Is Ken Shamrock ruining his legacy by fighting?

He was, IMO, the best of the first generation.

Also I had him beating Frye in Pride, especially under Pride rules (attempts to finish the fight, etc). Frye being one of the best of the second generation.

For this Shamrock was, deservedly, named as an inaugural member of the UFC HOF.

Now he is basically the Holyfield of MMA. Not only that, but his positive test for anabolic steroids (correct me if I'm wrong) probably hurts his legacy a great deal.

 

Yes he is.

 

i dont think its really hurting his legacy.
everyone knows the real shamrock has been MIA since about 97.

 

At this stage I'd say he's ruining his health rather than his legacey. Pretty much everyone acknowledges Ken is way past his best these days so I don't see any loses hurting his legacey, the fights that did that were in 05-06.

The most obvious damaged legacey in recent years its clearly Chucks for me, physical decline was part of it but his loses confirmed much of the criticism that he was being fed grapplers for his run at the top.

 

He is still my favorite MMA fighter of all time. He is top 5 IMO. Loved watching his fights when I was a kid early in the morning on cable tv around 3:00, good times.

 

Sadly, most fighters go on too long losing to men not on their level in a prime v prime sense.... but common sense must come into play if you are a serious fan, you cant erase all the good they did in their prime no matter what happens later on, old age happens to everyone, it might make their record look worse on paper to the casual fan but other than that it shouldnt change a thing when judging their ATG ranking... the only way a fighters ranking should drop is if new fighters come along who do more, it should never drop due to past prime losses vs men obviously not on their level in their best day, fathertime should never get a say in any ATG debate IMO.

 

Shamrock is not top 5, c`mon.... Royce Gracie chocked him out in 58 seconds in their 1st fight, giving away at least 20 lbs in weight.

I like Ken tho & he was a very good fighter in his prime, no doubt but their are more than a few fighters that wee both greater & better, his brother Frank for one.

 

Not to me I know how to seperate the 90s verison and the 00s verison. You cant change what he already accomplished when he was at his best he was one of the best in the game that is fact and can never be took away from him. I think its virtually impossible to tarnish a legacy. When years pass people always wind up thinking about the good times. In the mid 2000s there was a lot of talk about how Tyson was ruining his legacy now that its been years since his retirement and years since those embarrasing losses nobody talks about them anymore when they talk Mike Tyson boxing they talk about the wrecking ball he was in the 80s and 90s.

 

I`d fancy Ken over Tito prime v prime too, the bad thing was (from Ken`s point of view) that they hated each other when Ken was still a great fighter & Tito was a bit green... they should have got it on then & Ken woulda smashed him up but they never did & kept bitching verbally until yrs later when Tito had improved & Ken had slipped, then they fought 3 times, big mistake by Ken but like most men, their head & heart tells them they can still do it but the body is saying, **** outta here.

 

This ^

 

The main mistake he made was I'd say hanging around for too long. In late 96 with the UFC in trouble and Japanese MMA still relatively small scale the WWF was probabley the best option, when Pride took off though he would have been better advised to switch back sooner.

That said Ken did look in pretty good shape for the first couple of years of his comeback, the first Tito fight with the injuries he picked up seemed like the turning point to me and really when he'd have been best advised to walk away from the sport.