« Rashad Evans vs. Forrest Griffin for NYE likely | Home | Defending Steve Cofield »
A tale of two Kevin Ioles
By Zach Arnold | September 7, 2008
Three months ago, he was calling for the retirement of Matt Hughes. Hughes had just lost to Thiago Alves, who failed to make the 170-pound weight limit and had a big size advantage in the London fight.
Today, he’s defending Chuck Liddell and suggesting that Chuck shouldn’t retire. Liddell faced Rashad Evans in the main event of UFC 88 and had a size advantage over his opponent.
Though the calls will come, there’s no need for him to retire. He’s not taking a lot of punishment and hasn’t demonstrably slowed. He was knocked out twice with one punch and lost a close decision in the other.
He possesses everything he needs to once again be a dominant player in the UFC’s marquee division, but he’s simply put most of his tools back into the box and has chosen to rely only upon his hammer.
Matt Hughes is 34 years old. Chuck Liddell is 38 years old.
Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 6 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
Calling out Iole for being stupid is like calling out Dana White for being a promoter – It’s who they are – it’s what they do.
Kevin Iole should just GO AWAY! Man what a moron!
One does not necessarily have anything to do with the other. Sometimes a ballplayer can play at a high level into their 40s; sometimes they lose it at 30. I’m not saying he’s right or wrong on either, but merely using age as your basis in and of itself does not rebut his points.
Gee I wonder why, maybe it’s because the UFC would prefer that Matt Hughes would retire and that Chuck Liddell would not retire. Kevin Iole repeating whatever UFC management thinks is how it normally works.
Why would UFC want Matt Hughes to retire? That’s the silliest thing I’ve read all day.
Does anyone consider Iole to be a credible boxing/mma jounalist? I thought we already learned this lesson.