Why Tank Abbott is more important than Randy Couture

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

I thought this might need a thread all its own

 

By Rich

[email protected]

 

 

I should start by saying this is not a burial of Randy Couture. I’m not saying he wasn’t important and I’m certainly not saying he wasn’t a great fighter. Since these things have a tendency to be misinterpreted I’d like to stress, I AM NOT SAYING TANK ABBOTT IS A BETTER FIGHTER THAN RANDY COUTURE. I am however saying that in the history of the UFC and MMA in America Tank Abbott’s contribution is greater and will be greater felt than Randy Couture’s. History is built on achievement but also on innovation. You don’t always remember the best, but you always remember the first (an over generalization admittedly).

 

 

The early days of UFC were almost a way of retraining people’s perception on fighting. Making people reevaluate the way they look at fighting and what makes a bad ass. Tank Abbott is the living example of what a bad ass is consider. A big tough scary looking guy, who hangs with bikers, drinks beer, and loves to brawl, in the real world he could beat up virtually anyone on the street. However in MMA just being a tough guy and hitting hard doesn’t make you the best. He lost repeatedly to guys with more skill on the ground, in wrestling, and who were actually trained strikers. He proved that the archetype of a bad ass doesn’t really fit. While certainly compared to you or I, assuming you aren’t a trained professional fighter, Tank Abbott is quite the scary dude that doesn’t make him the real toughest guy on the planet.

 

The other thing and perhaps the most important thing Tank Abbott brought was character. He wasn’t just some fighter, some guy in a Gi walking around. He had a persona, an attitude; you got who he was by watching him fight. This is what makes a guy a draw. Muhammad Ali is renowned as one of the greatest boxers of all time, and certainly he was, but he was also a cultural icon because of his personality and charisma. Since Tank there have been many characters MMA, from Tito, to Baroni, to Sakuraba, to Rampage. Tank put across the point that you don’t always have to win, if you can get over you’ll get booked.

 

The third and final reason why Abbott was such a crucial figure is he, more than anyone else, proved that anything can happen in a fight. Tank has won a lot of fights that he probably wouldn’t win in a rematch. He’s beaten people through dumb look, and sheer power. The reality of fighting is nothing is for sure. Anyone can win any fight, especially if you have skill and power. Tank was the living embodiment of the punchers chance. He’s the classic exception to the rule that skill wins fights. He proved that size, power, and willingness to attack can win you fights no matter how meek your skills may be.

 

Randy Couture is a great a fighter. He’s won multiple titles and in his prime was probably the best there was. But history does not remember the well decorated; they remember those that changed things, those that blazed new grounds if you will. As much of a lump as Tank Abbott was, he was a great draw. As unskilled as he was, you could never he wasn’t dangerous. The reality of fighting says that a skilled man on an even playing field can always beat an unskilled man. In other words if two men with the same height and weight have a fight, the man with the more skill will win. However the problem with this scenario, and the reality of Tank Abbott’s success is, you never know what can happen in a fight.

[Guest Brian]

I'm just wondering where you got this article from, because I think it's horribly wrong, and everything that could go in Tank's favor just happens to work better for Rand, plus a whole lot more things that have to be considered. Shit, look at what's gone down in the last year. Anyways, the three major points of the story are:

 

1. Tank Abbott, because of what he represents, means more to the sport in losing to better fighters.

2. Tank was a gimmick, and having personality makes him something.

3. Tank, because of the way he lost and won, proved anything could happen in a fight.

 

Wow. For the first topic, Tank's contribution to that is almost negligible, lest ye forget the man the call Royce. And how does this push Tank's legacy anyway, since aside from Vitor, most of the guys he lost to were already proven commodites.

 

As for Tank being a gimmick, and personality draws, look at Randy's drawing ability. Randy's been one of the main draws of the two biggest US MMA shows in history (the Cali show, though robust in attendance, had no PPV coverage to compare to). He was one of the coaches of the Ultimate Fighter, the show that brought MMA to the forefront. And that's just the tip of the iceberg, ignoring his achievements within the sport.

 

And Randy hasn't proven that anything can happen in a fight? Randy is like the greatest candidate for that of all time. Aside from the latest Chuck fight, has he ever come into a fight as an underdog and lost? Vitor, Chuck, Tito, Randleman. The man was forty and as strong as ever. And that doesn't even consider what a paper tiger this argument is, because Tank as far as I can recall has never been a good draw. UFC 45 tanked (pun intended). Randy's pushed the sport into a new era as much as anyone (maybe Vitor had an earlier contribution).

[starvenger 0]

1. Tank Abbott, because of what he represents, means more to the sport in losing to better fighters.

This seems to imply that Tank was the best tomato can, ever.

 

2. Tank was a gimmick, and having personality makes him something.

First half is true, and having a personality still didn't get him over in WCW. Randy's pretty much a "no gimmick needed" kinda guy, so I don't know that this really applies to him.

 

3. Tank, because of the way he lost and won, proved anything could happen in a fight.

I think lots of fights could prove that. James Irvin-Terry Martin proves anything can happen in a fight. Pete Williams-Mark Coleman proves anything can happen in a fight. The whole concept of the UFC was to show that anything can happen in a fight, even if it means Keith Hackney wins a tournament. I'm not sure why Tank or Randy have to be the torchbearer for this criteria at all.

[razazteca 0]

1. Tank Abbott, because of what he represents, means more to the sport in losing to better fighters.

This seems to imply that Tank was the best tomato can, ever

No that would be Ken Shamrock.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

I'm just wondering where you got this article from...

MMA Snark.com

 

It was linked to on Zach Arnold's site, and I was interested in what kind of argument was being made.

[Guest Big_Jay101]

Tank wasn't half of the draw Randy was..... That seems to be what the whole argument is based on to.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

It's MMA-Snark.com. They are the equivalent of WWEDIVAS4BOOBZ.com

[Lei Tong 0]

Tank was more important as it relates to the martial arts, fighting and people's views on them, whereas when it came to the UFC and the sport itself, Randy was more important.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Tank was more important as it relates to the martial arts, fighting and people's views on them, whereas when it came to the UFC and the sport itself, Randy was more important.

 

'Splain please.

[naiwf 0]

Tank was more important as it relates to the martial arts, fighting and people's views on them, whereas when it came to the UFC and the sport itself, Randy was more important.

 

'Splain please.

 

I'm going to guess his view and/or explain my own because it's a bit similar. To me Tank Abbott was more "important" simply because he proved the common man's myth of a winning fighter to be wrong, or at least incomplete. What the author of the article failed to mention really was that because Abbott lost, and often times in spectacular fashion it changed the way your average Joe looked at MIXED MARTIAL ARTS FIGHTING. If Tank and Randy fought in a stand up bare knuckles bar room brawl, Tank would win because he's bigger, stronger and not bright enough to know when to stop. However, when you add in all of the elements encompassed in an MMA fight his strengths actually become weaknesses because if you can survive his flurries, his stamina isn't worth shit and if you take him down the fight is done because he has no skills whatsoever.

 

Way back in the day, most people who were new to the game didn't understand Royce Gracie and his style. They almost always assumed the guy with the size and big, heavy strikes would win, and if you had to draw up an archetype for that "guy" it would be Tank. Since he had a losing record and lost quite a few fights in short order it forced people to think more and try to understand how the hell the 300 pound guy who looks like he'd kill his grandma if she gave him a dirty look ended up losing to someone smaller than he is in under a minute.

 

What Randy did was the opposite in that he showed that you could be a great wrestler but develop more skills over time. He showed you could be a small heavyweight and dominate, and then move down to a lower weight class and take less risks while continuing to be the best around. I personally thought he had no personality or charisma, but it didn't matter because he WAS the embodiment of the modern MMA fighter in that you could see his growth and that he was able to beat great wrestlers and strikers with ease when he was at the top of his game. UFC needed someone like Couture after the Josh Barnett steroid debacle to keep the top division important and then when he dropped to LHW he took the prestige with him. His two losses to Chuck have made Chuck the standard bearer now, while beating someone like Tank who was exposed to be a stiff didn't really have any cache once we all realized he was the UFC equivalent of a JTTS. Tank was the guy everyone THOUGHT would have been the unstoppable force because of their preconcived notions, while an "old" Randy Couture proved himself to probably be the closest thing the UFC will ever have to someone who was pretty much unbeatable at the highest level of competition, no disrespect to Matt Hughes of course.

 

I could probably explain that better, but it's 2 AM and I've been up for 18 hours.

[Lei Tong 0]

To expand on what naiwf, Tank managed to challenge the preconcieved notions hed by 2 different types of people:

 

- Your traditional martial artist who assumed that size doesn't matter, and that your average martial artist could handle himself against a seemingly unskilled, out of shape brawler. However, using his size, strength and some rudimentary boxing & wrestling skills (two arts looked down on by TMA'ers up until recently), he was able to cave in the skulls of almost any mediocre chump thrown in with him, and it became obvious that'd it'd take more than some black belt with no real fighting experience to beat him.

 

- The other type was the kind naiwf refered to, that being someone with a more "western" view on fighting: the biggest guy with the hardest punch would lick anyone else. At first, Tank seemed to confirm this notion as he tore through Matua & Varelans, yet when he stepped into the cage with a guy half the size of those other guys and himself (Oleg), it was shown that there ARE answers to someone like Tank (unlike his proponents would), but they would not come as easily nor in the manner some of his detractors(/TMA'ers) would imagine. Eventually, he also became the face of old NHB fights vs. the modern sport of MMA. Whereas Tank was an oft-out of shape, shit talking brawler who refused to evolve with the sport, the modern MMA competitor is usually classy, in-shape and a well-rounded fighter.

 

I'll probably add more later.

[Guest Brian]

- The other type was the kind naiwf refered to, that being someone with a more "western" view on fighting: the biggest guy with the hardest punch would lick anyone else. At first, Tank seemed to confirm this notion as he tore through Matua & Varelans, yet when he stepped into the cage with a guy half the size of those other guys and himself (Oleg), it was shown that there ARE answers to someone like Tank (unlike his proponents would), but they would not come as easily nor in the manner some of his detractors(/TMA'ers) would imagine. Eventually, he also became the face of old NHB fights vs. the modern sport of MMA. Whereas Tank was an oft-out of shape, shit talking brawler who refused to evolve with the sport, the modern MMA competitor is usually classy, in-shape and a well-rounded fighter.

 

But in the scope of things, Tank is dwarfed by pioneers like Royce Gracie to the point that I would consider him an afterthought to this avenue of opinion.

[naiwf 0]

But in the scope of things, Tank is dwarfed by pioneers like Royce Gracie to the point that I would consider him an afterthought to this avenue of opinion.

 

Tank was the idea of the ideal fighter most people (at least without any martial arts background) would have assumed would have worked in the early days of the UFC because he was big strong and had a good chin, and the rules allowed a guy to fight someone 100+ pounds smaller/bigger. Nowadays, we realize that someone with Tank's skillset would never even make it to the UFC because any adequately skilled fighter in his weight class would take him out 9 times out of 10, and do so quickly. Gracie may have helped revolutionize the sport but Tank will forever be the guy that symbolized the transition of what WON'T work anymore in MMA longterm. The fact he's still considered one of the biggest/most controversial names in UFC's history even though was only 4-8 illustrates the point. He's got a jobber's record but was a huge star at the time because he was the perfect showcase guy to have an actual MMA fighter take on a rather skillfree NHB slugger to show what could happen. If you've ever seen that evolution chart of ape to man and wanted one for UFC, Tank would be the last guy that looked like a "sloppy, but dangerous fighter" before you got to a Couture or someone of that ilk who actually looks like an athlete. Not the best visual, but I hope the point is clearer.

[Guest Brian]

But if you look at things, that boat had already sailed and Royce Gracie was steering it. Tank didn't show up until two years after the first UFC, and by that point Royce had already showed people what was going to get schooled. Just in the big picture, Tank is like a middle domino to fall in terms of the general game of MMA, whereas his biggest feat was probably getting KOwned by a BJJ artist with lightning hands named Vitor, who in turn got knocked down to give way to Randy Couture, who over the span of 40 UFCs was considered a top fighter.

 

UFC 45, Tank's big return, drew half of the Couture shows that headlined before and after and less than the Couture headlined shows of his heavyweight days. Here's the list of Zuffa shows up until UFC 49:

 

UFC 33 Sept 28 2001 Ortiz vs. Matyushenko 75,000

UFC 34 Nov 2 2001 Couture vs. Rizzo 45,000-60,000*

UFC 35 Jan 11 2001 Penn vs. Pulver 35,000

UFC 36 March 22 2002 Barnett vs. Couture 45,000-60,000*

UFC 37 May 10 2002 Lindland vs. Bustamante 45,000-60,000*

UFC 38 July 13 2002 Hughes vs. Newton 45,000-60,000*

UFC 39 Sept 27 2002 Rodriguez vs. Couture 45,000-60,000*

UFC 40 Nov 22 2002 Ortiz vs. Shamrock 150,000

UFC 41 Feb 28 2003 Tank vs. Mir 60,000

UFC 42 Apr 25 2003 Hughes vs. Sherk 35,000

UFC 43 June 6 2003 Couture vs. Liddell 49,000

UFC 44 Sept 26 2003 Couture vs. Ortiz 94,000

UFC 45 Nov 21 2003 Tank vs. Cabbage 40,000

UFC 46 Jan 31 2004 Couture vs. Belfort 77,000

UFC 47 Apr 2, 2004 Ortiz vs. Liddell 104,000

UFC 48 June 19 2004 Shamrock vs. Kimo 110,000

[naiwf 0]

But if you look at things, that boat had already sailed and Royce Gracie was steering it. Tank didn't show up until two years after the first UFC, and by that point Royce had already showed people what was going to get schooled. Just in the big picture, Tank is like a middle domino to fall in terms of the general game of MMA, whereas his biggest feat was probably getting KOwned by a BJJ artist with lightning hands named Vitor, who in turn got knocked down to give way to Randy Couture, who over the span of 40 UFCs was considered a top fighter.

 

The guy who wrote the article was wrong about 90% of the things he mentioned. I'm not arguing that Tank was a bigger draw, I'm simply saying why he was important, and perhaps more important than Couture, in regards to the changing of the guard and changing perceptions of what an effective MMA fighter looks like to most of the fanbase. No one with a rational mind would think that Tank was actually BETTER for the UFC than Couture was/is, but that's a completely different argument and not one anyone in this thread is trying to make.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I think if you took Tank out of MMA history and then you took Randy out of MMA history, there would be a much greater effect in taking Randy out than Tank.

[Special K 0]

This article shouldn't be taken SO out of hand. Comparing Tank with Couture was a bad place to start, but:

 

In the early UFC days, he did make fights seem dangerous and exciting, since he's all or nothing. When he knocked Don Frye on his BUTT, I thought he had won it.

 

He did reinforce, through knocking out scrubs, and consistently losing to complete fighter, that a complete fighter can beat a nasty hard puncher almost every time, which was crucial to UFC's legitimacy, compared to boxing (not that Tank's in the shape to box). And yes, Royce Gracie enforced that more than Tank ever could. His Match v Severn being the ultimate example. (not that Severn's a hard puncher, you know what I mean.)

 

But Sakuraba brings 10x the charisma Tank does. He's a real live example of having a huge heart, plus he's CRAZY.

 

EDIT: Or everything naiwf said.

[Lei Tong 0]

But if you look at things, that boat had already sailed and Royce Gracie was steering it. Tank didn't show up until two years after the first UFC, and by that point Royce had already showed people what was going to get schooled.

 

The thing is, Royce never had a destructive force like Tank to overcome. The closest guys he had were Kimo (who never accomplished much within the Octagon and yet was still able to handle Royce in such a manner that he couldn't continue in the tournament) and Severn (who outside of his size and onetime double-suplex never instilled much fear or intimidation in people). Tank was the most consistent barometer to show that while always dangerous, a strong headhunter with knockout power is still going to get beat by those with the right skillset 95% of the time.

 

Again, Randy was infinitely more important in terms of his impact on the UFC and Mixed Martial Arts competition, but he never really proved nor disproved anything in regards to fighting in general like Tank did.

 

EDIT: Or everything Naiwf and Special K said.

[Special K 0]

And you can't tell me a fight like Bob Sapp v. Kimo isn't entertaining. Sapp was TOTALLY out on his feet, and he annihilated Kimo.

 

The fact that Cro Cop killed Sapp dead in something like 50 seconds doesn't take away the rush of the Sapp/Kimo fight. And I love watching Kimo get demolished.

 

Aside: THe Sapp/Cro Cop KO is fucking Priceless. Brutal kick, (didn't it break some ribs?) vicious punch. Sapp looks dazed, but still fighting, for half a second, then makes the !fucking funniest face ever!, and just keels over.

[Damaramu 0]

Does anyone happen to have those two fights to download?

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwDCCu2m0zw&search=bob%20sapp

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4bhx3uiEFM&search=bob%20sapp

 

Sapp vs. Cro Cop

Sapp vs. Kimo

[The Niggardly King 0]

How many times has Cro Cop beaten Sapp?

[razazteca 0]

Some words of wisdom from David "Tank" Abbot

Wrestling is the American Martial Art

 

Roy Jones Jr. will never beat Mike Tyson

Working as the 3rd announcer at UFC 10 during the Vitor Belfort vs Scott Forozza match.

 

I was having a nightmare where Freddy Mercury was trying to rape me

Mocking Dan Severn at UFC 12

[BruteSquad_BRODY 0]

!