Originally Posted by rygu
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.