The Thursday Throwdown 09.29.06: What's In a "Can"?
Posted by Jon Hartley on 09.29.2006
Chances are, if you're a fan of MMA, you've used the phrase "tomato can"...probably incorrectly, 411's Jon Hartley says. Fighters such as Nate Quarry, Chris Leben and Justin Eilers have all been insulted with the slang term for "poor fighter"...who really deserves the label, and why? Also, Frank Shamrock vs. Phil Baroni, and is there a feud more one-sided than Ken-Tito?
Welcome to another edition of The Throwdown. I'm thinking about dropping the "Thursday" part, as I can't seem to get this thing in on Thursdays on a reliable basis. I know what you're thinking, you're saying "but that screws up the alliteration!" Yes, that's true. However, I don't think my editor approves of me submitting a column with the wrong day of the week in the title. We shall see.
We're going to start off today with an issue that has pestered me for quite some time now. Let me start off with a bit of a tangent, and hopefully you'll see where I'm going with this.
The time has seemingly past for anyone of moderate opinions or soft-spoken fence-riders. While that's okay in some respects, it's also unfortunate because we now have a world full of Stephen A. Smiths. Now, I have no personal issues with him and I'm quite sure he's unaware of my presence anyways, but he is a good example of the type of person that succeeds in drawing attention these days. For the uninitiated, Smith is one of those loud, opinionated sportswriters who has successfully stepped away from the keyboard and in front of the camera as a sports personality for ESPN. The first time I remember seeing the guy, it was halftime of an NBA game and he, along with two other analysts, were going over their predictions for the season. The first two got through theirs without ruffling any feathers or saying anything too outrageous, then Smith took his turn and crapped all over their opinions while emphatically stating his as indisputable fact. Unsurprisingly, Smith now has his own show, while the other two are...I don't know, I don't watch many NBA games.
The point is that the trend that has led to such popular sports shows as Pardon The Interruption, Rome Is Burning and Around The Horn has filtered all the way down to the common sports fan, as well. Now, message boards and fan sites for all sports, not just MMA, are full of cynical, condescending know-it-alls. Consequently, the "average" MMA fan is apparently unable to understand the concept of perspective while following the sport...leading to oversimplified thinking that seperates combatants into extreme categories: great fighters and "tomato cans".
For many fans, there is no in between, or at least it seems. How else can you explain the fact that Chris Leben, Nate Quarry, and every Wanderlei Silva opponent in 2001 and 2002 that's not named "Sakuraba" or "CroCop" has been called a tomato can? Come on now. Is Leben really a can simply because he got brutalized by Anderson Silva? Same for Quarry due to his loss with Rich Franklin? No way.
By the way, the term "tomato can" has its origins in the old days of boxing, and basically means "a subpar fighter". Usually, it has been used for fighters who have no real chance of winning against even a decent opponent, and thus are used to help build experience for up-and-comers, or to "tune up" experienced fighters before a big bout. As to why boxing pundits and fans picked the term tomato can, that I can't tell you for sure. There are several theories floating around the internet, but surprisingly nothing concrete.
The problem is, MMA fans don't seem to use the term with the discretion that boxing fans have. Look a bit through some boxing records, and you can find yourself a tomato can or two. How about Reggie Strickland, who sports a record of 64-256-15? That's 256 losses. Or Donnie Pendelton at 13-140-4? And there are many, less extreme examples. But let's just say that a guy who has won five or six fights for every one he has lost is probably not can material.
The fact is that if you're a fan who's watched UFC or Pride exclusively, you might not have ever even seen a true tomato can. After all, the MMA and boxing landscapes are much different from one another. Tomato cans in boxing are everywhere, but they only really fight on the small shows, they're often known as "club fighters". In MMA, it's the same sort of thing, but since fighters fight for organizations rather than promoters, you aren't going to see tomato cans in the top promotions. How would the UFC look if they brought in a guy with a 15-35 record to take on, say, Diego Sanchez? In all honesty, the closest thing the UFC has seen to a tomato can since the early days of the organization is probably Tank Abbott or Elvis Sinosic. Even those guys aren't true cans, though. Abbott is definitely a can once the fight hits the ground, but he is dangerous enough standing up to avoid the designation. Sinosic has a poor record, but has fought a lot of tough competition and occasionally done well. Pride has had some definite cans ("Giant" Silva, anyone?), but those are more for freak show matches that fans there sometimes seem to enjoy.
If you want an example of an MMA can, try Shannon Ritch. This guy loses around twice for every time he wins, and fights often enough that it's clear that he is just traveling around collecting paychecks. He's been dubbed a "professional loser" by none other than Frank Shamrock. John Renken is another good example. Hey, I'm not saying these guys couldn't kick my ass. But to be a tomato can, you need to be at the lower echelon of the sport, and these two are right there.
So keyboard warriors, let's ease up on the tomato can talk, okay? Justin Eilers isn't a can just because he got his head knocked off by Paul Buentello, Andrei Arlovski and Brandon Vera. He's simply not a great fighter. That doesn't mean he can't be decent, or even good. Not everything has to be black and white, and the sports world presents plenty of grays.
Quick Thoughts
--New shows with wealthy backers are popping up more and more frequently, although to what extent they will be successful is yet to be determined. New to the charade--er, parade are The World Fighter and Bodog Fight. What do these two organizations share other than terrible names and money to burn? Not a whole lot. TWF has made (minor) headlines by signing Frank Shamrock to a seven-figure deal and announcing that they will have sixteen-fighter tournaments to decide champions in each weight class. The Bodog deal will be consisting of fourteen U.S. fighters fighting each other, with the seven winners advancing to take on members of the Russian Red Devil team. Not a terrible concept, I suppose. The tournaments sound a bit more promising, if only because tournaments are a great way to create stars (which is why the UFC missed a golden opportunity by not having a multi-event lightweight tourney to find a new champion). However, I'm extremely doubtful as to whether either promotion will have legs. There are a lot...a LOT of stateside promotions these days trying to emerge as #2 behind the UFC...Strikeforce, WFA, IFL, King of the Cage, Icon Sport, etc. Logic dictates that only a couple will succeed in taking their product to the next level, and I don't know that the newest two have what it takes to do so. The IFL has a great start, KOTC has decent name value, and the WFA and Strikeforce have had some recent success with big-name fighters. We'll see what happens, but I think some wealthy investors are going to end up being disappointed as organizations continue to stretch fans of the relatively young sport's dollar thinner and thinner.
--It's amusing that Dana White has now gone on record as being supportive of upstart MMA organizations, saying that they are good for the sport and that such organizations become good feeders for the UFC and supply them new talent. However, it appears that while that is true to a certain extent, the emergence of new promotions who are hungry for "name" fighters also forces the UFC to take a different strategy. Before the recent boom of MMA, the UFC was free to keep a relatively small roster, without having to worry about anyone besides Pride or maybe K-1 gobbling up unsigned talent. Because of that, they could simply let good fighters go for awhile after a loss or two, then resign them once they got a win or two "in the smaller shows". Now, that's all changed. Zuffa let fighters such as Robbie Lawler, Phil Baroni, Jason Miller, Matt Lindland and others go, only to see them flourish with other organizations. Between the fact that dropping a good fighter may lead to not being able to re-sign them later, and the reality of trying to run 15-20 shows a year, the UFC now has been forced to carry a huge roster of fighters, with as many as ten to fifteen in each weight class. When a guy like Joe Riggs loses a few fights, Dana and Co. have to really think about what to do with him. Do you let him go and risk him being signed (and maturing into a great fighter) with a rival promotion, or do you keep him around and wait for him to blossom? Furthermore, even though the UFC has more money and greater name value than say, the WFA or Icon Sport, they can't compete with what they are willing to pay in some instances.
Let me explain. The UFC can afford to pay a top guy like Chuck Liddell a decent salary, but if they paid every Riggs, Nick Diaz, Lawler or Lindland what they were worth, they'd end up spending quite a bit of money (remember, the UFC has to lock down a large roster of fighters). The result is that a smaller organization actually can offer a better deal to a mid-level guy than the UFC can. For instance, I don't know exactly what Lawler makes with Icon, but I know it's far more than what nearly anyone in the UFC makes. Icon can afford to do that because with Icon, he is the centerpiece of their organization. For the UFC, he'd simply be a good fighter who fills out the middle of their pay-per-view cards. They simply aren't willing to pay Lawler what Icon is, because his worth isn't as great to them as it is to Icon. You see a similar trend in the WFA with Quinton "Rampage" Jackson, or with Lindland in the sixteen organizations he regularly fights for. So while the UFC can always afford to steal smaller organizations' top fighters, they have to be careful because when they let decent fighters go after a loss or two, there are plenty of promotions ready to snap them up.
--Speaking of Frank Shamrock, he has been outspoken lately. He told MMA Weekly that he knows "Tito will mash" his brother Ken, who he "(doesn't) keep contact with". On Sherdog.com's excellent radio show, he appeared and had some interesting things to say. He recently announced a December 8th showdown with Phil Baroni, and he says he will "stick (his) foot up that idiot's ass". Also, he re-established his dislike for the UFC and Zuffa in particular, pointing out their payscale and how the UFC hides their PPV numbers. Now, don't get me wrong, Frank has a point, especially when he also said he is annoyed with Dana rewriting MMA history and claiming to have done more for the UFC than what really transpired (the "Zuffa myth", as it's known...where it's said that Zuffa inherited the UFC when the company had no rules and wasn't sanctioned anywhere, which isn't close to true)...but for him to call out the UFC's payscale as being unfair to lower-level fighters is interesting. After all, with The World Fighter paying Frank seven figures, what will be left for the lesser-known fighters? Sounds to me like they will do the same thing Zuffa does; pay the top talent pretty well while the lower-level guys get stuck with meager paychecks.
Also, Shamrock (who coaches an IFL team...you'd know that if you'd read my recap of the most recent show) interestingly stated that he had "never even heard of Travis (Wiuff)" before coaching him on September 23rd in Moline, IL. What?!?! I find this amusing because Wiuff is a UFC veteran who has fought just about everywhere by now and made a decent name for himself. To not have heard of Wiuff indicates that Shamrock doesn't follow the sport too closely. Also, it backs my theory that maybe some of the IFL coaches are little more than window dressing. I mean, I have no doubts that a guy like Pat Miletich takes a very hands-on approach with his team, but Shamrock? I don't know. After all, if you were an IFL coach, would you not at least have watched their previous events, studied the fighters involved, etc.? If you don't even know who Travis freaking Wiuff is, are you in the position to make good moves for your roster? Also, although the Beatdown Radio duo asked Shamrock some good questions, it would have been interesting to hear his thoughts on where he stands with today's top fighters, or whether it matters to him to establish himself as an all-time (or current-time) great. I'm guessing it's not that important to him, as he's only fought the likes of Bryan Pardoe and Cesar Gracie in recent years, but still.
--If you thought the Ken Shamrock/Tito Ortiz rivalry was one-sided, well...you're right. However, it's far from being the most one-sided rivalry in MMA history. In fact, I found a couple good ones just by glancing through Travis "The Ironman" Fulton's fight record. Fulton, for the uninitiated, has over 200 pro fights, and has won the majority of them. Anyway, Fulton has fought and beaten Rory Prazak six times, and Dan Wheatley five times! More surprisingly, the six wins over Prazak happened between 9/03 and 4/05 (three via KO/TKO and three by submission), and the five wins over Wheatley took place in a six month span. Did I mention that he knocked out Wheatley in four of the five wins (the other was a submission), and three of those KO's happened in a span of 29 days?
Random MMA YouTube Moment
This week's YouTube Moment is a dedication to Shelby "Shelby Girl" Walker, who passed away recently. Shelby had fought professionally in both mixed martial arts and boxing, and although I never met her, she was known as a kind and fun-loving individual. In honor of Shelby, this week's moment is her ultra-quick knockout of Angela Wilson in 2003.
