|
Post by thebestaround on Jul 29, 2006 22:23:14 GMT -5
If they met somewhere in the middle who would win this match in your opinion??
|
|
|
Post by bambam on Jul 29, 2006 22:47:55 GMT -5
Liddell would knock Hughes out. Liddell is a fearsome striker and has substantial height and reach over Hughes. Liddell also has a terrific takedown defense. Style wise Liddell is all wrong for Hughes. BJ Penn tore up Hughes. How do you think Penn would do against Chuck? Ha Ha what a joke that would be. A better fight would be Liddell vs Rich Franklin!
|
|
|
Post by gamberro on Jul 30, 2006 23:59:58 GMT -5
Yeah, Liddell is a bad matchup. I agree. Too much firepower striking and too hard to take down.
|
|
|
Post by JensenS on Jul 31, 2006 8:17:22 GMT -5
I agree, Liddell would make Hughes go to sleep.
|
|
|
Post by ground3pound on Jul 31, 2006 9:14:47 GMT -5
I think Hughes is in a very good mental state right now. He is at the peak of his career.
IF they could hypothetically meet at the same weight, I'd give Hughes at 50% chance of winning.
They are about 30lbs. away from each other. Chuck couldn't lose 15 more pounds and Hughes wouldn't benefit from 15 more pounds of baulk. So for arguements sake, I'm assuming they are the same "size".
|
|
|
Post by ugly on Jul 31, 2006 9:22:19 GMT -5
I think Hughes would have a good chance if they were close to the same weight. I was told that Hughes walks around at 190 and cuts for his fights. I hughes avoided the looping right and took it to the ground he wins. I dont think liddel is as strong as Hughes and most likely couldnt stop the takedown. It seems that a lot of people here really like Chuck for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by gamberro on Jul 31, 2006 15:49:49 GMT -5
Chuck's punches are not easy to just avoid, and he is not that easy to take down. Combine that with the weight, height advantage and you have a total mismatch.
You can't fantasize about the two magically being the same size. They are who they are and they fght the way they do in part due to their bodies. Would a mini Sylvia beat up on a big Gomi? What about a skinny Fedor versus a fat Silva?
|
|
|
Post by bambam on Jul 31, 2006 15:54:14 GMT -5
Ugly, I don't think Hughes would be able to consistanly take down Liddell. Chuck has one of the best take down defenses in the game. Couture had problems taking down Chuck and so would Matt! Liddell's right hand is not as looping as you claim. Many fighters have gone to sleep probably thinking the same thing. I am a huge fan of Matt Hughes but I don't think he can handle Liddell if they tried to meet half way. I don't think many here like Liddell that much. I just think we are fully aware of his skills!
|
|
|
Post by ugly on Jul 31, 2006 17:02:54 GMT -5
I think Hughes has better take down skills than Cotour not because hes a better wrestler I think he creates better angles. I really dont think that he is as strong as Hughes nor do I think he is in as good of shape. Like I said Hughes weighs around 190 on a everyday basis so the only real advantage would be height and reach which coul be very dangerous if it stayed on the feet. I dont think Hughes slaughters Liddel I just think it would be closer than everone thinks. The reason I say evreyone hear likes Liddel is because a lot of people think that he will or would beat Silva, who in my opinion is the best 205lb fighter in the world.
|
|
|
Post by gamberro on Aug 2, 2006 5:31:58 GMT -5
If Couture and Hughes wrestled, Couture would tech fall Hughes before the end of the second period. Are you kidding me that Hughes has better takedowns than Hughes? Randy was a multi-time All-American and national finalist three weights up from Hughes! He was an Olympian. Gimme a break. Randy is three or four times the wrestler Hughes is.
|
|
|
Post by ugly on Aug 2, 2006 6:35:38 GMT -5
Read the post carefully I said I didnt think Hughes was a better wrestler than Cotoure I said in MMA I think he has better takedowns because he creates better angles. Plus Hughes was an AA too.
|
|
|
Post by gamberro on Aug 3, 2006 2:16:06 GMT -5
There's a big, no HUGE, difference between 7th place or whatever at 158 and runnerup at 190 two years in a row and 3XAA. 158. 190. Hughes is not better at TDs MMA or otherwise. Randy uses TDs more sparingly than hughes because his boxing skills are better and he doesn't need to rely on one aspect of his game as much.
I'm not dissing Hughes. He's a phenomenal fighter. But there is no comparison between Randy and Hughes. The size difference alone is too much.
|
|
|
Post by mooser on Aug 3, 2006 21:13:03 GMT -5
Hughes wrestling skills are more comparable to Liddell's, and both are far below Couture's, which were world class. Matt's advantages come from his strength, which would be negated by his weight disadvantage to Liddell. There is no way that Chuck could get down anywhere near 185. He already cuts down to 205 and probably fights closer to 215-220 now, so he would be much heavier than Matt, who walks around chubby at 190. Matt is great at every aspect of MMA, but at his height, he obviously can not stand and strike with Chuck Liddell. That would make for a very short fight. So he would need to take Chuck down, but more importantly control him down, pound away and catch a submission. More likely Chuck would stand back up like he does against much bigger men. But I like the idea still. If Matt beats his two challengers at 170 (GSP and BJ), I'd love to see him move up and challenge Rich Franklin. But he would face all the same challenges there. Rich used to fight at 205 as well, so he will be a more natural challenger to move up and fight Chuck. But first, they both have to get past some bad men named Silva (Anderson and Wanderlei).
|
|
|
Post by Donkey on Aug 3, 2006 23:08:00 GMT -5
Read the post carefully I said I didnt think Hughes was a better wrestler than Cotoure I said in MMA I think he has better takedowns because he creates better angles. . I did read it carefully, but, what exactly is it supposed to mean?? It just sounds retarded. Couture, a much better amateur wrestler by all accounts, and you say you like hughes better becasue of "angle-making". What a douchebag.
|
|
|
Post by ugly on Aug 4, 2006 6:57:42 GMT -5
Read the post carefully I said I didnt think Hughes was a better wrestler than Cotoure I said in MMA I think he has better takedowns because he creates better angles. . I did read it carefully, but, what exactly is it supposed to mean?? It just sounds retarded. Couture, a much better amateur wrestler by all accounts, and you say you like hughes better becasue of "angle-making". What a douchebag. Lefty if you have ever wrestled, boxed, or participated in almost any combat sport you would know you need to create angles. This is basic stuff, like stuff they teach you in your first or second year of participation.
|
|