Greetings MMA posters, this is the first in a series of threads I'll make on this forum, basically ripping off the excellent Classic Forum boxing poster Boxed Ears, who has a series in the Classic called 'Very Good Or Great', where he asks regulars whether they consider some fighters to merit the description 'great' fighters, or whether they are merely 'very good'. http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=221577 I think a good choice for the inaugural MMA version would the 'Muscle Shark' himself, Sean Sherk. Some relevant info about Sean: - Sherk This content is protected , and defended it once, before he was stripped for failing a drug test. Still, the failed drug test did not apply to the fight where he won the title, so he was a legitimate champion for a brief period. - Sherk This content is protected He has a draw with Kiuma Kunioku on his record from Pancrase in 2001, a guy Sherk never met in the cage again, but other than that he has only lost to the very very best. The losses to Hughes and GSP were above Sherk's best weight, and This content is protected - The most important factor is of course resume, the guys Sherk has beaten. Make your assessment of this list: This content is protected - UFC, 2006 - This content is protected This content is protected - UFC, 2006 - This content is protected This content is protected - UFC, 2008 - This content is protected This content is protected - UFC, 2010 - This content is protected This content is protected - UFC, 2007 - This content is protected This content is protected - Reality Submission Fighting, 2001 - This content is protected This content is protected - Reality Submission Fighting, 2000/2001 - This content is protected - Other factors to consider: Current record is This content is protected from 41 fights / 8 KO/TKOs, 13 submissions, This content is protected / This content is protected , no submissions losses. Sherk's record reached a superb 31-1-1 before he met St Pierre and Penn within three years in the UFC. Sherk's record in the UFC is 8-4, his other 29 fights were in smaller organizations. I look forward to your verdicts and explanations, and hope to continue this series shortly :bbb
I'm gonna go with very good. He beat some other very good fighters, and he lost to the greats that he faced. He was an amazing submission grappler for the best part of his career, but towards his 'later' career, where he picked up some of his best wins, he was mostly decisioning people, and even more recently he seems content to brawl with people, which is what I think cost him in the Frankie Edgar fight, and to a lesser extent the BJ Penn fight. Overall he was very good, a step above most, but never quite good enough to be considered one of the greats.
Zarman has voted 'Great', but not commented. I'd really like to hear his side of the story. I don't think Sean proved to be great myself, but I'm open to being convinced, I think he is extremely close.
Not much to explain. The best thing about Sherk was his training. His so called boxing while in good form wasnt effective due to his t-rex arms. His wrestling while at the Matt Hughes level (which was enough to dominate at the time) was proven to be not nearly as effective against those who had good TD defense. Guy couldn't sub anything if his life depended on it. Basically it boils down to three things. Wrestling - B BJJ - D- Striking C+ That in my book is good or satisfactory.
But in this argument, which is about greatness and not h2h ability, consider these alternative three things: - he holds wins over Nick Diaz and Kenny Florian - he has only ever lost to high-level HOF-calibre UFC champions like GSP, Penn, Hughes and Edgar, he's never been beaten by anyone outwith this extreme level of quality - he has a 36-4-1 record Does this impact upon your view over whether he should be considered a 'great' fighter or not?
Dude has 13 submission wins. In his early career he was like a not-quite-as-good Matt Hughes. He used his wrestling and top control to look for a finish with subs.