Originally Posted by GoDeViLs
Kinda funny a guy with a 17-11 record is being inducted into HOF. I give the guy respect but it seems wrong to reward mediocrity with HOF induction.
Randy Couture's record is barely better.
I count 3 names in Tito's entire list of opponents that didn't go on to have successful careers, and only 2 of his 11 losses were to people who never held a title (and only 1 in Matt Hamill which was after his prime if we're counting Guy Mezger's UFC tournament win as a title). He also beat 3 champions/former champs and held the UFC LHW title.
Honestly if we look at Randy's record, he only has slightly better wins than Tito, and more losses to non champions (3 as opposed to 2) and his record is 19-11 and seven of his opponents never went on to have successful careers.
I don't see anyone questioning his HOF induction, and it's simply because he's more popular than Tito. Sure, Tito isn't among the greatest of all time, but he kept the UFC alive in a time when it was struggling, was a champion and had some of the most famous fights of all time. He deserves his place.
Defining his career as mediocrity is ridiculous. By that definition, BJ Penn's career is mediocre, as are Royce Gracie, Ken Shamrock, Matt Hughes, etc. - just because they're not at the top of their divisions anymore doesn't mean they aren't among the best of their generation of fighters, Tito just stuck around longer than most of them did, and lost a lot of fights late in his career, but you have to remember they were all somewhat competitive fights and against mostly elite competition. Are Shogun, Fedor, Wandy and Chuck's accomplishments less meaningful because they're still fighting (except Chuck and now Fedor) and have started to rack up losses after they were past their prime?
TLDR; Tito absolutely deserves to be in the UFC HOF