View Full Version : Frank Shamrock and UFC 100

12-07-2009, 20:55
Bron: UFC vs Shamrock - FrankShamrock.com (http://www.frankshamrock.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2546126%3ABlogPost%3A16971)

This Saturday’s UFC 100 event has the attention of the world’s MMA audience with its Mir-Lesnar and St. Pierre/Alves title fights and its heavily-marketed, supposedly fan-based poll of the organization’s top fights. However, a bit of a backlash against the Zuffa-backed Dana White monopoly can be found in many mainstream media outlets as they combat the UFC’s attempt to rewrite MMA history with its own pen.

For most of us who follow “The Legend,” the most perplexing omission from “The Ultimate 100 Greatest Fights” is its unceremonious exclusion of all things Frank Shamrock, the UFC’s first (and undefeated) Middleweight Champion. Shamrock’s career is linked forever with the history of UFC, and this blacklisting of Shamrock is a black eye for the organization. Many opinions exist as to why no Shamrock fight was included; what is promising is the refusal of other MMA voices to play by the UFC’s dirty rules. Consider Eddie Goldman’s recent blog and radio show in which he chronicles Shamrock’s defeat of Tito Ortiz; also, Foxsports recently released its Top 10 UFC Fighters of All Time, which ranks Frank as number seven. Many online sites are including Shamrock and a variety of his fights in their all-time MMA lists.

However, what struck me as the most problematic anti-Frank Shamrock propaganda occurred on ESPN’s MMA Live show just this past Thursday when host Jon Anik asked guests Kenny Florian and Randy Couture about the omission of three fighters from the UFC Hall of Fame, including Frank Shamrock. Florian mumble-mouthed about there certainly being discord between the fighters and the UFC, but it was Couture who unwittingly articulated all that is wrong with the UFC monopoly and its smear tactics. The former UFC champion said that all sports have political issues; fair enough. However, Couture then asked “how long before Pete Rose is admitted into baseball’s hall of fame?”

See, this is the problem: Rose has been banned from his sport’s Hall of Fame because he admitted to breaking the rules of his sport by betting on baseball. Frank Shamrock is guilty only of calling out the UFC for its oppressive treatment of its employees and for engaging in a battle of egos with Dana White, not for violating any rule or law. To falsely connect Frank Shamrock to Pete Rose as a rationale for omitting Shamrock from the UFC pantheon of its greatest fighters of all time is a gross stretch of logic. To hear it mouth-pieced from a respected fighter is troubling because it provides mass audiences a tasty, easily repeated sound bite. If this false analogy was merely an uninformed misstatement from Couture, well, he should know better before he tries to provide comparative analysis. However, if this is the UFC talking point, then expect to hear it repeated by other fighters and commentators in other outlets.

While there are some titanic tilts on this Saturday’s card, a more important battle is being fought as the UFC tries to whitewash the legitimate history of mixed martial arts and one of its most pioneering figures, Frank Shamrock.

12-07-2009, 21:29
Erasing Shamrock from the UFC History Books
Options: http://www.cdn.sherdog.com/_images/icons/email_icon.gif Email Article (javascript:sendto('?article=18470');) | http://www.cdn.sherdog.com/_images/icons/printer_icon.gif Printer Friendly (javascript:printer_friendly('/news_print.php','news','scrollbars=yes,width=635,h eight=500'))
Saturday, July 11, 2009
by Jason Probst ([email protected])

With an over-the-top buildup leading into UFC 100, Zuffa’s promotional effort for Saturday’s card left virtually no stone unturned, including a countdown that recapped the greatest 100 UFC fights as voted on by fans.

That is, the greatest fights except those involving Frank Shamrock (http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Frank-Shamrock-284).

The UFC’s first middleweight champ and arguably its biggest star in the late 90s, Shamrock never lost a fight in the Octagon. However, the UFC excluded all of his bouts from fan voting -- even his epic scrap against Tito Ortiz (http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Tito-Ortiz-158) in September 1999 at UFC 22.

In short, Shamrock-Ortiz was one of the UFC’s earliest title bouts that felt like a top championship boxing match, given the buildup and drama that made Shamrock’s fourth-round TKO his finest -- and final -- performance in the Octagon. Giving up more than 20 pounds after the weigh-in, Shamrock calmly and tactically dissected Ortiz in what stands as a masterpiece of strategy, along with a heady dose of down-and-dirty know-how.

Sadly, the bout won’t be featured on the UFC’s countdown that has been airing on Spike TV.

“I thought it was a pivotal fight (in MMA),” Shamrock told Sherdog.com. “Physically and mentally, it was a pivotal fight in the history of the sport itself. It’s obviously pretty ridiculous and childish they left it out. That’s obvious. I was the first-ever champion, and Tito was the first guy in a weight class to work his way up. In my opinion, it was the first real legitimate build-up to a championship fight. It was a real story.”

Shamrock doesn’t get along with Dana White and UFC brass. Nor does Ortiz, another former UFC champion, whose losses only -- not wins -- were made eligible to be voted on by fans.

Given the good the UFC has done -- from pushing MMA into the mainstream spotlight to contributing to positive causes such as last December’s Spike TV card that raised funds for soldiers dealing with Traumatic Brain Injury -- such treatment of fighters seems overtly bush-league.

Zuffa, the UFC’s parent company, has skirted the potholes that derailed a half-dozen competing promotions in the past three years. The company has carefully built the UFC brand and scrupulously polished its image to become a mainstream attraction with a revenue upside that is seemingly limitless given its talent base.

But rumblings inside the industry, along with observations by assorted Zuffa watchers, suggest power moves underway that will significantly alter the considerable sums of money the UFC generates.

(http://www.sherdog.com/pictures/gallery/search/dana-white/42103/26)Stephen Martinez/Sherdog.com

Shamrock and Dana White
have long been at odds.

As reported by multiple sites recently, the UFC has begun making sponsors -- whose guerrilla marketing through fighter gear and banners is a big source of dough for athletes -- pay a fee to the promotion, reportedly up to $100,000, to sponsor (and advertise on) fighters. White acknowledged Friday on CNBC that the UFC has implemented such a policy, though he didn’t say how much money his company is requiring from sponsors.

For years fighters have secured individual deals with sponsors through agents and managers. Those criticizing the new policy have suggested that fighters will lose sponsors who can’t pay the fee and, by losing sponsors, will lose money. To wit, all is not well in UFC-ville amidst the rank and file who comprise its citizenry, but the tourists keep coming in bigger numbers then ever, blissfully unaware for the most part.

“I think it’s terrible,” said Shamrock of the sponsorship fee. “It would be different if (the UFC was) on network television and the network, say, ABC, said, ‘Hey, you can’t have a Condom Depot ad on your trunks,’ but the UFC is not on ABC. They’re going to be putting that money in their own pocket.”

Shamrock added that if the UFC is tightening up sponsorship requirements with the fee-based policy, it could push athletes to other promotions.

“It will attract fighters to Strikeforce,” said Shamrock, who is currently under contract with the promotion himself. “When I go in and fight, endorsements are 30 percent of my purse, and I make a good purse. When you’re working your way up, that’s your house payment. I know what the UFC is doing. They’re trying to change their business model midstream, and that’s hard to do. But do you really need 100K so someone can put a logo on (a fighter’s) shorts?”

To the UFC’s credit, the organization did make a hugely needed change a few years ago when it quashed the problem of fighters thanking sponsors during post-match interviews. A tradition begun by Ortiz, it quickly mushroomed into an embarrassing sideshow as fighters would thank an ever-expanding list, instead of discussing the match that just transpired. Critics of the move howled that sponsor thank-yous would dry up funds, and were savagely incorrect, and the sport seems a lot more professional now that Joe Rogan can interview fighters about fights instead of having the fans get bombarded with nettlesome sponsor thank-yous.

But the latest move could in fact reduce fighter compensation and also thin the long-expanding ranks of agents, managers and middlemen. For now, though, the UFC’s market dominance figures to only rise after this weekend’s stacked UFC 100 card.

Shamrock’s UFC 100 Picks

Shamrock hopes to return to Strikeforce in December and fight one of the fighters he sees as emerging stars in the organization, such as Jake Shields (http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Jake-Shields-502) or Robbie Lawler (http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Robbie-Lawler-2245). In the meantime, here are his picks for UFC 100:

Dan Henderson (http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Dan-Henderson-195) vs. Michael Bisping (http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Michael-Bisping-10196)
“I think Bisping is tougher than we all think he is, but Dan’s the guy to test that. Dan literally is the toughest, most rugged person I’ve ever met. Every moment he goes as hard as he can. That’s Dan. I think Bisping might be bigger and stronger, but I pick Dan.”

Georges St. Pierre (http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Georges-St.-Pierre-3500) vs. Thiago Alves (http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Thiago-Alves-5998)
“I like St. Pierre. I just think he’s a more complete martial artist, in every area, mentally and physically. Plus, he’s in his prime right now.”

Brock Lesnar (http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Brock-Lesnar-17522) vs. Frank Mir (http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Frank-Mir-2329)
“I like Brock. I look at the sport from afar, because I don’t really watch fights. Brock, to me, looks like a guy who’s just incredibly serious and focused. He’s not there to hang out and get chicks. He’s there to smash people.”

12-07-2009, 21:51
slecht dit! net als tito`s verliespartijen alleen laten zien, terwijl hij vroeger veel voor de UFC betekende...amateuristisch hoor!