWF and when he came back to MMA his body was shot.
Thank you. People kind of forget that Ken had terrible knees at that point and had to try to become a striker as he could no longer do a double leg. He had surgery a few months after the fight.

Idk if Ken could have beat Tito prime to prime, but anyone that uses this fight as some sort of indisputable evidence that clinches the debate are not factoring everything into the equation.
 
Back
Top