Two of the most over-rated fighters in the UFC. OK, I get that they’re popular with a certain type of fan that loves the gangsta appeal, and who gravitate toward the dumbass, illiterate, societal underdog; and the fan that appreciates trash talking, and antics provided buy both of these brothers. Granted, they are fun to watch, they do put on a good show, they rarely disappoint, but are they as good as some people make them out to be? No. Neither of them are Hall of Fame material.
From a sheer fighting perspective I put them in the same conversation as I would Clay Guida or Diego Sanchez, they always put on a good show. But no more deserving of Hall of Fame status. And their records bear that out.
Nick’s claim to fame is beating a pre-prime Lawler, and an over-his-prime Penn, with a UFC record of 7-6-1, over 3 tries in the UFC. His mouth and antics got him the big fights, but, with the exception of the 2 aforementioned, he lost every one of those big fights. Hell Sanchez has a win over him and even Riggs kicked his ass. An over-rated fighter that got to the big show and never lived up to potential.
Nate, on the other hand, had, or has, much more promise. I remember the 1st time I saw him was on TUF being bullied by Parisyan, and looking very much intimidated, which is understandable seeing as Parisyan beat his brother Nick. Since then, he has built up a career that I think out shines his brother’s. So far in the UFC he’s built up a record of 14-9 and has, unlike Nick, spent virtually his entire career in the UFC never being released even once. And I would easily argue that he has faced and even beaten better competition than Nick. But is he Hall of Fame material? No.
All antics aside neither of these fighters will ever, or even could ever, win a UFC Title. They made a name for themselves by being who they are more than anything they ever accomplished in the ring. Like Clay Guida or Diego Sanchez they are fun to watch, but if they ever get into the Hall of Fame they will tarnish the legacy of those who actually deserve to be there.
( images courtesy of express.co.uk )