Friend of our site


MMA Headlines


UFC HP


Josh Gross


OC Register


Tatame


MMA Metrics


USA Today


MMA Fighting


MMA Torch


Heavy MMA


MMA Weekly


Sherdog (News)


Sherdog (Articles)


Lowkick


Liver Kick


Caged In


MMA Junkie


MMA Mania


Bloody Elbow


Fightlinker


Sportsnet


Joe Ferraro


MMA Ratings


Rating Fights


Infinite MMA


MMA Convert


Fightline


CompuBox


CompuStrike


MMA Frenzy


Ult MMA


Kevin Iole


Yahoo MMA Blog


MMA Betting


MMA Tycoon - The MMA Management Game
Follow the latest replies in our comments section
By: TwitterButtons.com
By TwitterButtons.com Facebook Widgets
Powered By Vistaprint

Search this site



Latest Articles


News Corner


MMA Rising


MMA Online


David Williams


Audio Corner


Tapout Radio


Sherdog Radio


Joe Ferraro


The Fightworks Podcast


Eddie Goldman


Pro MMA Radio


MMA Torch


Video Corner


Fight Hub


The Fight Nerd


ESPN MMA Live


Strikeforce


Japanese MMA


Nightmare of Battle


Special thanks to...

Link Rolodex

Site Index


To access our list of posting topics and archives, click here.

Friend of our site


Buy and sell MMA photos at MMA Prints

Site feedback


Fox Sports: "Zach Arnold's Fight Opinion site is one of the best spots on the Web for thought-provoking MMA pieces."

Site Meter

« | Home | »

Steve Cofield gets it right (again)

By Zach Arnold | August 20, 2008

Tito Ortiz as MMA’s version of Barry Bonds? About as good of a sports analogy as you can get right now.

The difference between the two men, however? We still (think we) know that Bonds can swing a baseball bat and do so in a limited role as a DH. Can Ortiz beat anyone that’s considered mid-level competition? Would he beat Babalu? I have my doubts.

Topics: Affliction, MMA, Media, UFC, Zach Arnold | 6 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback | Share This

6 Responses to “Steve Cofield gets it right (again)”

  1. Ivan Trembow says:

    That’s one difference between Ortiz and Bonds. Another is that there is overwhelming evidence (via “Game of Shadows”) of Bonds’ steroid use, while the same can’t be said for Ortiz. I think that’s a pretty big difference, given that most people think “steroids” when they think of Barry Bonds.

  2. ad says:

    For Bonds and Ortiz to be a good analogy Ortiz would need to:

    1. have his named completely intertwined with steroids
    2. be an enemy of the media
    3. have such fearsome offense that no one would want to fight him

  3. Rolf Rosenstein says:

    Actually when I think of Barry Bonds I think of a great athlete who’s been harrangued and slandered by chicken shit reporters.

    Double R

  4. MessiahRp says:

    Actually Bonds has made his own bed with reporters and former teammates who seem to equally despise him. His standoff-ish, self centered attitude did him no favors to begin with but when you throw in him blatantly deceiving people about cheating on Steroids and HGH well the guy has a fairly earned reputation.

    As for Tito, sure he was a PR nightmare for Dana White (who seems to equally relish being a jerkoff) but I don’t think that he’s someone the media loathes because that same hostility doesn’t seem to carry over towards them.

    As to whether he can beat a top guy still, that remains to be seen. I found his win over Forrest Griffen questionable at best but I think he would have beaten Rashard Evans rather handily had he not received a points deduction.

    And when you figure he can hang in with a lot of top level guys and beat medium talent guys that is no different at this level than Barry Bonds being completely unable to play his OF position at this point and his injuries severely limiting his ability to play.

    In that sense both still have some level of success but it isn’t enough to declare either a premier player in their sport any longer.

    Rp

  5. Kelvin says:

    At least Bonds doesn’t complain about money 99% of the time.

  6. zack says:

    In Tito’s defense, look at who he’s lost to. It’s like shitting on Sylvia for losing to Fedor, Nog, and Randy. I’m not a Tito fan at all either.

Comments

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word