tigercats12 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

renzo milked it? lmfao.. frank wanted out, plain and simple.. renzo did own him.. plus as far as milking it.. you must not know much about renzo.. he doesn't "quit" to save face.. did you miss when his arm was badly broken and he still didn't even tap? kept fighting and the ref had to stop it? frank = scared

whodathurdler (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

i give you all the good reasoning and facts why he got owned, and you still fail to see the truth and refuse to accept what's happened lol. but i guess we'll agree to disagree.

FranktheShanker12 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

lol nope, no ownage in this fight, he didnt stop franks offense, frank threw 50 knees to the body from his back,and if frank was really that frustrated that he had to "cheat" why would he do this in the second round? they still had the third round left to fight. frank made a mistake and threw an illegal knee and renzo milked it for all it was worth, a win. renzo deserves an academy award for his performance in that fight. If frank was truly "owned" maybe he wouldve had a bruise or SOMETHING

whodathurdler (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

you obviously don't know much, TAKE downs are an offense, you get points for takedowns, YOU GET NOTHING FOR being held in side mount... you get nothing for not being able to defend the takedown... and you lose by getting frustrated, cheating, and throwing an illegal blow. take down is an offense, multiple takedowns + side mount + stopping opponent's attacks = owned.

FranktheShanker12 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

change your definition of owned, what offense did renzo mount? he didnt do shit, he took frank down, didnt try for 1 submission,hardly threw any strikes, and buried his face in franks chest, renzo didnt own frank, he tried to win via lay and pray decision

whodathurdler (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

it's not funny, it's the truth. owned isn't being taken down ad held in side mount, being owned is being taken down at will MULTIPLE times while not being able to mounT ANY offense. HE COULDN"T mount any striking offense against a non skilled striker, he couldn't stop the take down or get out of being side mounted ALTHOUGH HE"S SUPPOSE TO BE A REALLY good wrestler (that's suppose to be his game). And finally, side mount is a very dominant position to have...owned. not talking shit, just truth

FranktheShanker12 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

lol owned by renzo? i guess, if your definition of getting owned is being taken down and held in side mount

happyhour2624 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

guys what you also have to take into acount is age VS experience. As frank gets older he gets more experienced. as in his striking game has gone through the roof since the 97 fight agianst tito. however the downside to this is that he is older and thus its harder to build muscle and get fit due to lower testosterone levels. i believe frank is a 35 year fighter who is surprisingly near the top of his game. i take my hat off to him

sammy (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

People may argue that Frank is a poor sport because of the Renzo KO and his own cockiness. But from a martial arts POV he uses his cockiness as smart strategy to mess with his opponent, and the knees to Renzo's head were to save face from losing, but that depends on the individual. MMA rules allow ppl to point fingers, but ultimately real martial artists don't use rules for excuses when they get hurt at this level. Frank is a smart strategist.

blutobelushi (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

you make a very good case.although these rankings im not so sure about.i like renzo.i think he is a warrior.i thought renzo was getting him on the ground.frank is doing the old pro wrestling game...he talks so much smack.hes a salesman."sell the sizzle not the steak" as they say in texas...