Topic: Minoru Suzuki
Is Minoru Suzuki an MMA pioneer?
Forum Home | Topic Page | Fighter Page Help
Anonymous Mode
You are not logged in to Tapology. When browsing anonymously, profanities and images are automatically removed from the forum.
09.06.2021 | 3:52 PM ET
I saw a reddit thread on this and I'm curious what Tapology has to say about it. He is the co-founder of the original Pancrase, an MMA organization that began a month before UFC 1. He essentially helped start the MMA movement in Japan. And from all accounts he is one tough SOB. However, then the questions of legitimacy rise up. Not regarding Suzuki specifically, but Pancrase itself. We have all heard the rumors that many bouts in Pancrase were rigged, pro wrestling style. I know Ken Shamrock claimed his two losses to Suzuki were works. And of course nowadays, Suzuki has made a lengthy career as an actual pro wrestler (who I am a huge fan of). So there are basically two things I'm interested in finding out:
1. Do you think Suzuki is an MMA pioneer?
2. Was Pancrase mostly works or shoots?
3. If many of Pancrase bouts were indeed works (wrestling terminology for predetermined outcome), does that prevent Suzuki from still being considered an icon of the sport.
1. Do you think Suzuki is an MMA pioneer?
2. Was Pancrase mostly works or shoots?
3. If many of Pancrase bouts were indeed works (wrestling terminology for predetermined outcome), does that prevent Suzuki from still being considered an icon of the sport.
Responses
09.06.2021 | 4:10 PM ET
I do consider Minoru Suzuki an MMA pioneer. The vast majority of Pancrase rules fights that I've seen were shoots. The only Pancrase rules fight I saw, that I'm sure is a work is when Ken Shamrock lost the King of Pancrase title to Minoru Suzuki in their 2nd match.
* Edited at 09.06.2021, 4:16 PM ET *