Dan Henderson - UFC Hall of Famer?
- Thread starter Nastycrow
- Start date
Moranis said:
Flound said:
I thnik it should be mentioned that the UFC bought Pride. Technically, all pride fighters and their records became Zuffa property on that day. They own the broadcast rights to all Pride fights. To my mind that would make Pride accomplishments part of the UFC fold, so to speak.
Under that premise, Hendo should be a lock for the UFC HoF.
Click to expand...
Yes, but there wasn't a single Pride card under the Zuffa banner. It would have been different if all of Henderson's fights in Pride were for Zuffa, but they weren't.
Click to expand...
No one said there was a Pride fight under the Zuffa banner. I thought that was made abundantly clear when we discussed the records (of earlier fights) becoming Zuffa property.
We had unification bouts with Henderson. Not one, but two. If he can bring the titles in to be unified, then I'd say the HoF entry is considered as well.
Do you have some reasoning that would explain why one aspect (titles) is brought in but another (fight records) is not?
Flound said:
Moranis said:
Yes, but there wasn't a single Pride card under the Zuffa banner. It would have been different if all of Henderson's fights in Pride were for Zuffa, but they weren't.
Click to expand...
No one said there was a Pride fight under the Zuffa banner. I thought that was made abundantly clear when we discussed the records (of earlier fights) becoming Zuffa property.
We had unification bouts with Henderson. Not one, but two. If he can bring the titles in to be unified, then I'd say the HoF entry is considered as well.
Do you have some reasoning that would explain why one aspect (titles) is brought in but another (fight records) is not?
Click to expand...
A title isn't the same thing as a record now is it. Does the English Premier League look at a player's accomplishments from Italia Serie A when determining if the player should be in the EPL's HOF? Of course not, but they might still call said player a champion, MVP, etc. from Serie A when describing him. Dan Henderson was the Pride champion and he fought in the UFC to unify the belts after purchase, but his Pride record should have no bearing on whether or not he is in the UFC HOF. They are completely different things.
Moranis said:
Flound said:
Moranis said:
Yes, but there wasn't a single Pride card under the Zuffa banner. It would have been different if all of Henderson's fights in Pride were for Zuffa, but they weren't.
Click to expand...
No one said there was a Pride fight under the Zuffa banner. I thought that was made abundantly clear when we discussed the records (of earlier fights) becoming Zuffa property.
We had unification bouts with Henderson. Not one, but two. If he can bring the titles in to be unified, then I'd say the HoF entry is considered as well.
Do you have some reasoning that would explain why one aspect (titles) is brought in but another (fight records) is not?
Click to expand...
A title isn't the same thing as a record now is it.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. Again, I thought that firmly established when I asked why one is brought in and the other not.
Does the English Premier League look at a player's accomplishments from Italia Serie A when determining if the player should be in the EPL's HOF? Of course not, but they might still call said player a champion, MVP, etc. from Serie A when describing him.
Click to expand...
When the EPL gets around to buying Italia Serie A, then the parallel would be more accurate.
I'm not asking that Dream or Bellator records be included as Zuffa didn't buy and incorporate them into their own operation. If we were talking those two MMA orgs, then the scenario you painted above would fit that description. But as Zuffa bought Pride and did incorporate the fighters and conducted belt unification bouts under the UFC banner. On that day, Pride fighters became Zuffa fighters as did the fights, the results and everything else.
I also think that philosophy is borne out in other sports, contrary to the assertion you've made. For example, when the NFL/AFL merger in 1970, all the records for the now defunct AFL became NFL records. Joe Namath has a number of records in the AFL that got moved directly into the NFL. He was the first QB in pro football to throw for a 4,000 yd season in 1967, before the AFL joined the NFL. Seems to me mergers and acquisitions mean the records and exploits get merged, too.
Dan Henderson was the Pride champion and he fought in the UFC to unify the belts after purchase, but his Pride record should have no bearing on whether or not he is in the UFC HOF. They are completely different things.
Click to expand...
WHY do you think they don't bear inclusion. Simply saying they're different and don't belong kinda misses the thrust of my question asking for your reasoning.
Flound said:
Moranis said:
A title isn't the same thing as a record now is it.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. Again, I thought that firmly established when I asked why one is brought in and the other not.
Does the English Premier League look at a player's accomplishments from Italia Serie A when determining if the player should be in the EPL's HOF? Of course not, but they might still call said player a champion, MVP, etc. from Serie A when describing him.
Click to expand...
When the EPL gets around to buying Italia Serie A, then the parallel would be more accurate.
I'm not asking that Dream or Bellator records be included as Zuffa didn't buy and incorporate them into their own operation. If we were talking those two MMA orgs, then the scenario you painted above would fit that description. But as Zuffa bought Pride and did incorporate the fighters and conducted belt unification bouts under the UFC banner. On that day, Pride fighters became Zuffa fighters as did the fights, the results and everything else.
I also think that philosophy is borne out in other sports, contrary to the assertion you've made. For example, when the NFL/AFL merger in 1970, all the records for the now defunct AFL became NFL records. Joe Namath has a number of records in the AFL that got moved directly into the NFL. He was the first QB in pro football to throw for a 4,000 yd season in 1967, before the AFL joined the NFL. Seems to me mergers and acquisitions mean the records and exploits get merged, too.
Dan Henderson was the Pride champion and he fought in the UFC to unify the belts after purchase, but his Pride record should have no bearing on whether or not he is in the UFC HOF. They are completely different things.
Click to expand...
WHY do you think they don't bear inclusion. Simply saying they're different and don't belong kinda misses the thrust of my question asking for your reasoning.
Click to expand...
The NBA and ABA merged as well and yet they didn't combine anything. They are separate leagues with separate records.
Oh and the AFL is pro football, thus Namath was the first player to throw for 4000 yards in pro football, he was not however the first player to throw for 4000 yards in the NFL. That would be Dan Fouts in 1979. From 1960-1969 there are separate stats for the AFL and NFL. They didn't just combine them into one.
Moranis said:
The NBA and ABA merged as well and yet they didn't combine anything. They are separate leagues with separate records.
Click to expand...
I think you have gotten the impression my focus was the the records form distinct leagues were complied into one indistinguishable pile. And from my sloppy writing, I can understand why. Let me assure you that my focus was something else; that the Hall of Fame created by the NFL included records from games played in another league after the fact.
I chose football as its HoF was an NFL creation that grew to include other league's records - much like I'm suggesting the UFC Hall of Fame can grow by including Pride records. I did not choose baseball or basketball since the respective Halls of Fame for those sports are created and run by wholly separate and private interests that weren't controlled by the major professional league of their sport and have included more than just the records of the controlling professional league from the outset.
Oh and the AFL is pro football, thus Namath was the first player to throw for 4000 yards in pro football, he was not however the first player to throw for 4000 yards in the NFL. From 1960-1969 there are separate stats for the AFL and NFL.
They didn't just combine them into one.
Click to expand...
I'm fairly sure I said Namath was the first player to throw for 4,000 yards in pro football, not the NFL. A feat he accomplished in 1967. But it didn't make it into the HoF in 1967. Or '68. Or even '69 for that matter. No, not until the leagues merged in 1970 did the NFL dependent Pro Football Hall of Fame include that record. Again, I'm pointing to the post facto inclusion of records as evidence that the UFC Hall of Fame can use Pride records in considering Dan Henderson for admission into their HoF.
Flound said:
Moranis said:
The NBA and ABA merged as well and yet they didn't combine anything. They are separate leagues with separate records.
Click to expand...
I think you have gotten the impression my focus was the the records form distinct leagues were complied into one indistinguishable pile. And from my sloppy writing, I can understand why. Let me assure you that my focus was something else; that the Hall of Fame created by the NFL included records from games played in another league after the fact.
I chose football as its HoF was an NFL creation that grew to include other league's records - much like I'm suggesting the UFC Hall of Fame can grow by including Pride records. I did not choose baseball or basketball since the respective Halls of Fame for those sports are created and run by wholly separate and private interests that weren't controlled by the major professional league of their sport and have included more than just the records of the controlling professional league from the outset.
Oh and the AFL is pro football, thus Namath was the first player to throw for 4000 yards in pro football, he was not however the first player to throw for 4000 yards in the NFL. From 1960-1969 there are separate stats for the AFL and NFL.
They didn't just combine them into one.
Click to expand...
I'm fairly sure I said Namath was the first player to throw for 4,000 yards in pro football, not the NFL. A feat he accomplished in 1967. But it didn't make it into the HoF in 1967. Or '68. Or even '69 for that matter. No, not until the leagues merged in 1970 did the NFL dependent Pro Football Hall of Fame include that record. Again, I'm pointing to the post facto inclusion of records as evidence that the UFC Hall of Fame can use Pride records in considering Dan Henderson for admission into their HoF.
Click to expand...
Again it is the PRO FOOTBALL Hall of Fame. It isn't the NFL Hall of Fame. The AFL, USFL, etc. were all Professional Football leagues, thus would clearly be included in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. They would not be in a NFL Hall of Fame.
If the UFC morphs its Hall of Fame into a Pro MMA Hall of Fame, then Henderson absolutely belongs in it, but then so would Fedor (and a bunch of others). If they morph it into some sort of hybrid, then Gomi, Filipovic, and a bunch of other guys that have no business being in the UFC Hall of Fame, would also have to join Henderson. Therein lies the rub.
Dan Henderson has no business being in the UFC Hall of Fame. His career is not worthy of that specific distinction.
Moranis said:
Flound said:
Moranis said:
The NBA and ABA merged as well and yet they didn't combine anything. They are separate leagues with separate records.
Click to expand...
I think you have gotten the impression my focus was the the records form distinct leagues were complied into one indistinguishable pile. And from my sloppy writing, I can understand why. Let me assure you that my focus was something else; that the Hall of Fame created by the NFL included records from games played in another league after the fact.
I chose football as its HoF was an NFL creation that grew to include other league's records - much like I'm suggesting the UFC Hall of Fame can grow by including Pride records. I did not choose baseball or basketball since the respective Halls of Fame for those sports are created and run by wholly separate and private interests that weren't controlled by the major professional league of their sport and have included more than just the records of the controlling professional league from the outset.
Oh and the AFL is pro football, thus Namath was the first player to throw for 4000 yards in pro football, he was not however the first player to throw for 4000 yards in the NFL. From 1960-1969 there are separate stats for the AFL and NFL.
They didn't just combine them into one.
Click to expand...
I'm fairly sure I said Namath was the first player to throw for 4,000 yards in pro football, not the NFL. A feat he accomplished in 1967. But it didn't make it into the HoF in 1967. Or '68. Or even '69 for that matter. No, not until the leagues merged in 1970 did the NFL dependent Pro Football Hall of Fame include that record. Again, I'm pointing to the post facto inclusion of records as evidence that the UFC Hall of Fame can use Pride records in considering Dan Henderson for admission into their HoF.
Click to expand...
Again it is the PRO FOOTBALL Hall of Fame. It isn't the NFL Hall of Fame. The AFL, USFL, etc. were all Professional Football leagues, thus would clearly be included in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. They would not be in a NFL Hall of Fame.
Click to expand...
Okay, it seems you want to continue this argument just on the aspects of the analogy. I'll give it one last kick.
The Pro football Hall of Fame was started by the NFL and did not include records from any other leagues until 1970. I'm fully aware of the name above the door and I'm saying its history invalidates the argument that it was a universal HoF. (That's true fo basketball and baseball, but not the NFL). When the NFL merged with the AFL, the Pro Football Hall of Fame, a creation of the NFL and consisting of a selection committee from only NFL cities, took direction from the NFL. For its infancy it only included NFL records, despite other professional leagues existing. It was practically and effectively the NFL Hall of Fame.
If you want to brush aside the actual practices and rely solely on its name, you can, but that doesn't change the accuracy of the analogy. I would just mention that the former communist rulers of the nation known as East Germany referred to their country as the German Democratic Republic, despite being none of these things in actual practice.
I want to hear an argument why you think it's okay for some aspects to get moved over and others not. All the reasons you've given, if taken as the best answer, preclude the carry over of the Pride belts, too. I want to know why that contradiction is okay with you and so far, you haven't addressed that.
That's why I'm contending the NFL scenario for the UFC Hall of Fame. When they bought Pride, they brought in the titles, the fighters and the kitchen sink, but according to you, the records shouldn't be. I've yet to hear a convicing reasons why some parts are adopted and others not. The 'name' argument doesn't overcome that contradiction.
Like I said, the argument for including Dan isn't ironclad, but I haven't see a good rebuttal yet.
He is a UFC tournament champion, has one of the best knockouts ever in the UFC (Bisping), and was in one of the greatest UFC fights of all time (with Shogun). To me a Hall of Fame is for the greatest of all time and something extraordinary has to be done to earn a spot. I think Henderson has done that in the UFC.
Flound said:
Okay, it seems you want to continue this argument just on the aspects of the analogy. I'll give it one last kick.
The Pro football Hall of Fame was started by the NFL and did not include records from any other leagues until 1970. I'm fully aware of the name above the door and I'm saying its history invalidates the argument that it was a universal HoF. (That's true fo basketball and baseball, but not the NFL). When the NFL merged with the AFL, the Pro Football Hall of Fame, a creation of the NFL and consisting of a selection committee from only NFL cities, took direction from the NFL. For its infancy it only included NFL records, despite other professional leagues existing. It was practically and effectively the NFL Hall of Fame.
If you want to brush aside the actual practices and rely solely on its name, you can, but that doesn't change the accuracy of the analogy. I would just mention that the former communist rulers of the nation known as East Germany referred to their country as the German Democratic Republic, despite being none of these things in actual practice.
I want to hear an argument why you think it's okay for some aspects to get moved over and others not. All the reasons you've given, if taken as the best answer, preclude the carry over of the Pride belts, too. I want to know why that contradiction is okay with you and so far, you haven't addressed that.
That's why I'm contending the NFL scenario for the UFC Hall of Fame. When they bought Pride, they brought in the titles, the fighters and the kitchen sink, but according to you, the records shouldn't be. I've yet to hear a convicing reasons why some parts are adopted and others not. The 'name' argument doesn't overcome that contradiction.
Like I said, the argument for including Dan isn't ironclad, but I haven't see a good rebuttal yet.
Click to expand...
Team sports are obviously different than individual sports. When the AFL and NFL merged, they brought together entire franchises, cities, etc. It was a lot more than just up we now have all of these players, lets put them onto existing franchises, in existing cities. You are making an analogy that doesn't apply because MMA is an individual sport. An individual is a champion, an individual has a record, but an individual does not have a UFC record or is not a UFC champion unless he fights in the UFC.
For example, Jake Shields was promoted as a Strikeforce Champion when he made his UFC debut, which was before Zuffa purchased Strikeforce. The UFC isn't going to act like everyone that signs with them is 0-0, the past matters, especially when you have high hopes for the signee (like Shields, like Anderson, like Rampage, etc.). But the past is just that, the past. The UFC has done a much better job of late of adding in full histories to its fighters, for example Mirko and Overeem have Dream, Inoki Boom-Ba-Ye, and K-1 fights on their profiles on UFC.com, yet those are not and have never been Zuffa organizations. I guess we need to recognize the all time greats in those organizations now also and put them into the UFC Hall of Fame.
The UFC marketed Henderson as the Pride Champion for ratings boost, but it was clear that is all it was as Rampage never defended the Pride title he "won" when he beat Henderson. It was nothing more than a publicity stunt, it was just a way to get rid of Pride and the Pride titles and try to capitalize on the Pride name, as well as add a bit of extra heft to Henderson. It was merely, hey we had this organization it is now defunct lets just market it as a double title fight to make some extra money. Nothing more, nothing less. The same thing was supposed to happen with the WEC LW title, and that just ended up disappearing into the night when injuries happened. I mean Guida wasn't the WEC LW champion because he beat Anthony Pettis and had Pettis lost to Edgar first instead (with the belt around his waist), Edgar wouldn't have been the WEC LW champion either.
Moranis said:
Team sports are obviously different than individual sports. When the AFL and NFL merged, they brought together entire franchises, cities, etc. It was a lot more than just up we now have all of these players, lets put them onto existing franchises, in existing cities. You are making an analogy that doesn't apply because MMA is an individual sport. An individual is a champion, an individual has a record, but an individual does not have a UFC record or is not a UFC champion unless he fights in the UFC.
Click to expand...
I'd say that's a contention that fails to achieve its result. Yes, team sports are different than individual sports, in so much that one is a subset of the other. However, both the teams and the individual, through wins and losses, compile win-loss records and records for stellar achievements. Records which get recorded for posterity and for the sake of honoring those acheivements. It doesn't matter that one is achieved by an individual and the other by a team of individuals - they both produce records in their respective leagues.
They didn't, as you've claimed, just have to put players on existing teams in existing cities. They took these existing teams from other leagues and incorporated them completely, with players, records and titles moved when they bought the other league.
For example, Jake Shields was promoted as a Strikeforce Champion when he made his UFC debut, which was before Zuffa purchased Strikeforce. The UFC isn't going to act like everyone that signs with them is 0-0, the past matters, especially when you have high hopes for the signee (like Shields, like Anderson, like Rampage, etc.). But the past is just that, the past. The UFC has done a much better job of late of adding in full histories to its fighters, for example Mirko and Overeem have Dream, Inoki Boom-Ba-Ye, and K-1 fights on their profiles on UFC.com, yet those are not and have never been Zuffa organizations. I guess we need to recognize the all time greats in those organizations now also and put them into the UFC Hall of Fame.
Click to expand...
Yes, Shields was promoted as the former SF champion. SF removed the title on July 1, 2010, Jakes' signing date with the UFC. It was not a unification bout when he came to the UFC. Since the UFC did not own SF at the time, they had no capability to bring the belt over. Now had they owned SF at that time, they could have. Again, I'm not sure this has the effect you wanted. Now that Zuffa owns SF, they could incorporate those records into the HoF.
The UFC marketed Henderson as the Pride Champion for ratings boost, but it was clear that is all it was as Rampage never defended the Pride title he "won" when he beat Henderson. It was nothing more than a publicity stunt, it was just a way to get rid of Pride and the Pride titles and try to capitalize on the Pride name, as well as add a bit of extra heft to Henderson.
Click to expand...
It's a unification bout where the Pride title got folded into the UFC title - permanent title unification and no longer contended for. Yes, it was a marketing ploy, but it also involved the title. Again, I don't think this works a rebuttal. Good shot, though.
edit; on the plus side, Moranis, I'm not getting tangled up in the Henderson/Jones card cancellation brouhaha. You?