# Tito Ortiz: Legend, or Pioneer?



## TanyaJade (Aug 31, 2010)

Do you think that Tito is a UFC/MMA legend, or simply a pioneer?

He's one of the most, and least popular fighters in the sport. He carried the UFC through it's dark ages and defended the Light-Heavyweight Championship a record of five times, although against questionable competition.

It's no doubt that Tito has had a profound impact on the UFC, but is he worthy of being called a "legend"? Or even a Hall of Famer?

Pros:
- Has defended the Light-Heavyweight Title more times than any other LHW Champion
- Was once the UFC biggest PPV draws
- Has victories over Forrest Griffin, Vitor Belfort, and Wanderlei Silva.
- Has only ever lost to legitimate competition

Cons:
- Defended his title against questionable competition
- His "excuses" have caused disarray with himself and the UFC fans and brass.
- Is not respected by the majority of the MMA community, and MMA fighters themselves. 
- His only legitimate victories are questionable at best (Forrest, Vitor...)


Those are just some points.

Whats your opinion/arguement?


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

He is just a clown.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Clearly a legend. Let's not get crazy. It's not like he's some 96 style Pancrase fighter a la Funaki.


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

Roflcopter said:


> Clearly a legend. Let's not get crazy. It's not like he's some 96 style Pancrase fighter a la Funaki.


The clown shoes he has sported cast a shadow over everything good he has done even more than the brutal ass beatings he has taken by most of the actually elite fighters he has gone against.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Cons -
You could make the argument that he's not even one of the ten greatest 205 fighters of all time, already. (Chuck, Griffin, Henderson, Machida, Rashad, Rampage, Randy, Shogun, Shamrock, Wanderlei)

Their are questions that he was the best 205ers when he was champion because of Pride, and even issues with him being the best in the UFC thanks to Couture, and Liddell.

I'd call him a pioneer


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Anyone who fails to recognize Tito as a true legend of the sport is either just being a hater, are a noob or are out of there minds. 

Ortiz is one of the greatest legends in UFC history.


----------



## TanyaJade (Aug 31, 2010)

Toxic said:


> Anyone who fails to recognize Tito as a true legend of the sport is either just being a hater, are a noob or are out of there minds.
> 
> Ortiz is one of the greatest legends in UFC history.


Care to share why you have that opinion?


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

Toxic said:


> Anyone who fails to recognize Tito as a true legend of the sport is either just being a hater, are a noob or are out of there minds.
> 
> Ortiz is one of the greatest legends in UFC history.


I don't like Tito, but I agree with what you said.

How many LHW have accomplished what Tito has? Not many.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

John8204 said:


> Cons -
> You could make the argument that he's not even one of the ten greatest 205 fighters of all time, already. (Chuck, Griffin, Henderson, Machida, Rashad, Rampage, Randy, Shogun, Shamrock, Wanderlei)
> 
> Their are questions that he was the best 205ers when he was champion because of Pride, and even issues with him being the best in the UFC thanks to Couture, and Liddell.
> ...


The best dude in PRIDE for a long time was Wanderlei at 205, who Tito beat very easily.

Also, Guy Mezger was a top 5 LHW in PRIDE and Tito beat the hell out him too.


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

Toxic said:


> Anyone who fails to recognize Tito as a true legend of the sport is either just being a hater, are a noob or are out of there minds.
> 
> Ortiz is one of the greatest legends in UFC history.


He beat less than a handful of very good fighters over a short period of time then had a long career of being a clown who couldn't get legitimate wins over anyone good. Not a legend all of this guys fans are delusional. Going 1-1 against Mezger, beating Wandy, getting ripoff decisions against Vitor's shadow and Forrest, and getting your ass beat by basically every other very good fighter you faced does not make you a legend. He is a legend among douchebags and people who got undeserved praise though.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Ari said:


> Care to share why you have that opinion?



Tito was the most dominant LHW champ in the UFC defending the title more than anybody else. Has beaten legendary fighters like Wanderlie Silva, Evan Tanner, Vitor Belfort,Ken Shamrock (one of the sports greatest rivalries), and Guy Mezger. Also has beaten future legend Forrest Griffen and fought to a close draw with future legend Rashad Evans. He has been involved in 9 UFC title fights, beaten 3 former king of pancrease, 3 former UFC champs, one former Pride champion. He has had 2 of the sports all time greatest rivalries with Chuck Liddell and Ken Shamrock. He has also had legendary fights with both Randy Couture and Frank Shamrock. That is the career of a true legend whose status can not be debated and should never need be justified.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Roflcopter said:


> The best dude in PRIDE for a long time was Wanderlei at 205, who Tito beat very easily.
> 
> Also, Guy Mezger was a top 5 LHW in PRIDE and Tito beat the hell out him too.


1. Tito also lost Mezger
2. What Wanderlei did after that fight was much more impressive than what Tito did during his entire career.

I don't mean to trash or disrespect Tito, but where can you realistically rank him all time at 205? How far down the line amongst the 205 and HW's do you give Legend status.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

osmium said:


> He beat less than a handful of very good fighters over a short period of time then had a long career of being a clown who couldn't get legitimate wins over anyone good. Not a legend all of this guys fans are delusional. Going 1-1 against Mezger, beating Wandy, getting ripoff decisions against Vitor's shadow and Forrest, and getting your ass beat by basically every other very good fighter you faced does not make you a legend. He is a legend among douchebags and people who got undeserved praise though.


Mezger was Chuck Liddell before Chuck was Chuck. Dude was one of the sports biggest stars at one time. When Mezger beat Tito the difference was Tito had only had one fight, Mezger had already had 20. Tito has fought 15 guys who have fought for UFC titles. You have got to be completely delusional to try to discredit all he has accomplished.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

John8204 said:


> 1. Tito also lost Mezger
> 2. What Wanderlei did after that fight was much more impressive than what Tito did during his entire career.
> 
> I don't mean to trash or disrespect Tito, but where can you realistically rank him all time at 205? How far down the line amongst the 205 and HW's do you give Legend status.


Top 5 pretty easily.

And I don't really think so at all. People typically nuthug PRIDE and give shit to UFC fighters just because it's UFC. Same way people can say Tito fought supposedly weak competition(Kondo and Matyushenko are hardly weak, especially Kondo at that point), yet excuse PRIDE fighters for mainly beating up on weaker Japanese fighters and random cans.

Wanderlei didn't do much other than beat Mezger, who Tito already stopped, decision Dan but later get brutally KO'd by him, and stop Rampage twice. Other than that, he beat up on Sakuraba a bunch of times and stopped Kondo and everything else isn't really of note.


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

Toxic said:


> Tito was the most dominant LHW champ in the UFC defending the title more than anybody else. Has beaten legendary fighters like Wanderlie Silva, Evan Tanner, Vitor Belfort,Ken Shamrock (one of the sports greatest rivalries), and Guy Mezger. Also has beaten future legend Forrest Griffen and fought to a close draw with future legend Rashad Evans. He has been involved in 9 UFC title fights, beaten 3 former king of pancrease, 3 former UFC champs, one former Pride champion. He has had 2 of the sports all time greatest rivalries with Chuck Liddell and Tito Oritiz. He has also had legendary fights with both Randy Couture and Frank Shamrock. That is the career of a true legend whose status can not be debated and should never need be justified.


It isn't a rivalry if it is one sided. Ken Shamrock and Evan Tanner were not good fighters. He was 1-1 against Mezger and Vitor should have gotten that decision. He lost those legendary fights.

The top level fighters he has gone against are Chuck, Mezger, Wandy, Randy, Vitor, Frank, Forrest, Evans, and Lyoto. He is 4-8-1 against those guys and 2 of those wins are fraudulent. 2-10-1 against the best THE STUFF OF LEGENDS!


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

John8204 said:


> 1. Tito also lost Mezger
> 2. What Wanderlei did after that fight was much more impressive than what Tito did during his entire career.
> 
> I don't mean to trash or disrespect Tito, but where can you realistically rank him all time at 205? How far down the line amongst the 205 and HW's do you give Legend status.


#4 only behind Liddell, Wandy and Couture. IMO he and Shogun are close for 4 and 5 and basically interchangeable.



osmium said:


> It isn't a rivalry if it is one sided. Ken Shamrock and Evan Tanner were not good fighters. He was 1-1 against Mezger and Vitor should have gotten that decision. He lost those legendary fights.
> 
> The top level fighters he has gone against are Chuck, Mezger, Wandy, Randy, Vitor, Frank, Forrest, Evans, and Lyoto. He is 4-8-1 against those guys and 2 of those wins are fraudulent. 2-10-1 against the best THE STUFF OF LEGENDS!


God, look Wandy just lost 6 or his last 8 he is horrible, Chuck lost 5 or his last 6 his entire career is meaningless, Randy Couture, hell that chump lost 3 of his last 6 and one was a BS decision over Brandon Vera. Hell I guess the entire LHW division sucks and nobody who ever fought in the division is a legend. 

Evan Tanner was a former champion for gods sake, Shamrock was once one of the most feared fighters on the planet. Albeit Shamrock was already on the decline when he met up with Tito, it doesn't make it a wash.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Toxic said:


> #4 only behind Liddell, Wandy and Couture. IMO he and Shogun are close for 4 and 5 and basically interchangeable.


About right.

On a side note, I like the sentiment that Forrest got ripped off in the first fight, when he pretty clearly didn't.

Nor did Vitor for that matter, although he certainly could've won it given 3 different judges and it was closer than the Forrest fight.


----------



## Calibretto9 (Oct 15, 2006)

Tito is a legend. Just because he can't hang with the top guys today doesn't negate the body of work he produced in the past.


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

Toxic said:


> #4 only behind Liddell, Wandy and Couture. IMO he and Shogun are close for 4 and 5 and basically interchangeable.


Matt Hamill(Beat Tito)
Lyoto Machida(Beat Tito)
Chuck Liddelx2(Beat Tito twice)
Dan Henderson
Ricardo Arona

Those are some of the people Rampage has beaten. Quit hating on the real great fighters of the sport Tito isn't top 10 all time at LHW.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

An argument for both fighters exists in both Forrest/Tito fights so as long as each got one win, I am ok with it.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

osmisium's post ignores so much context it is ridiculous. 

Firstly, Tito doesn't have a ton of fights because back then the UFC was just starting and had cards only like 3 or 4 times a year, so for Tito to fight once or twice a year and dominate like he did was a big deal back then.

Secondly, I'm not sure where you are going with that whole 4-8 nonsense, especially considering most of those losses are when Tito was past it. After the Frank Shamrock fight, which was actually a really spectacular fight that was very competitive, Tito went on a stretch of fight title fights where he barely lost a round. It was like GSP before GSP.

Thirdly, Evan Tanner was essentially Forrest Griffin before Forrest Griffin. I find it funny that Forrest is being lauded as some amazing fighter and Tanner is being called shit. Why? Because Forrest is a more modern fighter, therefore is obviously better....you know with those guys back in the early 2000s, when they didn't even have the internet or anything and they were all inferior athletes.

Also, Shamrock-Tito 1....biggest fight in the history of the UFC at the time....and still is up there to this day.


Seriously, seems like osmisium started watching after Bonnar-Forrest 1 with some of these comments.


----------



## Rusty (Apr 13, 2010)

Titos "championship" run, Wand, Kondo, Tanner, Elvis, and Vlad. Losses after ducking to Chuck twice and Randy, not to mention, Rashad, Machida, Forrest, and Matt Hamill of all people.

Tito was a weight cutting freak who is a frontrunner and a bully against smaller fighters when he had his "run". The dude should be fighting at HW and dwarfs even the biggest light heavies. 

He won't even be top 20 in 4-5 years:thumbsdown:


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Toxic said:


> #4 only behind Liddell, Wandy and Couture. IMO he and Shogun are close for 4 and 5 and basically interchangeable.


We agree on the top four, Liddell, Wandy, Couture, and Shogun after that I would say Jackson, Evans, and Shamrock. Rashad's record is sick, even if I don't like the man personally even I have to admit his run as been incredible. 

Quinton Jackson is longevity and consistency has to be taken into account, I think he's basically the same fighter today as he was 10 years ago Tito went years without a quality win that has to take a toll. 

I think different strokes for different folks but Frank Shamrock's UFC run was insane, one of the greatest runs of a UFC champion ever. 

For me Tito is in this third tier of guys, with Forrest Griffin, Dan Henderson, and Lyoto Machida I think you can put him ahead of them or behind them.

And I think that looking at Dan Henderson's current 6-1 run where he's beaten Franklin, Babalul, Fedor, Bisping, Paul Harris, and Cavalcante makes me think people should start looking at him as a 205 great.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

osmium said:


> Matt Hamill(Beat Tito)
> Lyoto Machida(Beat Tito)
> Chuck Liddelx2(Beat Tito twice)
> Dan Henderson
> ...


But wait I can discredit victories too!

Matt Hamill is terrible!

Lyoto Machida got ripped off and was coming off a knockout loss!

Chuck was jetlagged and then started partying too much in the 2nd fight and was washed up!

Henderson is a natural 185lber!

Ricardo Arona had dengue fever!


Also I can do the fighter X beat this person game too!


Rampage lost to Forrest for the title! Tito beat Forrest.

Rampage got KTFO by Wanderlei twice. Tito beat him easily.



John8204 said:


> We agree on the top four, Liddell, Wandy, Couture, and Shogun after that I would say Jackson, Evans, and Shamrock. Rashad's record is sick, even if I don't like the man personally even I have to admit his run as been incredible.
> 
> Quinton Jackson is longevity and consistency has to be taken into account, I think he's basically the same fighter today as he was 10 years ago Tito went years without a quality win that has to take a toll.
> 
> ...


Hendo is a top 5 p4p fighter in my book, but I don't rate him as highly at 205. I think at 185 he's top 3 though.


----------



## Guy Incognito (Apr 3, 2010)

Lol at "only legit wins are Vitor and Forrest"


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

Toxic said:


> #4 only behind Liddell, Wandy and Couture. IMO he and Shogun are close for 4 and 5 and basically interchangeable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Tito was losing those fights for the most part in his prime not when he is past the age of 40 or after his chin went. Evan Tanner was the champion of a joke division, never successfully defended his title, and never beat anyone good. Ken Shamrock sucked for the entire time that MMA was a legitimate sport and not no hold barred trained bum fights.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

osmium said:


> Matt Hamill(Beat Tito)
> Lyoto Machida(Beat Tito)
> Chuck Liddelx2(Beat Tito twice)
> Dan Henderson
> ...


I can play your game here, Machida was robbed, Chuck was past his prime, Dan Henderson is a MW and what the hell did Ricardo Arona ever do in mma? (here is a hint a hell of a lot less than over half the people Tito fought) Rampage also lost to Wandy twice (Who Tito beat) stole a BS decision against Ninja Rua (who is just plain awful), lost to Sakuraba who is every bit as awful as Shamrock. Hell Rampage couldn't even knock out Keith Jardine and everybody knocks out Kieth Jardine. If you refuse to be objective and leave logic out of the equation you can make all kinds of crazy arguements.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Toxic said:


> I can play your game here, Machida was robbed, Chuck was past his prime, Dan Henderson is a MW and what the hell did Ricardo Arona ever do in mma? (here is a hint a hell of a lot less than over half the people Tito fought) Rampage also lost to Wandy twice (Who Tito beat) stole a BS decision against Ninja Rua (who is just plain awful), lost to Sakuraba who is every bit as awful as Shamrock. Hell Rampage couldn't even knock out Keith Jardine and everybody knocks out Kieth Jardine. If you refuse to be objective and leave logic out of the equation you can make all kinds of crazy arguements.


I beat you to it..:thumb02:


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Roflcopter said:


> I beat you to it..:thumb02:


I saw that, now you must pay...:bye02:


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

osmium said:


> Tito was losing those fights for the most part in his prime not when he is past the age of 40 or after his chin went. Evan Tanner was the champion of a joke division, never successfully defended his title, and never beat anyone good. Ken Shamrock sucked for the entire time that MMA was a legitimate sport and not no hold barred trained bum fights.


Pancrase and RINGS actually had a LOT of rules.


----------



## Rusty (Apr 13, 2010)

I like you and Toxic both but Tito is a fraud and has proven it against any significant competition for the last few years. I'm as nostalgic as the next guy but he was never elite and without the Shamrock rivalry he would have been a sidenote by now.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Roflcopter said:


> Pancrase and RINGS actually had a LOT of rules.


I would think his views on Guy Mezger make his level of knowledge about Pancrase pretty clear.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

I thought it was the record title defenses in the division along with some of the most epic battles in the sport's history that put him on the map.

Also, yes, everyone back then sucked and everyone now are clearly amazing fighters.

If a guy can't hack it now in his old age it's because he always sucked.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

RustyRenegade said:


> I like you and Toxic both but Tito is a fraud and has proven it against any significant competition for the last few years. I'm as nostalgic as the next guy but he was never elite and without the Shamrock rivalry he would have been a sidenote by now.


Without Tito the UFC would likely be a sidenote by now. The guy carried the weight of the company on his back and was the companies miracle draw when it came out of the dark ages. When you compare Tito's drawing ability to the drawing ability of other cards during his time its ludicrous, nobody has ever had such a large % of increased PPV buys. How can the longest reigning LHW champ ever be just a side note.


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

Roflcopter said:


> But wait I can discredit victories too!
> 
> Matt Hamill is terrible!
> 
> ...


Except everything you said is fraudulent. Henderson natural 185er who has held the 205 titles in the second and third most prominent MMA organizations in the history of the sport and has beaten HWs. Chuck Liddel the washed up current LHW champion who was on a 7 fight win streak the first and last of which were destructions of Tito. Terrible Matt Hammill who beat Tito; legend of the sport getting tooled by an awful fighter. You sure are making a great case for why Tito isn't a legend.

The Lyoto decision wasn't controversial at all outside of BobbieCooper's mind. Forrest has a win over Tito that isn't controversial you can't say the same for his win over Rampage.


----------



## Guy Incognito (Apr 3, 2010)

Wanderlei would have lost to Tito during his PRIDE run.

The guy never faced any strong grapplers except for Ricardo Arona and he lost both times.

Oh and a 170 Dan Henderson who he was able to stuff easily


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

osmium said:


> Except everything you said is fraudulent. Henderson natural 185er who has held the 205 titles in the second and third most prominent MMA organizations in the history of the sport. Chuck Liddel the washed up current LHW champion who was on a 7 fight win streak the first and last of which were destructions of Tito. Terrible Matt Hammill who beat Tito; legend of the sport getting tooled by an awful fighter. You sure are making a great case for why Tito isn't a legend.
> 
> The Lyoto decision wasn't controversial at all outside of BobbieCooper's mind. Forrest has a win over Tito that isn't controversial you can't say the same for his win over Rampage.


Both the Forrest/Ortix fights were more controversial than the Forrest/Rampage. Forrest plain picked Rampage apart, I have never figured out how anyone has ever seen that fight as controversial. It was clear as day, Forrest picked him apart standing, took his leg out, did more damage, out grappled him. Rampage had absolutly no advantage in the fight he just got beat. Rampage made the fight competitive and that was about it but in no way shape or form did Jackson even come close to winning.


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

Roflcopter said:


> Pancrase and RINGS actually had a LOT of rules.


The WWE has a lot of rules too I guess Ken Shamrock's record there is why he is an MMA legend right. That makes as much sense as pretending a company like pancrase with no punching and fixed fights left and right was MMA.



Toxic said:


> Both the Forrest/Ortix fights were more controversial than the Forrest/Rampage. Forrest plain picked Rampage apart, I have never figured out how anyone has ever seen that fight as controversial. It was clear as day, Forrest picked him apart standing, took his leg out, did more damage, out grappled him. Rampage had absolutly no advantage in the fight he just got beat. Rampage made the fight competitive and that was about it but in no way shape or form did Jackson even come close to winning.


No they weren't and nothing you say about rampage is credible since you have blinders when it comes to him.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

It makes a much sense as pretending a company with no ground knees or headbutts is MMA either.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

osmium said:


> No they weren't and nothing you say about rampage is credible since you have blinders when it comes to him.


My blinders when it comes to Rampage are not nearly as bad as yours are proving to be in this thread. I don't think Rampage is that great of a fighter but the fact he has accomplished quite a bit is still evident. Your not only trying to belittle Tito as a fighter but your also trying to discredit one of the most accomplished LHW's of all time's career.


----------



## VII Makaveli (Aug 15, 2011)

Tito is obviously a pioneer. He is also a legend, im shocked that so many people think otherwise. 

He has defended the LHW belt more than any other fighter, yet people say "the competiton wasn't very good." The fact is he defended the belt against the toughest opponents the division had to offer.

He has always faught the top guys in the LHW dision, and without him the UFC wouldn't be the same.


----------



## Trollface (Aug 14, 2011)

Hes both a legend and pioneer. Love him or hate him.


----------



## Hexabob69 (Nov 8, 2008)

Look at the way things were while he was in his Hey-Day and then answer the question. I tire of those that just see what happened yesterday and would happen tomorrow, but truly look at what he did when he was prime. Yes he has a big mouth/attitude, but he used that to create one of the best rivalries to date; best of all he was able to back it up. With the right perspective he achieved both status' listed, and deserves both IMHO.


----------



## Guy Incognito (Apr 3, 2010)

i don't think there is any other sport in the world where the fans discredit,disrespect and basically ignore what the original and old school guys did.

Edit: Rampage was robbed against forrest.


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

Tito is both!

But he is also a selfish, arrogant moron unfortunetly!

just like the peoples champ Joe Rogan lol

LMAO @ this World


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

BobbyCooper said:


> Tito is both!
> 
> But he is also a selfish, arrogant moron unfortunetly!
> 
> ...


yeah i agree anyone from the western world is the devil


----------



## The Dark Knight (Jun 29, 2008)

Tito's a legend, without a doubt. The competition is beyond stiff these days and the sport is evolving rapidly. But yeah, guy was top dog in his day and you can't ever take that away from him.


----------



## dvdanny (May 18, 2011)

As one sided as it was Tito vs Shamrock 1,2 and 3 absolutely helped boost the UFC to the main stream, along with Forest vs. Bonnar 1. Despite being a huge shamrock fan, Tito is definitely a pioneer and a legend in the sport of MMA and especially in the UFC. 

Or better yet, on that merit, Fedor is not a legend because he never fought the top UFC fighters, how do you Pride fans like that? If anything Tito is still somewhat relevant in the sport, he's hasn't become a guy anyone can just walk through yet (like Chuck and Shamrock did at the end of their careers). 

I think being the longest reigning UFC LHW champ has some merit especially if being undefeated in a shady japanese organization has so much.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

guy incognito said:


> i don't think there is any other sport in the world where the fans discredit,disrespect and basically ignore what the original and old school guys did.
> 
> Edit: Rampage was robbed against forrest.


Man you're so right. MMA hasn't been around very long but talking about tito like he was nothing is like an NFL die-hard talking shit about Blanda or Rockne, MLB fans saying Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker suck because they wouldn't have cut it in today's game. MMA has evolved and very fast.

Tito has been around since UFC *13*, and anyone who attempts to discredit the guy from helping make UFC as big as it is today, is a ******* retard. There were other factors obviously but from day one he's always tried to hype the UFC as much as possible, and has done it all title-wise. If he isn't a legend or a pioneer, than who the hell is?


----------



## paulfromtulsa (Jan 13, 2007)

tito has sex with porn stars


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

paulfromtulsa said:


> tito has sex with porn stars


Jealous?


----------



## locnott (Apr 1, 2009)

Delete..


----------



## Rusty (Apr 13, 2010)

Toxic said:


> Jealous?


No need to be really. Anyone of us could live vicariously through a number of men:thumb02:


----------



## EliteBloodline (Aug 16, 2011)

1 win in 5 yrs he thinks he is back 5 weeks later he gets worked by Rashad!!! The slew of excuses, ducking Chuck for all that time and finally losing the belt to Randy......to me he is neither a pioneer or a Legend, he is a self promoting literal loser, he dose not win. Everything he is today is based of a time when MMA was not popular or just emerging nor were athletes as well conditioned.


----------



## VII Makaveli (Aug 15, 2011)

EliteBloodline said:


> 1 win in 5 yrs he thinks he is back 5 weeks later he gets worked by Rashad!!! The slew of excuses, ducking Chuck for all that time and finally losing the belt to Randy......to me he is neither a pioneer or a Legend, he is a self promoting literal loser, he dose not win. Everything he is today is based of a time when MMA was not popular or just emerging nor were athletes as well conditioned.


I don't know where to start...The last 5 years have nothing to do with being a pioneer, and if you go on a losing streak you can still be considered a legend. Especially considering how/who he lost to. 

"slew of excuses" - he is a professional fighter with injuries, and we post on the forums about professional fighting. We have no right to judge. 

"ducking chuck" - if it is true...it definitely doesn't effect the pioneer status.

"he does not win" - He has 15 wins in the UFC.

What is your exact reason why he "is neither a pioneer or a legend". First off, you cant dispute the fact that Tito is a pioneer or it is obvious you didn't follow the UFC in the early days. Take a look at his accomplishments in the UFC, id say he's a legend.


----------



## VII Makaveli (Aug 15, 2011)

and losing to randy does not make you any less of a pioneer or a legend...


----------



## EliteBloodline (Aug 16, 2011)

VII Makaveli said:


> I don't know where to start...The last 5 years have nothing to do with being a pioneer, and if you go on a losing streak you can still be considered a legend. Especially considering how/who he lost to.
> 
> "slew of excuses" - he is a professional fighter with injuries, and we post on the forums about professional fighting. We have no right to judge.
> 
> ...





VII Makaveli said:


> and losing to randy does not make you any less of a pioneer or a legend...


Before you start let me stop you.....I think he is neither a legend or pioneer, you said it yourself, "especially considering who he has lost to"....beating Ken Shamrock was so over exposed by Tito. My point is he isnt a pioneer. A pioneer is Royce Gracie, a legend is a winner like Matt Hughs who defended his title forever and of course guys like Chuck.......being a 47 yr old warrior makes Randy a legend, besides losing to Chuck and Randy, what has Tito done to top level opponents????:thumbsup:


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Wanderlei Silva was a top level opponent, Guy Mezger was a elite level fighter, Evan Tanner was a top level guy. Vlad was a top level fighter who during that time even beat the likes of Vernon White, Lil Nog and Pedro Rizzo. Forrest Griffen top level, Former HW champ Vitor Belfort? elite level. Come on man.


----------



## EliteBloodline (Aug 16, 2011)

Toxic said:


> Wanderlei Silva was a top level opponent, Guy Mezger was a elite level fighter, Evan Tanner was a top level guy. Vlad was a top level fighter who during that time even beat the likes of Vernon White, Lil Nog and Pedro Rizzo. Forrest Griffen top level, Former HW champ Vitor Belfort? elite level. Come on man.


I knew you would swoop in to Tito's rescue....I told you the other night you said no. Then to quote you after you said "meh"....thats Tito, honestly the whole Tito is the UFC really never appealed to me even when I used to think he was a badass he still wouldnt take that fight with Chuck, he stalled!!! Just sayin, Im ready to bet you on his next fight???


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

You mean in that fight he took against Rashad? The one your boy didn't have the balls to step up and take?


----------



## EliteBloodline (Aug 16, 2011)

Toxic said:


> You mean in that fight he took against Rashad? The one your boy didn't have the balls to step up and take?


Please dont go there....really you went there??? Why do we need to see Lyoto toss the wrestler all around the cage....AGAIN???? He was Dana's secret assasin and Tito's ticket out of the UFC...nuff said.

Lyoto is moving towards the belt as tito is moving towards the booth...Patrick Cote', there is a fighter that belongs in the UFC....


----------



## TanyaJade (Aug 31, 2010)

I thought Tito lost the Belfort fight and both Griffin fights, and while I'm not at all a Tito fan I do recognize that he did pave the way for virtually everyone in the UFC.

For that reason alone, I'll say he's a legend, but it's very difficult to admit.

Tito doesn't possess many 'legendary' qualities and I think that's why people are reluctant to admit his impact on the UFC. When people think of legends they think of guys from his era like Randy Couture, Chuck Liddel, and Matt Hughes.

Think about it...

- He makes excuses everytime he loses instead of admitting defeat with class
- He's mentally weak and can't accept the fact that he's not the best
- He never beat the top dogs (Randy, Chuck, etc.)
- His attitude towards Dana White and other fighters has been very 'WWE'ish in the past

I can see why people don't think Tito is a legend, because he certainly doesn't personify one.

But I'll still give credit where credit is due.


----------



## VII Makaveli (Aug 15, 2011)

EliteBloodline said:


> Before you start let me stop you.....I think he is neither a legend or pioneer, you said it yourself, "especially considering who he has lost to"....beating Ken Shamrock was so over exposed by Tito. My point is he isnt a pioneer. A pioneer is Royce Gracie, a legend is a winner like Matt Hughs who defended his title forever and of course guys like Chuck.......being a 47 yr old warrior makes Randy a legend, besides losing to Chuck and Randy, what has Tito done to top level opponents????:thumbsup:


_"What has Tito done to top level opponents??"_
He defended his LHW title more than any other champion has, in that division. Longer then Chuck and Randy. Don't even mention who he beat during that run because he beat whoever the UFC put against him. 


_"My point is he is not a pioneer. A pioneer is Royce Gracie." _
What an awful "point". Just because Gracie is a pioneer does't mean Tito can't be... Again, how is Tito not a pioneer, at the very least? 

We all know his record lately isn't good, but you cant take away what he did in the early years, and the records he has set. Even if you think the competiton wasn't the greatest.


----------



## limba (Jul 21, 2009)

A bit of both.

I would say he's more of a pioneer than a legend. 

But he's one of the few fighters that helped this sport develop to what it is today.

Honestly i would put him on the same scale as Mark Coleman, but bellow Randy Couture.

Ortiz and Coleman have pretty much the same record - 16-9-1 vs 16-10. 
And Coleman is in the UFC's Hall of Fame.

If Coleman is there, Tito should be there also.


----------



## marcthegame (Mar 28, 2009)

Agree with limba he is a bit of both. He is not a true legend because he was the third best between chuck,randy and him. He is a pioneer because he helped build the ufc brand. I do believe he would have been bigger than he is if he did not fall out with Dana. 

The crazy part is we consider chuck and Randy true legends, but Randy became popular during the time tito fell off which was around 2007. Before that Chuck and tito were top dogs in term of popularity.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

The only thing I know for a fact is that Titos cranium is very large.

Other than that, his game hasn't really evolved. So pioneer is out of the question in my opinion. As for legend? Well, like it or not, he defended his belt 6 times. Outside of Silva and GSP, nobody has pulled that off. Matt Hughes is considered a legend. When compared to Tito, the two follow a similar path: Very dominant for a period, but now not very competitive.

Legend it is, IMO.


----------



## marcthegame (Mar 28, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> The only thing I know for a fact is that Titos cranium is very large.
> 
> Other than that, his game hasn't really evolved. So pioneer is out of the question in my opinion. As for legend? Well, like it or not, he defended his belt 6 times. Outside of Silva and GSP, nobody has pulled that off. Matt Hughes is considered a legend. When compared to Tito, the two follow a similar path: Very dominant for a period, but now not very competitive.
> 
> Legend it is, IMO.


I don't know, his skills are there imo, its just he is not physically gifted to match the evolution of the sport. Today guys are much stronger and faster,etc. I think Tito is as skilled as he can be. Look at randy for example he has kept up his skills, but i can never see him beating machida or jon jones no matter how much he trains or improves.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

marcthegame said:


> I don't know, his skills are there imo, its just he is not physically gifted to match the evolution of the sport. Today guys are much stronger and faster,etc. I think Tito is as skilled as he can be. Look at randy for example he has kept up his skills, but i can never see him beating machida or jon jones no matter how much he trains or improves.


But at least with Randy, we saw a clear evolution. Who can forget his fight against Silvia? everybody was like, WTF!? Tito never came out and surprised us like that. Randy was still doing new shit at 40. Age is what beat Randy in the end.


----------



## limba (Jul 21, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> The only thing I know for a fact is that Titos cranium is very large.
> 
> Other than that, his game hasn't really evolved. So pioneer is out of the question in my opinion. As for legend? Well, like it or not, he defended his belt 6 times. Outside of Silva and GSP, nobody has pulled that off. Matt Hughes is considered a legend. When compared to Tito, the two follow a similar path: Very dominant for a period, but now not very competitive.
> 
> Legend it is, IMO.



I think of him as a pioneer because he was one of the first to implement heavy GnP in his game.
He is one of the first to be considered a serious MMA fighter, not like most of the guys fighting at the first UFC events.

And i agree: he didn't evolve at the same pace as the sport of MMA did.
He was just left behind.

I also think a lot had to do with his constant "injuries" adn the fact that he's been very "inactive" for a pretty long period:
- one fight in 2007
- one fight in 2008
- one fight in 2009
- one fight in 2010
- first fight in 2011 came 10 months after his last fight

The gaps/breaks between his fights was/is just too big imo
(except the last one).

In this sport, a fighter need to fight in order to evolve.
Constant training = over training = NO evolution.

Every fighter will say the same thing: no ammount of training equals a fight.

So...i believe Tito's inactivity cost him more than people think.

However, i don't think he would have a significantly better record than the one he has today, even if he would have fought more often.





Soojooko said:


> But at least with Randy, we saw a clear evolution. Who can forget his fight against Silvia? everybody was like, WTF!? Tito never came out and surprised us like that. Randy was still doing new shit at 40. Age is what beat Randy in the end.


That's why i said i would put Ortiz on the same scale as Coleman. Coleman is also a guy who was a force back in the days, but failed to evolve.
Basically, in his last fights, Coleman was fighting the same style he was fighting 10 years ago.

(almost) NO evolution.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

limba said:


> I think of him as a pioneer because he was one of the first to implement heavy GnP in his game.
> He is one of the first to be considered a serious MMA fighter, not like most of the guys fighting at the first UFC events.
> 
> And i agree: he didn't evolve at the same pace as the sport of MMA did.
> ...


I can dig it. Tito was one of the first to use elbows very efficiently in his GnP. Maybe I need to revise my opinion a little... but not much. :thumb02:


----------



## marcthegame (Mar 28, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> But at least with Randy, we saw a clear evolution. Who can forget his fight against Silvia? everybody was like, WTF!? Tito never came out and surprised us like that. Randy was still doing new shit at 40. Age is what beat Randy in the end.


Tito did suprise us in the Bader fight lol? We will have to wait and see what he does in his next fight. Its hard for me to judge Tito evolution, after that chuck fight his career was plague by injuries. He is finally healthy in 2011, i'll admit he has looked good in his past two fights. That tito that fought evans looked like he has a future. That was by far way better than the tito version that fought matt hamill.


----------



## limba (Jul 21, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> I can dig it. Tito was one of the first to use elbows very efficiently in his GnP. *Maybe I need to revise my opinion a little... but not much.* :thumb02:


I can dig that also. 

I am thinking more "pioneer" even when looking in the dictionary:



> one who is first or among the earliest in any field of inquiry, enterprise, or progress


He wasn't really one of the first...but i wouldn't call those first "red-necks" fighting in the UFC or that fat guy...pioneers.

Tito was among the first fighters to really make an impact in MMA. He created a lot of BUZZ - good and bad - but that helped the UFC (MMA) become more popular among normal people.

IMO, as time passes - 10-15 years - he will definitelty be consired a pioneer.

However, his performances, compared to other MMA fighters, will determine if he trully was/is a legend.


----------



## hadoq (Jan 6, 2011)

if he really can come back and make a legitimate run for a title shot, he'll definitely be remembered as a legend and that'll probably get him a (well deserved IMO) spot in the UFC HOF.

but we can all agree, at first, he went out by the small door after his TUF fail


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

EliteBloodline said:


> Please dont go there....really you went there??? Why do we need to see Lyoto toss the wrestler all around the cage....AGAIN???? He was Dana's secret assasin and Tito's ticket out of the UFC...nuff said.
> 
> Lyoto is moving towards the belt as tito is moving towards the booth...Patrick Cote', there is a fighter that belongs in the UFC....


That one sting a little:thumb02: 
Tito isn't a top level guy anymore, I don't expect him to beat a top 3LHW or even a consistent top 5. The fact Tito is no longer relevant in his weight class does nothing to diminish his legacy as a fighter though. Neither Mike Tyson or Muhamed Ali are currently ranked boxers but despite that both are legendary.


----------



## locnott (Apr 1, 2009)

Tito is one of the early stars of the sport, if that is the same as pioneer i guess he is...
I didn't want to get off topic before so I left out the whole "Frank Shamrock" factor, there was a better fighter out there who just gave up the belt, if not for that we probably dont have to answer this question, but Frank did give it up, Toto got it and ran with it. I could never see Tito as any sort of Legend like he see himself but he is no CharlieZ either, I need to look up pioneer real quick,
Ok Pioneer= one who ventures into unknown or unclaimed terriotory. Tito was not the first, not even the first Mexican/Latino/American to win the belt so I dont know if tito fits. As with almost everything its personal opinion.

I think he is probably a pioneer the more I think about it.......


----------



## Big_Charm (Jan 7, 2011)

While I never used to like Tito, based on his remarks and personality... I will not let that overshadow what he has accomplished.

He's both a pioneer and legend (not same status as Silva, Fedor, Gracie, etc). Love or hate him he has done many good things for the sport and helped them survive the dark ages of MMA.

He still uses excuses (or backhanded compliments) when he loses, but I see a new side of him as of late...dare I say a mature Ortiz?

He helped out in the crunch time recently, so I think we'll see at least 1-3 more performances from him.


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

limba said:


> I think of him as a pioneer because he was one of the first to implement heavy GnP in his game.
> He is one of the first to be considered a serious MMA fighter, not like most of the guys fighting at the first UFC events.
> 
> 
> ...


What? He wasn't one of the first to use heavy GNP. Mark Kerr son. Guys like Mezger and Frank Shamrock were pioneers in the sport by successfully using cross training he went 1-2 against them.

Coleman was a bad fighter. Tito had a better run than him and the UFC can put whoever they want into their hall of fame that doesn't make them fighting legends. Drawing money doesn't make you a legendary fighter either. Like I said legendary douchebag; he said and did a bunch of stupid shit and got a lot of attention which helped the sport make money. That has nothing to do with what he did in fights.

You aren't a legendary fighter if your career highlight reel is you getting your ass kicked over and over. Gassing and getting finished, tapping to strikes, mid octagon spanking, fractured skull, these are the memories that come to mind when I think about Tito.


----------



## Dr Gonzo (May 27, 2010)

Legend? Am I the only one who thinks all this talk about fightets being legends is a bit too much? I mean, the sport, legitimately, has been around since 98. Before then it was called NHB, cage fighting etc so I'm not including those years. So we have a sport thats effectively 13 years old. I just think calling people legends is far too much at this point. Pioneer is a good word. I like that. Most legends in sport are retired and had been competing or involved in their sport for 15 years at least. 

The sport of MMA is still in its infancy, there are rule changes still expected within the next few years so to call anyone a legend in this sport is just going a little too far for me. Maybe in 20 years time we can look back and think yeah, those dudes were legends. Because it is possible, obviously, to be both a pioneer and a legend. I'm afraid in my humbe opinion, at the moment, we have no legends, only pioneers.


----------



## VII Makaveli (Aug 15, 2011)

limba said:


> IMO, as time passes - 10-15 years - he will definitelty be consired a pioneer.
> 
> However, his performances, compared to other MMA fighters, will determine if he trully was/is a legend.


I agree


----------



## limba (Jul 21, 2009)

osmium said:


> What? He wasn't one of the first to use heavy GNP. Mark Kerr son. Guys like Mezger and Frank Shamrock were pioneers in the sport by successfully using cross training he went 1-2 against them.
> 
> Coleman was a bad fighter. Tito had a better run than him and the UFC can put whoever they want into their hall of fame that doesn't make them fighting legends. Drawing money doesn't make you a legendary fighter either. Like I said legendary douchebag; he said and did a bunch of stupid shit and got a lot of attention which helped the sport make money. That has nothing to do with what he did in fights.
> 
> You aren't a legendary fighter if your career highlight reel is you getting your ass kicked over and over. Gassing and getting finished, tapping to strikes, mid octagon spanking, fractured skull, these are the memories that come to mind when I think about Tito.


I'll stick to this:



limba said:


> IMO, as time passes - 10-15 years - he will definitelty be consired a pioneer.
> 
> However, his performances, compared to other MMA fighters, will determine if he trully was/is a legend.


Only time will tell...


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

I really, really hope there is nobody here who thinks Matt Hughes is a legend/pioneer, but doesn't think Tito is neither. I can't stand Tito, nor do I give a shit about Tito...but he is unquestionably a pioneer if he isn't than who the **** is?


----------



## TanyaJade (Aug 31, 2010)

rygu said:


> I really, really hope there is nobody here who thinks Matt Hughes is a legend/pioneer, but doesn't think Tito is neither. I can't stand Tito, nor do I give a shit about Tito...but he is unquestionably a pioneer if he isn't than who the **** is?


I like you and respect you rygu but I also disagree with you on this.

Matt Hughes beat top competition. He didn't beat the Forrest Griffins, the Vitor Belforts, or the Vladimir Matyushenkos of the WW division, he beat the best. He beat GSP, Serra, Sherk, BJ Penn etc. His resume is incredible. Tito's resume is pretty questionable.

While Matt Hughes may be a self-righteous, bible thumping douchebag, he never made excuses when he lost. He never talked bad about his opponents. He always showed up to fight. He worked his ass off in the gym. 

Tito has had a longstanding reputation as someone who whinies and makes excuses. He also behaved immaturely inside and outside the octagon. People don't realize that even though Tito had a major impact on the awareness of the sport, he was a black mark on it as well. 

Tito doesn't possess any legendary qualities, if any at all. For me at least, a legend isn't an immature whiner who is too mentally weak to accept that he's not the best, ergo the excuses (and other bullshit) that constantly came out of his mouth.

But like I said in my previous post, the UFC would not be here today if it wasn't for Tito.


----------



## Fine Wine (Aug 30, 2010)

He is a pioneering legend.

If he was simply a pioneer, we wouldn't hear so much about him.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

I don't think Tito is a legend because he's one of the best ufc fighter's by today's standards, clearly he's not. But clearly he was a pioneer and one of the most successful ones by yesterday's standards.

Simply put he's a legendary pioneer, like fine said IMO.


----------

