Randleman: "I have officially signed with Global Fighting LLC and World Victory Road"

I tend to agree, Coleman is the better wrestler and striker, also better GnP, the one scenario I see Kerr with a shot is if he does somehow get top postion, he was very good at powering on armlocks like he did against Barnett in ADCC.

 

At last, Randleman found an organization with no drug testing!

 

I disagree with Kerr being stronger as well. In the end, it doesn't even matter because Kerr would not outwrestle Coleman. It simply wouldn't happen. Coleman is on another level in the wrestling department. In other words.... Kerr would never be on top, so he would never win the fight.

 

Off the top of my head I'd say Ron Waterman and Fujita are stronger. Possibly Jeff Monson (though he's much less explosive)

But yeh Coleman is/was very strong of course.

 

Waterman was a former bodybuilder. Monson uses power lifting regimes when he trains. There all strong guys but there functional strength probably isnt the same as that of Coleman. Colemans intensity and explosiveness was much greater in his prime than any of those fighters mentioned.

 

Kerr beat Angle as well.....

 

True... and he also beat Randy Couture. Kerr was a very good wrestler, he just wasn't as good as Coleman.

 

BTW... Coleman won by Tech Fall (17-1) over Kerr when they wrestled.

 

Didn't Coleman beat that olympic gold medalist from professional wrestling?(forgot his name)

 

Yes, Kurt Angle... that is what we were talking about. Kerr beat him too... but Coleman smashed Kerr when they wrestled each other.

 

I think Kerr was like 18 and Coleman was 22....

Dan Gable got beat by Bobby Douglas numerous times in one day when Gable was 18 for Olympic tryouts....

Prime Kerr and Prime Coleman would have been close very close....

Kerr was a 1994 US Freestyle Champ, that prime Kerr would not get smashed....

 

Kerr's wrestling was never anywhere near Coleman's, and arguing such is as ******ed as that God awful "GSP BEATS KOSCHECK IN FREESTYLE" thread.

 

Coleman was 23 and Kerr was 19. However, once you are 19 years of age and have already been wrestling for a long time... you aren't going to close that sort of gap on an opponent. If you get beat by tech fall at 19 years of age by someone who is 23... I don't see you having a close match against that person down the road, as long as that person is still active as well. 17-1 is just too much of a domination.

Also, let's just look at Coleman's accomplishments....

This content is protected

NCAA Champion
Pan Games Champion - Gold Medal
Olympic Team Member (7th)
2nd Place at the FILA World Freestyle Championships

This content is protected

UFC 10 Tournament Champion
UFC 11 Tournament Champion
UFC Ultimate Ultimate Champion
First ever UFC Heavyweight Champion
First ever Pride GP Champion

I don't think that Kerr holds a candle to Coleman in Wrestling or MMA. Kerr was a very good wrestler, and seemed to be on the verge of doing something big in MMA... but never did. The only edge that I would give to Kerr would be submissions.... but not the kind of edge that would put him into the position of winning a fight between the two.... as Kerr's subs were only useful from the top... where he wouldn't be.

 

I don't think you listed Kerr's accomplishments. And I think Alan Fried tech falled Tom Brands when Fried was still in highscool and Brands was at Iowa. I think he lost to Brands 2x in the NCAA finals. One blowout certainly does not guarantee a second one....

 

There is a big difference between one guy still being in High School, and the other guy in college. We are talking about one guy being 19 and the other being 23, and both were in college. Also, Kerr already had an entire year of NCAA Division I wrestling under his belt. You don't think there is a big difference? Also, we aren't talking about an older guy beating a younger guy, and then the younger guy going on to have a much more successful career afterwards/. We are talking about a 23 year old who DOMINATED a 19 year old, and then went on to accomplish much more than the younger guy later in their careers as well.

You can list Kerr's accomplishments in Wrestling and MMA if you want to. I didn't bother because we all know that they don't stack up. As I said before, Kerr only has one advantage over Coleman and that was in Submission Grappling because Kerr competed in it... and was successful. However in a head to head match-up that wouldn't have came into play, because he wouldn't have been on top of Coleman.