No one said anything about sapp being at the top of the heap, just that power and size can account for A LOT when it comes to striking. Brock is not a great, or even good, striker, his size and power to this point in his career account for a large percentage of any success on his feet.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
maverickbu wrote:
ZEB wrote:
kmcnyc wrote:
As far as his technique, well is lacking, but it does not matter.
striking, again you don’t have to have too much Technique with “lunchboxes” and power.
Here is the biggest flaw in your analysis. You are now claiming that the only reason that he can hit is because his hands are big. Yet, as I’ve pointed out, Bob Sapp and others too have large hands (and bodys) but do not strike effectively.
Really?! Perhaps you can explain how he beat Ernesto Hoost, arguably one of the best K-1 fighters ever, not once but twice in 2002. Not saying Sapp is a technical striker, but to discount what that much power can make up for in terms of lacking technique is just wrong.
If you notice I said it’s not “the only reason he can hit”. Yes Sapp has great power and has relied on it greatly to make himself a lot of money in mma. But I don’t see him at the top of the heap, do you? That’s because he lacks the skill of a Brock Lesnar. But by no means do I underestimate size and power as a valuable tool.
[/quote]
yeah, i mean sure he had ernesto’s number, but he was also outstruck by jan nortje and fujita…
it sucks this fight isnt going to happen. I wanted to see Carwin man handle Brock. Brock is losing the belt in his next fight.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
ZEB wrote:
kmcnyc wrote:
ZEB wrote:
His striking is effective Because of his speed not because of his accuracy or how his punches are thrown. He does’nt use hips or sit into his punches, his striking isn’t crisp nor fluid.
Yet, people fall down, or get their faces messed up, go figure huh? How can he do that with all the haters saying he can’t strike? I guess maybe he just doesn’t read the commentary. Anyway, If you go from one side of town to the other in a bus instead of a limo, you’re still on the other side of town.
can muster allot behind the punches, they dont have to be pretty.
Ali had some “pretty” punches Joe Fraxier not so pretty, both effective.
Uhm yeah, he is like a Rhino no finesse.
Take a look at one of his takedowns on slo mo, you might change your mind. You just don’t pull off 90% of your takedowns in division one wrestling without having great skill in that area, it doesn’t happen.
If he was slow, or weak,
This is bordering nonsense. Tell me how many wrestlers who are slow or weak have good takedowns? Come on, stop it, really.
Ill agree with you on this.
Lesnar works hard. Super hard. Ill give him that.
He is a phenomenal athlete. I have never said he isn’t.
I just think his athleticism is the corner stone of his ability.
Not a bad cornerstone. I also thinks he deserves credit for constantly improving, don’t you?
Think of what a let down he would be if he wasn’t as fast or as powerful at his size.
Or as skillful, then he would be more like a Bob Sapp. A very large fighter with not as much skill as he needs to climb the ranks. Sapps strength and size didn’t seem to get him as far as Brocks, why is that? Could it be because Lesnar has skill as well?
Okay.
Dude, You are a Lesnar fan, cool that.
No actually I’m not, still cool? I don’t like his obnoxious persona and wouldn’t mind seeing him get beat sooner rather than later. But, as I’ve already stated, one doesn’t have to be a fan in order to give correct analysis, something sorely missing from many posters on this board. The usual stance is “I like him therefore he’s great”, or vice versa.
But you arguing with kmc about wrestling takedowns and what not is ridiculous. The guy has more wrestling knowledge and experience than most likely the rest of the forum combined.
That’s a good reason for me to never wrestle him, and I won’t. But being the smart guy you are I know that you realize analysis is quite different than the actual possession of skill. Some of the very best mma fighters make lousy ring side analysts, or writers. Others who have some skill and experience seem to be able to figure out fact from fiction. I’ve enjoyed my debate with kmcnyc, but he’s made some very obvious errors regarding his assessment of Lesnar, I’ve pointed them out.
[/quote]
Obviously skill and analytical abilities aren’t joined at the hip, but generally someone who has developed a high level of skill, has trained with and against world class competition and has trained under world class coaches is going to know what they are talking about. Sure, there might be the exception here or there, but from what I’ve read from kmc he isn’t one.
He has made no obvious errors that I have seen, and you didn’t really point them out, just gave your counter opinion.
Done. Most of them still basically look like tackles. Like kmc said, he has a great power double (I actually watched his match with Neal on youtube and the announcer basically stated that his power double is what got him to that match, basically confirming that kmc said).
No, I said that there were others just as big, not that there were others with the size and athleticism that he possesses.
Again, attributes win a lot of fights. I never said that he sucks at wrestling, and yes he obviously has better than average skill to have won a Div 1 title. But that doesn’t mean that he is a technically superior wrestler.
As for technically superior wrestlers…
Cary Kolat:
Dave Schultz:
Gene Mills:
to name a few. None of these guys beat their opponents via being the biggest strongest guys in their weight class, but instead because they were all excellent technicians.
And for obvious reasons I’m not even going to mention greats like Gable, Sanderson, or Karelin.
Who is penalizing him for anything? Anyone who says that he is a huge, incredibly strong athletic guy and wins a lot of his fights because of it is dead on; not penalizing him for it.
You just keep telling yourself that. 
His skill no doubt potentiates his strength. But even if he were the same size, strength, speed, and conditioning that he has now without the wrestling ability he would beat a lot of HW’s. Sapp basically gave a prime Nog everything he could handle before Nog (in classic Nog fashion) pulled out a submission victory out of nowhere. And Sapp certainly isn’t what anyone would call a technically superior fighter. His wrestling ability obviously helps, but he would not be the UFC champ if he were smaller, slower and weaker. His attributes are what make him so dangerous.
First, name someone who is bigger, stronger and equally as athletic that has fought in the UFC? You can’t name guys like Sapp (not that he would fit all of those requirements anyhow), because the UFC has a 265 lb weight limit which Sapp could not make.
Second, no one said that he’s winning “just” because of his size. We’re simply acknowledging the fact that it’s the combination of his size, strength, speed, conditioning (basically athleticism) combined with his wrestling skill that makes him so dangerous. And that he isn’t a technical wrestler; he’s a bull (and a damn effective one at that). If he didn’t have the attributes that he does, he would not be UFC heavyweight champ (nor would he have likely won the NCAA title). But it doesn’t really matter, because he does, and he knows how to use them.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
ZEB wrote:
He has made no obvious errors that I have seen, and you didn’t really point them out, just gave your counter opinion.[/quote]
Yes, he gave his opinion and I have given mine, and now you have given yours. Yet no one (certainly not you) has yet shown how someone can win by just being a large person with limited skills, yet it’s being said over and over again. The (original) argument is based on the false assumption that Brock Lesnar has achieved success from mostly being a large person with some speed. As I have pointed out repeatedly his skill (in addition to other attributes) is what drives his success.
[quote]
I would offer you the same advice that I did to kmcnyc, take a look at his takedowns in slow motion and tell me they’re not technical. As to his striking ability, I never said that it was “pretty” I’m sure you read my posts. However, they are quite effective. I also agree with you they are improving.
Done. Most of them still basically look like tackles.[/quote]
Did you happen to miss the clip that was added to this thread? He took Couture down with a very skillful trip(sweep). But, he doesn’t get much credit for that because he’s big, and strong, oh, and fast too. Now if you take a look at many of his takedowns from his senior year in college when he won the Division I wrestling title you’ll see more of the same. He was taking down some very big dudes and had to use skill in addition to his other attributes.
I see, you maintain that size and athleticism is what drives his success. I wonder how many pro football players Lesnar’s size or larger could do what he did in the UFC? Furthermore, if all it took were size and athleticism I wonder why there has never been any other inidividual with Lesnars size and athleticism who has reached the top of the UFC ranks. Your logic is faulty my friend, if it were that simple we would be seeing far more of it. Unless of course you’re claiming that Lesnar is the only guy in the world who has such size and athleticism, but you’re not claiming that, are you? Yet, if you’re not claiming that where are the others?
[quote]He has great top control and obviously has some wrestling skill, but he’s far from a technically superior wrestler.
That depends on who you are comparing him to doesn’t it? Many seem to want to take away his great skill BECAUSE he has such great size speed and power, but the skill is still there regardless. You don’t win an NCAA division I title in wrestling and get 90% of your takedowns with no skill. Furthermore, He has demonstrated that skill in every mma fight that he’s had thus far.
Again, attributes win a lot of fights. I never said that he sucks at wrestling, and yes he obviously has better than average skill to have won a Div 1 title. But that doesn’t mean that he is a technically superior wrestler.[/quote]
Glad to see you’re finally giving him some credit. in your post above you said he “has some wrestling skill”. He has far more than “some”. But again, it depends on what wrestlers that you are comparing him too doesn’t it? You can list 5, 10 or more wrestlers who are technically superior to him but what does that really mean? No one questioned Matt Hughes wrestling skill when he dominated his division and he was only a top 10 NCAA finisher (8th I think). Every man on your list was technically superior to Randy Couture, Mark Kerr, Matt Lindland, Dan Henderson and just about every other wrestler that ever got into mma! Yet no one ever made a list to compare those fighters. I wonder why that is? Tell me why the harsh judgement of Brock Lesnar? What is the point? Making a list of the top men who ever wrestled proves what? (I think we all know for example that Gene Mills has the greatest wrestling record and most pins of any American wrestler, how does that reflect poorly on Brock Lesnar?). No one, least of all me, ever said that Brock Lesnar was the greatest technical wrestler the country ever turned out, drop the straw man argument it doesn’t serve you well in this debate. Lesnar won over 100 victories and lost only a handful to win an NCAA Division I
championship, that speaks for itself.
Actually I think Gene Mills was greater than Gable, in record, number of pins and world titles. Mills didn’t get to go to the Olympics in 1980, but that’s because we had a crazy democrat in the White House by the name of Jimmy Carter who decided to boycott the Olympics. But I think Mills had four world titles and many other championships which might have just made him the greatest wrestler to ever come out of this country, but I admit that’s debatable.
[quote]It’s actualy laughable how many penalize him for his size. He hits people and knocks them down-“That’s because he’s so big”. He takes people down with ease- “That’s beacuse he’s so big”. He has total control on top- “That’s because he’s so big”. Yet, during his wrestling career he wrestled guys just as big some bigger and took them down with ease. How big was Frank Mir for his fight with Lesnar? Sherdog has him at 240lbs. but I think he was slightly larger for the Lesnar fight. Heath Herring is 6’ 4", one inch taller than Lesnar, and weighs in at 250-260 Lesnar mauled him. Did he do this because he weighed 10-15 pounds more than him, or was it because Lesnar was technically superior?
Who is penalizing him for anything? Anyone who says that he is a huge, incredibly strong athletic guy and wins a lot of his fights because of it is dead on; not penalizing him for it.[/quote]
That’s what is called a “backhanded compliment”. You attribute his success to his size and athleticism, there is the compliment. You don’t mention his skill that is the insult. One more time if all you had to be was big and athletic then where are all the other guys who are Lesnars size or larger winning mma titles? And as I already pointed out Heath Herring is a very large guy one inch taller than Lesnar and only 10-15 pounds lighter. What happened?
[quote]Really, give it some thought, yes Lesnar is physically superior to most guys, but it’s his tremendous skill which causes him to be so very dominant.
You just keep telling yourself that. ;)[/quote]
I don’t have to keep telling myself that Lesnar proves it every time he sets foot in the octagon. And you don’t seem to be able disprove it.
You cannot disprove it by:
Making a list of the greatest wrestlers that this country has every turned out and claiming that Lesnar is not as good, we all know that, and I pointed out not one other wrestler in the UFC comes to mind who is as good as your short list of the greatest. This demonstrates your bias against Lesnar nothing more.
You can prove it by making a list of other large athletic guys with “not much skill” who have risen to the top of the mma ranks. Yet, you are unable to do this. Does this mean that there are no other big strong athletic guys in the world? Nonsense, there are many of them, yet they are not mma champions because they lack the most important quality and that is SKILL.
So, you keep telling yourself that Lesnar only succeeds because he is big, strong and athletic. If you don’t bet on any of his fights and just keep this opinion focused on a message board you’ll at least keep your money.
There you go, you’re coming around.
He would win some fights I’ve never said that he did not posses those attributes. But as you can see on this seasons TUF, being big strong and fast is only part of the equation.
The onus is on you to tell me why there are not many others who are not in the UFC who are as large or larger than Lesnar and who also have great speed and athleticism. If that is all it takes there should be many others who have fought and currently fight, yet there are none. Why is that? The answer is because it takes more than size and speed, it takes SKILL.
You stated he has “some skill” above. I think it takes more than “some skill” to become UFC champion, don’t you? As I’ve already pointed out he’s beaten guys at the college level who were his size or even bigger and stronger and he did it with skill. And I’m still waiting for an answer as to why Heath Herring couldn’t put up a better fight against someone who was basically the same size. Are you claiming that Heath Herring didn’t have enough skill? There was no real size factor. Could it have been Lesnar’s skill that was superior to Herrings along with his athleticism?
No one is claiming that he does not posses superior physical size to most opponents. But as I’ve stated repeatedly that is only one factor. He’s also a very good wrestler, one who knows how to take a person down (many ways see the Couture takedown), knows how to handle top position very well (do you really stay on top of a Frank Mir JUST because you have 25 pounds on him? THINK). And knows how to punch, can you honestly say that Herring and Couture would have fallen with one punch had Lesnar not known how to throw a punch? Other large guys swing, hit, and nothing happens.
No one is denying that Lesnar has superior physical qualities, but you underestimate the level of skill, in every area, that he currently possesses and that skill set continues to grow with each fight!
Good debating with you, I’ve read many of your posts on other threads and your analysis is usually right on the money. I guess we just disagree on this one and that’s what makes good debates.
Take care my friend.
I enjoy the way you two have agreed the same points and argued details.
Massive appreciation of the debating skills!
holy shit Sento, Kolat made that guy look like a high-school freshman, at the international level. Beautiful to watch
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
ZEB wrote:
He has made no obvious errors that I have seen, and you didn’t really point them out, just gave your counter opinion.
Yes, he gave his opinion and I have given mine, and now you have given yours. Yet no one (certainly not you) has yet shown how someone can win by just being a large person with limited skills, yet it’s being said over and over again. The (original) argument is based on the false assumption that Brock Lesnar has achieved success from mostly being a large person with some speed. As I have pointed out repeatedly his skill (in addition to other attributes) is what drives his success.
[/quote]
Agreed, basically it’s all just opinion.
Obviously someone who is just large with limited skills will eventually lose to someone who is either skilled enough to neutralize those skills, or has a combination of size and technique greater than said individual. But, a physically large powerful individual can still win a lot of fights.
Take for instance Tim Silvia. Not what I would classify as world class striking skills, yet he KO’d a lot of opponents and held the UFC HW belt for quite some time simply because he was a big guy. He was able to neutralize Jeff Monson’s (who is light years more skilled at grappling) ground game simply due to his superior size.
Now, eventually he ran into fighters like Arlovski (the first time), Nog, and Fedor who beat could neutralize or match his size. But he’s still an example of someone who won a lot of fights simply because he was bigger.
A prime Foreman would be another good example. He beat lots of guys who were likely more skilled than him simply because he was physically superior.
All of these guys had some skill though, no doubt about it, just weren’t necessarily technically superior fighters. Which is pretty much what I (and I believe kmc) have been saying about Brock. He’s got some skill, neither of us have said otherwise. He’s just not the most technically superior fighter (or wrestler) in the UFC.
Yeah, I saw the clip. That’s what one takedown in his UFC career?
Here’s another clip of highlights which shows him doing numerous power doubles:
And again, it’s obviously effective for him, but then no one is arguing otherwise.
First, most pro football players would need considerable time to reach the level of conditioning that Brock has. The guy was a wrestler throughout high school and college and has been diligently training for MMA for several years now. A football player without that base of conditioning would likely take quite a long time before he reached such a point.
Second, how many people with Lesnar’s size and athleticism even exist? Let alone decide to get into MMA? Can you name even one other guy with his size and athleticism (combination of strength, speed, agility, and conditioning) who has fought in the UFC? I honestly don’t even think Carwin matches up in terms of athleticism (maybe in some attributes, but not the whole package) and surprise surprise he’s the number one contender atm.
Besides, even the few guys out there that could do it, why would they want to? Why get into a sport where you run the risk of getting your face smashed in for chump change, when you can go into the NFL and make millions of dollars doing it?
Hughes is actually a good example of a wrestler who was simply physically stronger and better conditioned than most of his opponents. He later developed a solid striking and submission game, but when he first got into MMA he was mostly dominating people due to his superior athleticism.
I’d say the same thing about any of the above guys (Lindland did win a silver medal though, so I’ve gotta give him props for that), but this thread isn’t really about them is it?
I have high standards, what can I say? 
So, I’m not harshly judging Brock, just saying that he isn’t what I would consider a technically superior wrestler. That’s not a knock on him, just the truth. He is still quite effective though, which the NCAA title supports.
Eh, maybe. But Gable had a ridiculous college career (surpassed only by Sanderson really), and won the gold medal in the 1972 olympics without giving up a single point (even though the Russian team dedicated their entire training camp to trying to figure out a way to beat him).
No argument though that Mills was an incredible wrestler as well.
No, it’s just an honest observation. The guy has skill, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. But I honestly don’t think he wins most of his fights due to being more skilled. I’d honestly say that Randy is a more technically skilled wrestler than Brock, but due to Brock’s physical superiority he was able to beat Randy.
Acknowledging that attributes have a big impact on who wins a fight is just being realistic, not insulting.
Herring isn’t even in the same league athletically speaking.
It’s the combination of attributes and skill. If he was lacking either I doubt he’d be champ. But that still doesn’t make him a technically superior wrestler, which was all I ever said.
I have no bias against Lesnar, I’m actually a fan. That doesn’t change the fact that I don’t think he’s a technically superior wrestler though.
Again, not many such guys to choose from.
I haven’t eve said that he only wins because he is big, strong, and athletic, you must have me mixed up with someone else. I’ve only stated that his physical superiority allows him to beat people who he might not be technically superior to. I’ve never said that he lacks any skill though.
I never bet, not really an enjoyable practice IMO.
Absolutely, and I never said otherwise.
No, I asked the question, you provide some examples, don’t try to pass the buck to me.
Can you name some guys he beat in college who were bigger and superior athletes? Because throughout his collegiate career people were going gaga over his size and athleticism. If it were so common do you think that would have happened?
Herring was always only a big guy. He isn’t a tremendous athlete like Brock, and no, he isn’t as skilled either. But if you are using Herring as your measuring stick, then your standards are quite different from mine. Which is just fine; just saying.
He is a very good wrestler, just not a very technical wrestler, there is a difference. And yeah, again I’ll agree that his top control is excellent.
As to his punching, he is certainly improving. He has huge hands, tons of strength and speed, and lots of mass behind his punches. That’s a potentially very dangerous combination. He still seems to somewhat push his punches and still doesn’t look like he’s got it down to a science, but he has the potential to be a monster if he keeps working at it with good coaches.
He’s still very green in some areas while others he has found what works for him and perfected it. Again, I still don’t think he’s a very technical wrestler, but that doesn’t change the fact that he’s very good at what he does. His striking is improving, and if he develops his skill in that area to a very high degree than everybody better watch out because he is going to be an absolute juggernaut.
Fair enough, we can agree to disagree.
Take care as well.
[/quote]
-
Terrible analysis of Sylvia, pretty much all of his losses except for Nog came from his opponents knocking him down early. He has a bad habit of being a slow starter. The Couture, Arlovski, Fedor and Mercer fight all had Sylvia down early in the fight because he’s lackadaisical early.
-
Foreman was a good athlete, but he had serious skills as did Tyson, you can get away with being super athletic in mma because of the wrestling but boxing is different. Don’t downplay the skills of someone like Foreman. In something like the Ali fight he lot because of strategy not a lack of skill.
-
I agree with Sento about Brock, just look at GSP. Do you really think he’s better technically than a Fitch? He isn’t. Wrestling is a sport where athleticism can take you a long way. Just look at Rampage Jackson against Linland and Hendo. Page isn’t even close to being technically better.
To this day, I am still angry that I had to watch griffin beat rampage after he beat linland and henderson. But thats way off topic.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Obviously someone who is just large with limited skills will eventually lose to someone who is either skilled enough to neutralize those skills, or has a combination of size and technique greater than said individual. But, a physically large powerful individual can still win a lot of fights.[/quote]
Agreed they can win fights, but its who they beat that we have to look at.
Sylvia is a good example of who they beat that matters. If you compare Sylvia with Lesnar you’ll start to see what I mean about having not only an impressive physical presence but also some very serious skills to go with it.
Sylvia vs. Mir 2004 UFC 48 Mir wins in a mere (pun intended):50. Who can forget the armbar that broke Sylvias arm (or did it?). Anyway, Randy Couture beats him silly for 5 rounds and then he loses to a washed up boxer (sorry Mercer fans) Ray Mercer. Contrast that with Lesnar’s record and what he did to two of those same opponents. Lesnar stopped both Couture and Mir in the second round! That is the difference between someone who is big with limited skills, Tim Sylvia and someone who is big with very good skills.
[quote]
Did you happen to miss the clip that was added to this thread? He took Couture down with a very skillful trip(sweep). But, he doesn’t get much credit for that because he’s big, and strong, oh, and fast too. Now if you take a look at many of his takedowns from his senior year in college when he won the Division I wrestling title you’ll see more of the same. He was taking down some very big dudes and had to use skill in addition to his other attributes.
Yeah, I saw the clip. That’s what one takedown in his UFC career?[/quote]
Now you are trying to marginalize Lesnar’s skill by saying that it’s only one? He fought Couture for a total of about 8:00. How many times is he supposed to have taken him down with what you deem a skillful takedown? He also knocked him down with a punch, but the punch gets no credit either because it wasn’t what, fast enough? I’m sure by now that you can see the built in bias that the anti-Lesnar crowd has many buying into. By the way Couture was supposed to have been the better wrestler, no?
[quote]
And again, it’s obviously effective for him, but then no one is arguing otherwise.[/quote]
Yea, he is fast becoming the total package isn’t he? Size, power, speed, agility and skill. If he continues to work on his striking he might just be HW champ a long time. I wonder how many he’ll have to beat before he gets the proper credit?
[quote]I see, you maintain that size and athleticism is what drives his success. I wonder how many pro football players Lesnar’s size or larger could do what he did in the UFC? Furthermore, if all it took were size and athleticism I wonder why there has never been any other inidividual with Lesnars size and athleticism who has reached the top of the UFC ranks. Your logic is faulty my friend, if it were that simple we would be seeing far more of it. Unless of course you’re claiming that Lesnar is the only guy in the world who has such size and athleticism, but you’re not claiming that, are you? Yet, if you’re not claiming that where are the others?
First, most pro football players would need considerable time to reach the level of conditioning that Brock has. The guy was a wrestler throughout high school and college and has been diligently training for MMA for several years now. A football player without that base of conditioning would likely take quite a long time before he reached such a point.[/quote]
Nonsense, there are many Football players and certainly Basketball players who could make the switch to mma IF athleticism (as you claim) was all that was needed in a big man. Also, there are countless other atheletes in varied sports who are 6’ 3" and weigh in the neighborhood of 250 pounds who atheletic yet there seems to be only one Brock Lesnar. Why is that? How could there be no other big, athletic men who are champions in mma? The reason is, as I’ve told you, it takes far more than athleticism, it takes skill as well, Lesnar appears to have both!
[quote]
Besides, even the few guys out there that could do it, why would they want to? Why get into a sport where you run the risk of getting your face smashed in for chump change, when you can go into the NFL and make millions of dollars doing it?[/quote]
But, you are claiming that out of all of the men in the world there is only ONE who has such athleticism, just one. Doesn’t that strike you as just a tad odd if all it took were size and atheleticism?
[quote]
Glad to see you’re finally giving him some credit. in your post above you said he “has some wrestling skill”. He has far more than “some”. But again, it depends on what wrestlers that you are comparing him too doesn’t it? You can list 5, 10 or more wrestlers who are technically superior to him but what does that really mean? No one questioned Matt Hughes wrestling skill when he dominated his division and he was only a top 10 NCAA finisher (8th I think).
Hughes is actually a good example of a wrestler who was simply physically stronger and better conditioned than most of his opponents. He later developed a solid striking and submission game, but when he first got into MMA he was mostly dominating people due to his superior athleticism.[/quote]
Wrong!
Hughes dominated because of his superior wrestling ability. Look not only at his record but the people that he beat. And what did GSP do more of AFTER Hughes beat him in their first fight? He traine heavily with the Canadian Olympic Wrestling team, and what happened after they met again? GSP dominated Hughes! Did he do it because he magically became more athletic? No. He did it because he beat Hughes at his own game, and of course had superior striking ability. You are also wrong about Hughes “solid striking ability”. Hughes has poor hands, very poor, that’s one reason he chose to take a tired and beaten BJ Penn to the Matt and finish him there when he could have easily knocked him out on his feet HAD HE ACTUALLY HAD SOLID STRIKING.
By the way, have you ever seen a really good wrestler who did not have what YOU would call “athleticism”? I guess they’re out there but I’ve never seen one.
[quote]Every man on your list was technically superior to Randy Couture, Mark Kerr, Matt Lindland, Dan Henderson and just about every other wrestler that ever got into mma! Yet no one ever made a list to compare those fighters. I wonder why that is? Tell me why the harsh judgement of Brock Lesnar? What is the point? Making a list of the top men who ever wrestled proves what? (I think we all know for example that Gene Mills has the greatest wrestling record and most pins of any American wrestler, how does that reflect poorly on Brock Lesnar?). No one, least of all me, ever said that Brock Lesnar was the greatest technical wrestler the country ever turned out, drop the straw man argument it doesn’t serve you well in this debate. Lesnar won over 100 victories and lost only a handful to win an NCAA Division I
championship, that speaks for itself.
I’d say the same thing about any of the above guys (Lindland did win a silver medal though, so I’ve gotta give him props for that), but this thread isn’t really about them is it?
I have high standards, what can I say? :)[/quote]
You have high standards when it comes to judging Brock Lesnar, every one else pretty much gets a free pass it seems. Comparing him to wrestling legends was just unfair and proved nothing. As I’ve stated the man won a Division One Wrestling Title, nothing more needs to be said about his wrestling ability, but for some reason you keep quesioning it, I find that odd, I really do.
But you began by saying he was winning because of his size and athleticism. If you now want to say that he’s not the best technical wrestler fine, I agree. But he has very, very good skills.
[quote]
It’s actualy laughable how many penalize him for his size. He hits people and knocks them down-“That’s because he’s so big”. He takes people down with ease- “That’s beacuse he’s so big”. He has total control on top- “That’s because he’s so big”. Yet, during his wrestling career he wrestled guys just as big some bigger and took them down with ease. How big was Frank Mir for his fight with Lesnar? Sherdog has him at 240lbs. but I think he was slightly larger for the Lesnar fight. Heath Herring is 6’ 4", one inch taller than Lesnar, and weighs in at 250-260 Lesnar mauled him. Did he do this because he weighed 10-15 pounds more than him, or was it because Lesnar was technically superior?
Who is penalizing him for anything? Anyone who says that he is a huge, incredibly strong athletic guy and wins a lot of his fights because of it is dead on; not penalizing him for it.
That’s what is called a “backhanded compliment”. You attribute his success to his size and athleticism, there is the compliment. You don’t mention his skill that is the insult. One more time if all you had to be was big and athletic then where are all the other guys who are Lesnars size or larger winning mma titles? And as I already pointed out Heath Herring is a very large guy one inch taller than Lesnar and only 10-15 pounds lighter. What happened?
No, it’s just an honest observation. The guy has skill, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. But I honestly don’t think he wins most of his fights due to being more skilled. I’d honestly say that Randy is a more technically skilled wrestler than Brock, but due to Brock’s physical superiority he was able to beat Randy.[/quote]
Again, just because someone in this case Couture, is technically better does not mean that Lesnar is technically poor. The argument is this: You give too much credit to Brocks size and not enough to his skill. Simle. As I’ve shown there are other big men larger than Lesnar, who have not achieved what Lesnar has. That means that Lesnar has more than just size he also has a great amount of skill.
Its’ only being realistic and not insulting when you give equal credit to his (ready for that word again?) SKILL
If size was all that mattered then Herring is indeed in Lesnar’s league. But, as we both know it’s SKILL that matters most and Lesnar has more of it than Herring.
[quote]
It’s the combination of attributes and skill. If he was lacking either I doubt he’d be champ. [/quote]
Now, you’re making sense, this is and has been my point from the beginning.
You had said that “he has some skill”. I would say that he has far more than just “some”.
[quote]
First, name someone who is bigger, stronger and equally as athletic that has fought in the UFC? You can’t name guys like Sapp (not that he would fit all of those requirements anyhow), because the UFC has a 265 lb weight limit which Sapp could not make.
The onus is on you to tell me why there are not many others who are not in the UFC who are as large or larger than Lesnar and who also have great speed and athleticism. If that is all it takes there should be many others who have fought and currently fight, yet there are none. Why is that? The answer is because it takes more than size and speed, it takes SKILL.
No, I asked the question, you provide some examples, don’t try to pass the buck to me.[/quote]
I turned it around because it’s your argument that big, strong atheletic guys can become great mma fighters. I simply asked you to name them if that’s all that it took. As you can see it takes more than that, far more it takes great (here it is again) SKILL as well.
[quote]
And I’m still waiting for an answer as to why Heath Herring couldn’t put up a better fight against someone who was basically the same size. Are you claiming that Heath Herring didn’t have enough skill? There was no real size factor. Could it have been Lesnar’s skill that was superior to Herrings along with his athleticism?
Herring was always only a big guy. He isn’t a tremendous athlete like Brock, and no, he isn’t as skilled either. But if you are using Herring as your measuring stick, then your standards are quite different from mine. Which is just fine; just saying.[/quote]
If size is all that it took to become a champion Herring would have done it by now. Incidentally contrast this with Fedor who is not as big as most HW’s yet dispensed a much larger Brett Rogers in the second round last night. Brett being 6’ 5" and weighing 265 pounds should have beaten him according to your great respect for size and power.
[quote]
He’s still very green in some areas while others he has found what works for him and perfected it. Again, I still don’t think he’s a very technical wrestler, but that doesn’t change the fact that he’s very good at what he does. His striking is improving, and if he develops his skill in that area to a very high degree than everybody better watch out because he is going to be an absolute juggernaut.[/quote]
I’m not sure he’s as “green” as you think. On the ground he held Frank Mir practically motionless while he tatood his face. On his feet he flattened both Herring and Couture with ONE punch. His takedowns are superior and I don’t think there is anyone out there who can stop them, we’ll soon see if Carwin can. The only area where we have not seen him is on his back. The other areas of his game are very solid, but still improving.
I guess we can sum this up by stating:
-
You think he has less technical ability than I do.
-
I think that his skill level all around is higher than you give him credit for.
-
I think without his high degree of skill he would be just another big man fighting mma who wins a few and loses a few.
Did I miss any other differences?
Sento thanks for the Props.
Wow, Gene Mills close to my heart as he was my coach for D1.
I usually avoid rebuttals, as no, ones opinion can be deterred via the internet,
But the Gene Mills video lured me in.
that being said here are my thoughts on this.
Its Ok to agree to disagree.
I wont engage in an exchange of his abilities, I have expressed what I wanted
and everyone has their own opinion.
Lesnar is the ONLY athlete in MMA where I would say size can trump skill.
plain and simple none of the other Heavie’s have the attributes he has
specifically size, strength AND speed in the quantity ( and quality) that Lesnar has.
all of the other mentioned canidates
are not as
big
strong
fast
EDIT
nor the wrestling background that he has had since child hood, meaning
he has a good foundation a huge worth ethic and he learns fast.
some would insert skilled here.
Ill say his skills are in his work ethic and his ability to excel using his attributes
Its a different kind of skill.
cutting weight is a skill
recovery is a skill
Rhadi Ferguson is similar to Lesnar.
High level Judo Player, very very athletic guy,
track & field, football, wrestling in HS and Football in college.
Rhadi won the US Olympic trials and played Judo in the olympics, and several world level games,
he is a tremendous athlete.
But he is most like Lesnar in how he uses his attributes.
He is very sharp factitious who plays a very very athletic judo game.
and against players with better technique Rhadi often lost.
But that is not the point. Rhadi Like Lesnar has a style that works with his abilities
that lets him utilize his athleticism to his advantage.
That is where Lesnars true skill is.
[quote]kmcnyc wrote:
Sento thanks for the Props.
Wow, Gene Mills close to my heart as he was my coach for D1.[/quote]
You Wrestled for Syracuse University?
Short story Yes.
Long story is I went to a D3 school that has 2 year and four year programs. ( coach was a Oaklahoma state guy, and the ncaa champ, greco worlds team top shelf.)
I did allot of clinics off season work, got red shirted, agreed to a 5th semester where I was at,
got a tutor, did a summer school.
that is 89-91 , in 91 I went out to be fresh meat in the greco room at the OTC in Colorado
to help with people training for the Summer Games of 92.
Eventually I matriculated, eventually I started, on and off.
lasted about a season and a half- but it was too much.
Did some B level local and international club stuff with NYAC and Mohawk valley wrestling club.
Played some judo, immanent neck surgery, delayed puberty til mid 20’s and other physical stuff
leaves me with a neck like rusty chains , and some good memories
I was the worst kid in every room I went too. but time + work can help that.
all that and I was average at best lost plenty, won some , embarrassed kids I shouldn’t have.
[quote]kmcnyc wrote:
Short story Yes.
Long story is I went to a D3 school that has 2 year and four year programs. ( coach was a Oaklahoma state guy, and the ncaa champ, greco worlds team top shelf.)
I did allot of clinics off season work, got red shirted, agreed to a 5th semester where I was at,
got a tutor, did a summer school.
that is 89-91 , in 91 I went out to be fresh meat in the greco room at the OTC in Colorado
to help with people training for the Summer Games of 92.
Eventually I matriculated, eventually I started, on and off.
lasted about a season and a half- but it was too much.
Did some B level local and international club stuff with NYAC and Mohawk valley wrestling club.
Played some judo, immanent neck surgery, delayed puberty til mid 20’s and other physical stuff
leaves me with a neck like rusty chains , and some good memories
I was the worst kid in every room I went too. but time + work can help that.
all that and I was average at best lost plenty, won some , embarrassed kids I shouldn’t have.
[/quote]
I’ve always been a student of the game (wrestling) participated in both HS and College and coached some, not anywhere near your skill level. I’ve always admired Gene Mills I think that he had more pins and wins than any other American wrestler in college and post college competition. But, also guys like Gable, want to talk work ethic WOW. Anyway, good to have someone of your caliber on the board my friend. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on Brock’s skill level. Nice talking to you.
Zeb
[quote]drewh wrote:
-
Terrible analysis of Sylvia, pretty much all of his losses except for Nog came from his opponents knocking him down early. He has a bad habit of being a slow starter. The Couture, Arlovski, Fedor and Mercer fight all had Sylvia down early in the fight because he’s lackadaisical early.
-
Foreman was a good athlete, but he had serious skills as did Tyson, you can get away with being super athletic in mma because of the wrestling but boxing is different. Don’t downplay the skills of someone like Foreman. In something like the Ali fight he lot because of strategy not a lack of skill.
-
I agree with Sento about Brock, just look at GSP. Do you really think he’s better technically than a Fitch? He isn’t. Wrestling is a sport where athleticism can take you a long way. Just look at Rampage Jackson against Linland and Hendo. Page isn’t even close to being technically better. [/quote]
I’m sorry but you’re wrong. You cannot compare Tyson to Foreman. I love Foreman, but he just bullied his way around the ring and dominated because he threw hammers and could take an amazing amount of punishment. Tyson had great footwork and head movement, and he could also string together beautiful combos at amazing speeds with amazing power.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
kmcnyc wrote:
Short story Yes.
Long story is I went to a D3 school that has 2 year and four year programs. ( coach was a Oaklahoma state guy, and the ncaa champ, greco worlds team top shelf.)
I did allot of clinics off season work, got red shirted, agreed to a 5th semester where I was at,
got a tutor, did a summer school.
that is 89-91 , in 91 I went out to be fresh meat in the greco room at the OTC in Colorado
to help with people training for the Summer Games of 92.
Eventually I matriculated, eventually I started, on and off.
lasted about a season and a half- but it was too much.
Did some B level local and international club stuff with NYAC and Mohawk valley wrestling club.
Played some judo, immanent neck surgery, delayed puberty til mid 20’s and other physical stuff
leaves me with a neck like rusty chains , and some good memories
I was the worst kid in every room I went too. but time + work can help that.
all that and I was average at best lost plenty, won some , embarrassed kids I shouldn’t have.
I’ve always been a student of the game (wrestling) participated in both HS and College and coached some, not anywhere near your skill level. I’ve always admired Gene Mills I think that he had more pins and wins than any other American wrestler in college and post college competition. But, also guys like Gable, want to talk work ethic WOW. Anyway, good to have someone of your caliber on the board my friend. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on Brock’s skill level. Nice talking to you.
Zeb
[/quote]
Thanks Zeb
Just to clarify, Its about being in the right room, club etc.
I had a sharp D3 coach who was big on life coaching- taking opportunities or chances.
Lots of guys were/are better, could have gone further etc.
Basically what Im saying is I was told to keep my eyes open and show up for practice.
stick around, do the work , take advantage of any resources and opportunity.
Showing you can do the work, even when you suck, punching that clock doors slowly open.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Obviously someone who is just large with limited skills will eventually lose to someone who is either skilled enough to neutralize those skills, or has a combination of size and technique greater than said individual. But, a physically large powerful individual can still win a lot of fights.
Agreed they can win fights, but its who they beat that we have to look at.
Take for instance Tim Silvia. Not what I would classify as world class striking skills, yet he KO’d a lot of opponents and held the UFC HW belt for quite some time simply because he was a big guy. He was able to neutralize Jeff Monson’s (who is light years more skilled at grappling) ground game simply due to his superior size.
Sylvia is a good example of who they beat that matters. If you compare Sylvia with Lesnar you’ll start to see what I mean about having not only an impressive physical presence but also some very serious skills to go with it.
Sylvia vs. Mir 2004 UFC 48 Mir wins in a mere (pun intended):50. Who can forget the armbar that broke Sylvias arm (or did it?). Anyway, Randy Couture beats him silly for 5 rounds and then he loses to a washed up boxer (sorry Mercer fans) Ray Mercer. Contrast that with Lesnar’s record and what he did to two of those same opponents. Lesnar stopped both Couture and Mir in the second round! That is the difference between someone who is big with limited skills, Tim Sylvia and someone who is big with very good skills.
Did you happen to miss the clip that was added to this thread? He took Couture down with a very skillful trip(sweep). But, he doesn’t get much credit for that because he’s big, and strong, oh, and fast too. Now if you take a look at many of his takedowns from his senior year in college when he won the Division I wrestling title you’ll see more of the same. He was taking down some very big dudes and had to use skill in addition to his other attributes.
Yeah, I saw the clip. That’s what one takedown in his UFC career?
Now you are trying to marginalize Lesnar’s skill by saying that it’s only one? He fought Couture for a total of about 8:00. How many times is he supposed to have taken him down with what you deem a skillful takedown? He also knocked him down with a punch, but the punch gets no credit either because it wasn’t what, fast enough? I’m sure by now that you can see the built in bias that the anti-Lesnar crowd has many buying into. By the way Couture was supposed to have been the better wrestler, no?
And again, it’s obviously effective for him, but then no one is arguing otherwise.
Yea, he is fast becoming the total package isn’t he? Size, power, speed, agility and skill. If he continues to work on his striking he might just be HW champ a long time. I wonder how many he’ll have to beat before he gets the proper credit?
I see, you maintain that size and athleticism is what drives his success. I wonder how many pro football players Lesnar’s size or larger could do what he did in the UFC? Furthermore, if all it took were size and athleticism I wonder why there has never been any other inidividual with Lesnars size and athleticism who has reached the top of the UFC ranks. Your logic is faulty my friend, if it were that simple we would be seeing far more of it. Unless of course you’re claiming that Lesnar is the only guy in the world who has such size and athleticism, but you’re not claiming that, are you? Yet, if you’re not claiming that where are the others?
First, most pro football players would need considerable time to reach the level of conditioning that Brock has. The guy was a wrestler throughout high school and college and has been diligently training for MMA for several years now. A football player without that base of conditioning would likely take quite a long time before he reached such a point.
Nonsense, there are many Football players and certainly Basketball players who could make the switch to mma IF athleticism (as you claim) was all that was needed in a big man. Also, there are countless other atheletes in varied sports who are 6’ 3" and weigh in the neighborhood of 250 pounds who atheletic yet there seems to be only one Brock Lesnar. Why is that? How could there be no other big, athletic men who are champions in mma? The reason is, as I’ve told you, it takes far more than athleticism, it takes skill as well, Lesnar appears to have both!
Besides, even the few guys out there that could do it, why would they want to? Why get into a sport where you run the risk of getting your face smashed in for chump change, when you can go into the NFL and make millions of dollars doing it?
But, you are claiming that out of all of the men in the world there is only ONE who has such athleticism, just one. Doesn’t that strike you as just a tad odd if all it took were size and atheleticism?
Glad to see you’re finally giving him some credit. in your post above you said he “has some wrestling skill”. He has far more than “some”. But again, it depends on what wrestlers that you are comparing him too doesn’t it? You can list 5, 10 or more wrestlers who are technically superior to him but what does that really mean? No one questioned Matt Hughes wrestling skill when he dominated his division and he was only a top 10 NCAA finisher (8th I think).
Hughes is actually a good example of a wrestler who was simply physically stronger and better conditioned than most of his opponents. He later developed a solid striking and submission game, but when he first got into MMA he was mostly dominating people due to his superior athleticism.
Wrong!
Hughes dominated because of his superior wrestling ability. Look not only at his record but the people that he beat. And what did GSP do more of AFTER Hughes beat him in their first fight? He traine heavily with the Canadian Olympic Wrestling team, and what happened after they met again? GSP dominated Hughes! Did he do it because he magically became more athletic? No. He did it because he beat Hughes at his own game, and of course had superior striking ability. You are also wrong about Hughes “solid striking ability”. Hughes has poor hands, very poor, that’s one reason he chose to take a tired and beaten BJ Penn to the Matt and finish him there when he could have easily knocked him out on his feet HAD HE ACTUALLY HAD SOLID STRIKING.
By the way, have you ever seen a really good wrestler who did not have what YOU would call “athleticism”? I guess they’re out there but I’ve never seen one.
Every man on your list was technically superior to Randy Couture, Mark Kerr, Matt Lindland, Dan Henderson and just about every other wrestler that ever got into mma! Yet no one ever made a list to compare those fighters. I wonder why that is? Tell me why the harsh judgement of Brock Lesnar? What is the point? Making a list of the top men who ever wrestled proves what? (I think we all know for example that Gene Mills has the greatest wrestling record and most pins of any American wrestler, how does that reflect poorly on Brock Lesnar?). No one, least of all me, ever said that Brock Lesnar was the greatest technical wrestler the country ever turned out, drop the straw man argument it doesn’t serve you well in this debate. Lesnar won over 100 victories and lost only a handful to win an NCAA Division I
championship, that speaks for itself.
I’d say the same thing about any of the above guys (Lindland did win a silver medal though, so I’ve gotta give him props for that), but this thread isn’t really about them is it?
I have high standards, what can I say?
You have high standards when it comes to judging Brock Lesnar, every one else pretty much gets a free pass it seems. Comparing him to wrestling legends was just unfair and proved nothing. As I’ve stated the man won a Division One Wrestling Title, nothing more needs to be said about his wrestling ability, but for some reason you keep quesioning it, I find that odd, I really do.
So, I’m not harshly judging Brock, just saying that he isn’t what I would consider a technically superior wrestler. That’s not a knock on him, just the truth. He is still quite effective though, which the NCAA title supports.
But you began by saying he was winning because of his size and athleticism. If you now want to say that he’s not the best technical wrestler fine, I agree. But he has very, very good skills.
It’s actualy laughable how many penalize him for his size. He hits people and knocks them down-“That’s because he’s so big”. He takes people down with ease- “That’s beacuse he’s so big”. He has total control on top- “That’s because he’s so big”. Yet, during his wrestling career he wrestled guys just as big some bigger and took them down with ease. How big was Frank Mir for his fight with Lesnar? Sherdog has him at 240lbs. but I think he was slightly larger for the Lesnar fight. Heath Herring is 6’ 4", one inch taller than Lesnar, and weighs in at 250-260 Lesnar mauled him. Did he do this because he weighed 10-15 pounds more than him, or was it because Lesnar was technically superior?
Who is penalizing him for anything? Anyone who says that he is a huge, incredibly strong athletic guy and wins a lot of his fights because of it is dead on; not penalizing him for it.
That’s what is called a “backhanded compliment”. You attribute his success to his size and athleticism, there is the compliment. You don’t mention his skill that is the insult. One more time if all you had to be was big and athletic then where are all the other guys who are Lesnars size or larger winning mma titles? And as I already pointed out Heath Herring is a very large guy one inch taller than Lesnar and only 10-15 pounds lighter. What happened?
No, it’s just an honest observation. The guy has skill, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. But I honestly don’t think he wins most of his fights due to being more skilled. I’d honestly say that Randy is a more technically skilled wrestler than Brock, but due to Brock’s physical superiority he was able to beat Randy.
Again, just because someone in this case Couture, is technically better does not mean that Lesnar is technically poor. The argument is this: You give too much credit to Brocks size and not enough to his skill. Simle. As I’ve shown there are other big men larger than Lesnar, who have not achieved what Lesnar has. That means that Lesnar has more than just size he also has a great amount of skill.
Acknowledging that attributes have a big impact on who wins a fight is just being realistic, not insulting.
Its’ only being realistic and not insulting when you give equal credit to his (ready for that word again?) SKILL
Herring isn’t even in the same league athletically speaking.
If size was all that mattered then Herring is indeed in Lesnar’s league. But, as we both know it’s SKILL that matters most and Lesnar has more of it than Herring.
It’s the combination of attributes and skill. If he was lacking either I doubt he’d be champ.
Now, you’re making sense, this is and has been my point from the beginning.
I’ve never said that he lacks any skill though.
You had said that “he has some skill”. I would say that he has far more than just “some”.
First, name someone who is bigger, stronger and equally as athletic that has fought in the UFC? You can’t name guys like Sapp (not that he would fit all of those requirements anyhow), because the UFC has a 265 lb weight limit which Sapp could not make.
The onus is on you to tell me why there are not many others who are not in the UFC who are as large or larger than Lesnar and who also have great speed and athleticism. If that is all it takes there should be many others who have fought and currently fight, yet there are none. Why is that? The answer is because it takes more than size and speed, it takes SKILL.
No, I asked the question, you provide some examples, don’t try to pass the buck to me.
I turned it around because it’s your argument that big, strong atheletic guys can become great mma fighters. I simply asked you to name them if that’s all that it took. As you can see it takes more than that, far more it takes great (here it is again) SKILL as well.
And I’m still waiting for an answer as to why Heath Herring couldn’t put up a better fight against someone who was basically the same size. Are you claiming that Heath Herring didn’t have enough skill? There was no real size factor. Could it have been Lesnar’s skill that was superior to Herrings along with his athleticism?
Herring was always only a big guy. He isn’t a tremendous athlete like Brock, and no, he isn’t as skilled either. But if you are using Herring as your measuring stick, then your standards are quite different from mine. Which is just fine; just saying.
If size is all that it took to become a champion Herring would have done it by now. Incidentally contrast this with Fedor who is not as big as most HW’s yet dispensed a much larger Brett Rogers in the second round last night. Brett being 6’ 5" and weighing 265 pounds should have beaten him according to your great respect for size and power.
He’s still very green in some areas while others he has found what works for him and perfected it. Again, I still don’t think he’s a very technical wrestler, but that doesn’t change the fact that he’s very good at what he does. His striking is improving, and if he develops his skill in that area to a very high degree than everybody better watch out because he is going to be an absolute juggernaut.
I’m not sure he’s as “green” as you think. On the ground he held Frank Mir practically motionless while he tatood his face. On his feet he flattened both Herring and Couture with ONE punch. His takedowns are superior and I don’t think there is anyone out there who can stop them, we’ll soon see if Carwin can. The only area where we have not seen him is on his back. The other areas of his game are very solid, but still improving.
I guess we can sum this up by stating:
-
You think he has less technical ability than I do.
-
I think that his skill level all around is higher than you give him credit for.
-
I think without his high degree of skill he would be just another big man fighting mma who wins a few and loses a few.
Did I miss any other differences?
[/quote]
I’ll sum it up like this:
I think in terms of a spectrum;
at one end you have a pure “technician”- someone who has no real physical advantages to speak of and must rely pretty much entirely on technique to win (think someone like Jeremy Horn)
at the other end you have a pure “bull”- someone with limited skills who pretty much relies entirely on their superior physical attributes (think someone like Tank Abbott)
Most fighters (Lesnar included) fall somewhere between those two extremes. A rare few are physically gifted and develop superior technique (Anderson Silva, GSP, Fedor, Penn), these fighters generally wind up reaching the pinnacle of the sport at some point in their career and often times appear unbeatable for a stretch (Lesnar is quickly approaching this status). While people at either extreme end of the spectrum rarely win titles.
I would place Lesnar more towards the “bull” end of the spectrum than towards the “technician” end of the spectrum. He has always been amongst the biggest, strongest, and most athletically gifted and therefore learned to use his physical superiority to his advantage most likely right from the get go. He therefore also didn’t really have to develop his technical abilities to as high of a degree as someone less physically gifted.
That’s not a knock on him or a put down of his wrestling skills at all, and clearly he wins fights so it really doesn’t matter anyhow. Just trying to clarify what I mean when I say he is a “bull”. Basically I just mean that he relies more on his physical gifts to drive his victories than he relies on his superior technique to drive his victories; not that he has no skill.
Kind of good assesment but it’s not that cut and dry.
Wrong!
Hughes dominated because of his superior wrestling ability. Look not only at his record but the people that he beat. And what did GSP do more of AFTER Hughes beat him in their first fight? He traine heavily with the Canadian Olympic Wrestling team, and what happened after they met again? GSP dominated Hughes! Did he do it because he magically became more athletic? No. He did it because he beat Hughes at his own game, and of course had superior striking ability. You are also wrong about Hughes “solid striking ability”. Hughes has poor hands, very poor, that’s one reason he chose to take a tired and beaten BJ Penn to the Matt and finish him there when he could have easily knocked him out on his feet HAD HE ACTUALLY HAD SOLID STRIKING.
By the way, have you ever seen a really good wrestler who did not have what YOU would call “athleticism”? I guess they’re out there but I’ve never seen one.
BJ broke a rib he was putting on a clinic until that happened.