Carwin vs Lesnar?

Training
164

[quote]ZEB wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

The only poster I disrespect constantly is you, and you deserve it.

I would actually worry if a person like you respected me, that would mean that I’m doing something wrong.

By the way you’ve got one more post on the Combat forum that has nothing to do with combat (how many is that now?) That means that because of your blind, mindless hate for me (and my political views) you’ve also disrespected everyone who posts on this thread. That’s one reason why I question your character and maturity level. The other reasons are obvious for all to see.

I’ll try it one more time, keep the political arguments to the political threads. No one cares that you hate me and your constant whining about it only makes you look like a self-obsessed, sophomoric child.
[/quote]

You aren’t staying on topic either… I don’t believe Irish has disrespected anyone posting on this forum if anything he has made this thread more amusing. Your ability to rage is also quite entertaining.

Brocks size is definitely more of a factor then his skill… the fact that you believe otherwise pretty much discredits anything you say. But on the other hand I’m not one to look down on what hes accomplished, getting stronger etc… are all factors that aid you in winning. Hes not as technically sound as other fighters but he makes up for it by other means

165

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
ZEB wrote:
WhiteFlash wrote:
Zeb, reading your posts gives me a headache. You can’t honestly believe that Lesnar has more skill than size/strength/speed. There’s just no way. Anyone with two eyes in their head and a brain behind those eyes can see Lesnar wins due more to his massive physical advantage then with technical proficiency. It’s just that simple.

That’s certainly the easier thing to see, so people see it. But if you go back and watch his performance against the few opponents that he’s fought in the UFC and the many wrestling matches that he had in college you’ll see that there is a very good mix of the two. As I’ve said you don’t get to the top of two sports (College Wrestling and mma) by shear size and power alone, if that were the case we’d all be talking about Bob Sapp right now. Hope your headache goes away.

As much as I’ve bagged on the guy I’ll be the first to admit that Lesnar has improved by leaps and bounds. Don’t think anyone would argue that or that he has skill. But, you told someone [Sento I think] that you believe his skill surpasses his physical attributes, and that’s just not true. He wins with superior strength and some skill, not with superior skill and some strength. I took some excedrin man, I’m good.
[/quote]

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. How do you think Carwin would do against him?

166

[quote]ZEB wrote:
How do you think Carwin would do against him?

[/quote]

All douchebaggery aside, I think that when Lesnar fights Carwin, it will be his first true test.

I’m not taking anything away from Lesnar’s record, or discounting his obvious physical skills and budding technical skills. I’m not saying the people he has beaten are bad fighters per se, but lets break it down.

Mir 1- He lost by a rookie mistake (it happens, and doesn’t prove anything about Mir’s skills v. Lesnar’s. all it proves is that Mir effectively pulled out a win by exploiting a newbie mistake by Lesnar)

Herring- Lesnar won and a win’s a win. But Herring is a far cry from his Pride days, and even then I have never seen “The Texas Crazy Horse” as very good. Lesnar won by using his skill of physical domination to his advantage.

Couture- Again, Lesnar won. But I’d venture to say if Randy had not been outmatched in the size department by such a large margin, the fight may have ended differently.

Mir 2- Mir lost because he tried to fight Brock’s fight/ catch a sub whatever the fuck he was trying. He basically gave Brock the position he obviously would have tried to obtain.

In Carwin I see the only person thus far who is in the same class with regards to size/strength/skills (perhaps ahead or behind in some, but nevertheless much closer than Lesnar’s previous opponents). I just cannot see Carwin getting pinned chest to chest like Mir.

I think Carwin matches up very well in wrestling/striking with Lesnar, and will be able to truly test Lesnar in these regards. Thus, it will be a very good fight. Of course it could end in the opening seconds, but only one guy has shown the ability to stop a fight with one punch.

167

[quote]Therizza wrote:
ZEB wrote:
How do you think Carwin would do against him?

All douchebaggery aside, I think that when Lesnar fights Carwin, it will be his first true test.

I’m not taking anything away from Lesnar’s record, or discounting his obvious physical skills and budding technical skills. I’m not saying the people he has beaten are bad fighters per se, but lets break it down.

Mir 1- He lost by a rookie mistake (it happens, and doesn’t prove anything about Mir’s skills v. Lesnar’s. all it proves is that Mir effectively pulled out a win by exploiting a newbie mistake by Lesnar)

Herring- Lesnar won and a win’s a win. But Herring is a far cry from his Pride days, and even then I have never seen “The Texas Crazy Horse” as very good. Lesnar won by using his skill of physical domination to his advantage.

Couture- Again, Lesnar won. But I’d venture to say if Randy had not been outmatched in the size department by such a large margin, the fight may have ended differently.

Mir 2- Mir lost because he tried to fight Brock’s fight/ catch a sub whatever the fuck he was trying. He basically gave Brock the position he obviously would have tried to obtain.

In Carwin I see the only person thus far who is in the same class with regards to size/strength/skills (perhaps ahead or behind in some, but nevertheless much closer than Lesnar’s previous opponents). I just cannot see Carwin getting pinned chest to chest like Mir.

I think Carwin matches up very well in wrestling/striking with Lesnar, and will be able to truly test Lesnar in these regards. Thus, it will be a very good fight. Of course it could end in the opening seconds, but only one guy has shown the ability to stop a fight with one punch.

[/quote]

I gree with most of this. People also seem to forget that Couture hadn’t fought in a year and a half and was what, 43? With that he was winning that fight before the ref stoppage [though I hate to admit it was totally justified 'cause he wasn’t doing anything but get hit]. Honestly [and this is just my opinion] I think Carwin has way more skill with comparable size/strength. He’s subbed a couple of people and ko’d the rest. He has dynamite in that right hand and looks good on his feet, and appears to be more comfortable with each fight. He also took a huge shot to the face that broke his nose, got taken down, stood up with a large man draped over him and threw a quitter as basically an arm punch. The few times Lesnar’s been tagged [and never flush] he’s lost himself. To his credit he then went into Brock Smash mode and won, but I think it’s a valid observation. I’d probably give Lesnar the edge in wrestling, and he seems more fluid while being a bit bigger and stronger, but otherwise Carwin trumps him in every other category. If this was a combine setting I’d go Lesnar, but since this is a fight I’m going Carwin.

169

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
ZEB wrote:
still more physical than skillful.

I would say that his skill exceeds his great physicaly capacity.

I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. Either you are totally underestimating/overlooking just how great his physical capacity is, or you are meaning effectiveness when you say skill, and not technical skill.

Otherwise you’re basically saying that he’s the most skillful fighter to ever step into the Octagon, because he’s definitely has the most physical capacity.

You said before that you admit that his skills aren’t at the level of Fedor, GSP, Anderson Silva, and Penn, yet the above statement would make them superior to all of those fighters.

Which is it?

You are comparing his size and power to other mma fighters, that’s not what I was doing. I am looking at all of Lesnars assets and I feel that he has great skill along with great size and power. I think that winning an NCAA Division I title and going 105-6 in doing it speaks for itself relative to skill. You just don’t do that by being big and strong, great skill is also a must. Especially in light of the fact that he’s beaten bigger guys on the wrestling mat. Therefore, while I think his size and strength are indeed a huge benefit I feel that his skill is still his best attribute.
[/quote]

Yes, I am comparing his size and power to other MMA fighters because he doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Otherwise no body in all of MMA has a size, power, or skill advantage since we can only compare them with themselves. Maybe the only comparison would be between when the began their career and when they were at their peak.

Lesnar is one of the biggest, strongest, definitely quickest at that size, and probably most agile at that size fighter who has ever stepped into the Octagon. I don’t care if you don’t want to admit it, he’s got a physical advantage over everyone he’s fought so far in the attributes department (probably over anyone he will ever fight in the UFC).

If you want to say that his skill surpasses his great physical capacity, then you’re basically saying that you think he’s also the most skilled fighter to ever enter the Octagon. Which you know isn’t true.

None with the total athletic package of Lesnar. The guy is naturally about as big as you can get and still make the UFC’s weight limit, big time gym (475 bench, 695 squat) and mat strength, elite level speed at that size (ran a 4.7 40 yard dash, faster than guys like Emmit Smith and Jerry Rice), and big time power (10 foot standing long jump and 35 inch standing vertical).

Nobody else in the UFC even comes close to that total athletic package. Especially no one who he’s fought so far.

Again, you are completely underestimating the physical advantage that Brock had over Mir in that fight. Have you ever seen anyone, anyone, smash up someone’s face with arm punches from a side control position? Do you really think that he was just so technically much better that he was able to just hold Mir down with one arm and bust up his face with one hand? Do you think he could have done that if they were the same size and strength?

Let’s not forget that Hughes got beat by Penn (a natural light weight) in their first fight quite handily. At that point he was nothing but a freakishly strong dude who like to use his wrestling to control people and grind out victories.

It wasn’t until after that point, that he realized that he didn’t have the skill necessary to reach his true potential, he was getting by mostly because of his physical superiority, and actually developed a submission game and striking game. Which is pretty much exactly what I said earlier. He then went on to beat Penn in their second match.

Let’s not also forget that he got submitted twice by Ken “Superman” Hallman (a jiu-jitsu guy who pretty much did jack squat in his career other than that) twice in his early career.

True. Lesnar was the more effective wrestler. He was also more athletically gifted, but the two were probably similar strength-wise relative to their size I’ll give you that.

Not disputing that. Just saying that his skill hasn’t yet reached the level of his physicality (which is pretty much maxed out IMO). It still needs work; his physicality doesn’t.

170

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Boy i dunno…if it stays standing Brock’s in for a beating. If it goes to the ground Carwin will probably lose. We know that Carwin is tough as nails…Brock took some good shots from Couture and a good Knee from Mir so I think he can take it too. I think it might come down to who trained harder and who has a good night. I know I won’t miss that one.[/quote]

Yeah, I agree. Definitely won’t be missing this one either (if/when it ever actually happens).

171

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
ZEB wrote:
still more physical than skillful.

I would say that his skill exceeds his great physicaly capacity.

I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. Either you are totally underestimating/overlooking just how great his physical capacity is, or you are meaning effectiveness when you say skill, and not technical skill.

Otherwise you’re basically saying that he’s the most skillful fighter to ever step into the Octagon, because he’s definitely has the most physical capacity.

You said before that you admit that his skills aren’t at the level of Fedor, GSP, Anderson Silva, and Penn, yet the above statement would make them superior to all of those fighters.

Which is it?

You are comparing his size and power to other mma fighters, that’s not what I was doing. I am looking at all of Lesnars assets and I feel that he has great skill along with great size and power. I think that winning an NCAA Division I title and going 105-6 in doing it speaks for itself relative to skill. You just don’t do that by being big and strong, great skill is also a must. Especially in light of the fact that he’s beaten bigger guys on the wrestling mat. Therefore, while I think his size and strength are indeed a huge benefit I feel that his skill is still his best attribute.

Yes, I am comparing his size and power to other MMA fighters because he doesn’t exist in a vacuum. [/quote]

That’s fine but I was comparing his size and power to his skill.

[quote]
Lesnar is one of the biggest, strongest, definitely quickest at that size, and probably most agile at that size fighter who has ever stepped into the Octagon. I don’t care if you don’t want to admit it, he’s got a physical advantage over everyone he’s fought so far in the attributes department (probably over anyone he will ever fight in the UFC).[/quote]

We agree on this, I never said anything to the contrary.

I was comparing his HIS attributes and his alone. No different than if one were to say "which is GSP’s best attribute is it his speed, ground game, stand up etc. I’m not saying is GSP’s ground game better than BJ Penn’s, for example.

Get it?

[quote]Keep in mind there are other large powerful fighters that have not achieved Lesnars results. That should tell you that there is great skill involved.

None with the total athletic package of Lesnar.[/quote]

There’s that elusive phrase “atheltic package”. I submit to you that a good part of that “athletic package” is SKILL. It could be that this is all merely semantics.

[quote] The guy is naturally about as big as you can get and still make the UFC’s weight limit, big time gym (475 bench, 695 squat) and mat strength, elite level speed at that size (ran a 4.7 40 yard dash, faster than guys like Emmit Smith and Jerry Rice), and big time power (10 foot standing long jump and 35 inch standing vertical).

Nobody else in the UFC even comes close to that total athletic package. Especially no one who he’s fought so far.[/quote]

I certainly have never said anything contrary to this. The problem is that because he has all of this he does not get enough credit for his skill. Speed, agility etc. help you execute SKILL moves, otherwise there are some very talented football players with as good or better numbers than Lesnar, are you telling me that they could also become mma champs?

All of them? Where are they? Where are the other big, strong, agile guys? Is Lesnar the only one in the world with such stats? Of course he isn’t there are many with equal or greater athleticism, but they’re at the top of mma because they don’t have the skill.

[quote]Let’s take for example the Frank Mir fight:

Was it 20 to 30 pounds of beef that Lesnar had over Frank Mir which totally caused him to achieve such a dominant victory? I don’t think so, while it helped that wasn’t what did it. Look at his ground technique, he gave Frank Mir no room to move. His balance and skill in moving on the ground is what really helped him achieve such a dominant victory. The extra power helped, but had he been 30 pounds lighter he still would have beaten him.

Again, you are completely underestimating the physical advantage that Brock had over Mir[/quote]

Did I also underestimate the physical advantage that Hughes had over Penn? Lesnar basically used a very similar style to hold Mir down as Hughes did when he fought Penn. Did people say after the fight that Huhes used his strength advantage,
? (and he did have one), No, they said that it was Hughes great wrestling SKILL combined with his other attributes that helped him defeat BJ ON THE GROUND.

But, when it comes to Lesnar all people talk about is his strength advantage. Obviously, he has a strength advantage, but if you study the second Mir fight you’ll see far more than that going on when he had him pinned to the ground and was delivering repeated blows to his head. Mir is an excellent Jiu-Jitsu practioner, as is BJ Penn, both men however were held down and beaten by wrestlers who knew how to do it using both strength and great technique.

Yes, as I’ve stated Matt Hughes vs BJ Penn September of 06’ watch the fight, he used similar techniques as Lesnar to get a very similar result. There have been other wrestlers who have also used similar techniques to beat their opponents into submission.

Randy Couture once said that he prefers half guard or side mount to mount as he is better able to control his opponent and deliver decisive blows. He does it with skill just as Lesnar did. And yes, strength certainly plays a role, just as every other attribute does from intelligence and agility to skill!

You better watch that fight again, at no point did he hold Mir down with only “one arm”. He may have controlled his head with one arm, but check out how he was riding him from different positions, not unlike what Hughes has done many times.

[quote]
Let’s not forget that Hughes got beat by Penn (a natural light weight) in their first fight quite handily. At that point he was nothing but a freakishly strong dude who like to use his wrestling to control people and grind out victories.

It wasn’t until after that point, that he realized that he didn’t have the skill necessary to reach his true potential,[/quote]

I agree Hughes used his wrestling to control people., just as Lesnar does. But, the Penn fight didn’s change Hughes game. Prior to losing to Penn Hughes had a win streak of 13 fights in a row beating the likes of Carlos Newton (twice), Sean Sherk (when he was good) and Frank Trigg in his prime.

Yes, Hughes improved as all great champions do, but one of his signature moves, the Cucifix was executed perfectly on BJ Penn in their rematch. Just as he used that move several times in previous victories. Hughes is a good example (not exact) of what Brock Lesnar did to Frank Mir.

But in Lesnar’s case you attribute it to his incredible size and strength. At no time have I said that does not play an important role, but the deciding factor was his wrestling skill (like Hughes and others) at holding down Mir and delivering punishment.

Sorry I disagree, he had submitted something like 17 fighters BEFORE his loss to Penn. Don’t discredit his skill as you have Lesnar’s. Hughes always had a strong ground game, the total package with submissions. But never a good stand up striker.

[quote]
Keep in mind that Matt Hughes finished in the top 10 in the NCAA finals, which is a great accomplishment, but Brock Lesnar finished first.

True. Lesnar was the more effective wrestler. He was also more athletically gifted, but the two were probably similar strength-wise relative to their size I’ll give you that.[/quote]

Okay, you admit that Lesnar has superior wrestling skills compared to Matt Hughes, but how many people said that Hughes defeated Penn (2nd fight) merely on power and size, strength?(Penn being a natural lightweight). Hughes did get credit for his superior ground game in that fight.

I recall the write-ups and the ring side commentary. But when Lesnar wins in similar fashion it’s due to his GIGANTIC size, when it was more his ground skill, in addition to his many other physical attributes.

[quote]He’s a great mix of size, power, agility, speed and SKILL.If he brings his striking ability up to his (top) ground game he may very well stay on top for a long time to come.

Not disputing that. Just saying that his skill hasn’t yet reached the level of his physicality (which is pretty much maxed out IMO). It still needs work; his physicality doesn’t. [/quote]

Because Lesnar has room to grow skill wise, (who doesn’t?) does not mean that his already great skill (on the ground) is not what’s primarily responsible (in addition to his physical attributes) for his rising to the top of mma. One more time, you don’t win an NCAA Division I title, beating other wrestlers who are as big as you are and have wrestled as long, by shear physical attributes alone.

172

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
ZEB wrote:
still more physical than skillful.

I would say that his skill exceeds his great physicaly capacity.

I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. Either you are totally underestimating/overlooking just how great his physical capacity is, or you are meaning effectiveness when you say skill, and not technical skill.

Otherwise you’re basically saying that he’s the most skillful fighter to ever step into the Octagon, because he’s definitely has the most physical capacity.

You said before that you admit that his skills aren’t at the level of Fedor, GSP, Anderson Silva, and Penn, yet the above statement would make them superior to all of those fighters.

Which is it?

You are comparing his size and power to other mma fighters, that’s not what I was doing. I am looking at all of Lesnars assets and I feel that he has great skill along with great size and power. I think that winning an NCAA Division I title and going 105-6 in doing it speaks for itself relative to skill.

You just don’t do that by being big and strong, great skill is also a must. Especially in light of the fact that he’s beaten bigger guys on the wrestling mat. Therefore, while I think his size and strength are indeed a huge benefit I feel that his skill is still his best attribute.

Yes, I am comparing his size and power to other MMA fighters because he doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Otherwise no body in all of MMA has a size, power, or skill advantage since we can only compare them with themselves. Maybe the only comparison would be between when the began their career and when they were at their peak.

Lesnar is one of the biggest, strongest, definitely quickest at that size, and probably most agile at that size fighter who has ever stepped into the Octagon. I don’t care if you don’t want to admit it, he’s got a physical advantage over everyone he’s fought so far in the attributes department (probably over anyone he will ever fight in the UFC).

If you want to say that his skill surpasses his great physical capacity, then you’re basically saying that you think he’s also the most skilled fighter to ever enter the Octagon. Which you know isn’t true.

Keep in mind there are other large powerful fighters that have not achieved Lesnars results. That should tell you that there is great skill involved.

None with the total athletic package of Lesnar. The guy is naturally about as big as you can get and still make the UFC’s weight limit, big time gym (475 bench, 695 squat) and mat strength, elite level speed at that size (ran a 4.7 40 yard dash, faster than guys like Emmit Smith and Jerry Rice), and big time power (10 foot standing long jump and 35 inch standing vertical).

Nobody else in the UFC even comes close to that total athletic package. Especially no one who he’s fought so far.

Let’s take for example the Frank Mir fight:

Was it 20 to 30 pounds of beef that Lesnar had over Frank Mir which totally caused him to achieve such a dominant victory? I don’t think so, while it helped that wasn’t what did it.

Look at his ground technique, he gave Frank Mir no room to move. His balance and skill in moving on the ground is what really helped him achieve such a dominant victory. The extra power helped, but had he been 30 pounds lighter he still would have beaten him.

Again, you are completely underestimating the physical advantage that Brock had over Mir in that fight. Have you ever seen anyone, anyone, smash up someone’s face with arm punches from a side control position?

Do you really think that he was just so technically much better that he was able to just hold Mir down with one arm and bust up his face with one hand? Do you think he could have done that if they were the same size and strength?

Not unlike Matt Hughes in his prime. Hughes, with no more weight than his opponent, took down and beat some very skillful BJJ guys, like BJ Penn for example. Lesnar did it the same way that Hughes did. They both used their wrestling ability to nullify their opponents superior Jiu-Jitsu skills.

Let’s not forget that Hughes got beat by Penn (a natural light weight) in their first fight quite handily. At that point he was nothing but a freakishly strong dude who like to use his wrestling to control people and grind out victories.

It wasn’t until after that point, that he realized that he didn’t have the skill necessary to reach his true potential, he was getting by mostly because of his physical superiority, and actually developed a submission game and striking game. Which is pretty much exactly what I said earlier. He then went on to beat Penn in their second match.

Let’s not also forget that he got submitted twice by Ken “Superman” Hallman (a jiu-jitsu guy who pretty much did jack squat in his career other than that) twice in his early career.

Keep in mind that Matt Hughes finished in the top 10 in the NCAA finals, which is a great accomplishment, but Brock Lesnar finished first.

True. Lesnar was the more effective wrestler. He was also more athletically gifted, but the two were probably similar strength-wise relative to their size I’ll give you that.

He’s a great mix of size, power, agility, speed and SKILL.If he brings his striking ability up to his (top) ground game he may very well stay on top for a long time to come.

Not disputing that. Just saying that his skill hasn’t yet reached the level of his physicality (which is pretty much maxed out IMO). It still needs work; his physicality doesn’t. [/quote]

Brock is naturally big, strong, and athletic like Nog is naturally good at submissions, Randy naturally has good conditioning, and Congo has naturally good striking.

You keep serarating “skill” from strength, size, and athleticism.

Let me see if I have this straight:
Skill = striking, BJJ.
Not skill = size, strength, quickness, general athleiticism?

What about knockout power in striking? Still a “skill”?

What about powering through a submission? Still a “skill”?

Brock is more “skillful” than anyone he has beat. That’s how he beat them. He just has different skills.

173

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
ZEB wrote:
still more physical than skillful.

I would say that his skill exceeds his great physicaly capacity.

I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. Either you are totally underestimating/overlooking just how great his physical capacity is, or you are meaning effectiveness when you say skill, and not technical skill.

Otherwise you’re basically saying that he’s the most skillful fighter to ever step into the Octagon, because he’s definitely has the most physical capacity.

You said before that you admit that his skills aren’t at the level of Fedor, GSP, Anderson Silva, and Penn, yet the above statement would make them superior to all of those fighters.

Which is it?

You are comparing his size and power to other mma fighters, that’s not what I was doing. I am looking at all of Lesnars assets and I feel that he has great skill along with great size and power. I think that winning an NCAA Division I title and going 105-6 in doing it speaks for itself relative to skill.

You just don’t do that by being big and strong, great skill is also a must. Especially in light of the fact that he’s beaten bigger guys on the wrestling mat. Therefore, while I think his size and strength are indeed a huge benefit I feel that his skill is still his best attribute.

Yes, I am comparing his size and power to other MMA fighters because he doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Otherwise no body in all of MMA has a size, power, or skill advantage since we can only compare them with themselves. Maybe the only comparison would be between when the began their career and when they were at their peak.

Lesnar is one of the biggest, strongest, definitely quickest at that size, and probably most agile at that size fighter who has ever stepped into the Octagon. I don’t care if you don’t want to admit it, he’s got a physical advantage over everyone he’s fought so far in the attributes department (probably over anyone he will ever fight in the UFC).

If you want to say that his skill surpasses his great physical capacity, then you’re basically saying that you think he’s also the most skilled fighter to ever enter the Octagon. Which you know isn’t true.

Keep in mind there are other large powerful fighters that have not achieved Lesnars results. That should tell you that there is great skill involved.

None with the total athletic package of Lesnar. The guy is naturally about as big as you can get and still make the UFC’s weight limit, big time gym (475 bench, 695 squat) and mat strength, elite level speed at that size (ran a 4.7 40 yard dash, faster than guys like Emmit Smith and Jerry Rice), and big time power (10 foot standing long jump and 35 inch standing vertical).

Nobody else in the UFC even comes close to that total athletic package. Especially no one who he’s fought so far.

Let’s take for example the Frank Mir fight:

Was it 20 to 30 pounds of beef that Lesnar had over Frank Mir which totally caused him to achieve such a dominant victory? I don’t think so, while it helped that wasn’t what did it.

Look at his ground technique, he gave Frank Mir no room to move. His balance and skill in moving on the ground is what really helped him achieve such a dominant victory. The extra power helped, but had he been 30 pounds lighter he still would have beaten him.

Again, you are completely underestimating the physical advantage that Brock had over Mir in that fight. Have you ever seen anyone, anyone, smash up someone’s face with arm punches from a side control position?

Do you really think that he was just so technically much better that he was able to just hold Mir down with one arm and bust up his face with one hand? Do you think he could have done that if they were the same size and strength?

Not unlike Matt Hughes in his prime. Hughes, with no more weight than his opponent, took down and beat some very skillful BJJ guys, like BJ Penn for example. Lesnar did it the same way that Hughes did. They both used their wrestling ability to nullify their opponents superior Jiu-Jitsu skills.

Let’s not forget that Hughes got beat by Penn (a natural light weight) in their first fight quite handily. At that point he was nothing but a freakishly strong dude who like to use his wrestling to control people and grind out victories.

It wasn’t until after that point, that he realized that he didn’t have the skill necessary to reach his true potential, he was getting by mostly because of his physical superiority, and actually developed a submission game and striking game. Which is pretty much exactly what I said earlier. He then went on to beat Penn in their second match.

Let’s not also forget that he got submitted twice by Ken “Superman” Hallman (a jiu-jitsu guy who pretty much did jack squat in his career other than that) twice in his early career.

Keep in mind that Matt Hughes finished in the top 10 in the NCAA finals, which is a great accomplishment, but Brock Lesnar finished first.

True. Lesnar was the more effective wrestler. He was also more athletically gifted, but the two were probably similar strength-wise relative to their size I’ll give you that.

He’s a great mix of size, power, agility, speed and SKILL.If he brings his striking ability up to his (top) ground game he may very well stay on top for a long time to come.

Not disputing that. Just saying that his skill hasn’t yet reached the level of his physicality (which is pretty much maxed out IMO). It still needs work; his physicality doesn’t.

Brock is naturally big, strong, and athletic like Nog is naturally good at submissions, Randy naturally has good conditioning, and Congo has naturally good striking.

You keep serarating “skill” from strength, size, and athleticism.

Let me see if I have this straight:
Skill = striking, BJJ.
Not skill = size, strength, quickness, general athleiticism?
[/quote]

Yes, they’re different IMO.

Technical skill= a learned movement pattern that is repeated thousands of times until the body becomes highly efficient at performing it

Attributes (size, strength, quickness, general athleticism)= the physical capacities possessed by an individual (be they developed or innate)

I’m not saying that in practice they don’t interrelate, or don’t both play a role in terms of effectiveness, but they are separate entities.

You can for instance have just a big, strong, fast person with no degree of technical skill. You can also have a very technical fighter who is weak, slow, and small.

Combination of technical skill and physical attributes.

If by “powering” you mean simply using superior strength to “muscle out” of the submission, then no, that’s pretty much attributes.

[quote]
Brock is more “skillful” than anyone he has beat. That’s how he beat them. He just has different skills.[/quote]

No, he isn’t. He’s more “effective”, not more “skillful”.

174

What I find interesting regarding this debate is that guys like GSP have been talked about as having incredible wrestling ability because he has trained with the Canadian Olympic wrestling team, that’s the extent of his wrestling background. Matt Hughes because he finished in the top 10 at the NCAA tourny. Josh Koscheck is an incredible wrestler. Everyone gives him credit for being one of the best. His credentials? He captured a Division I Wrestling championship. And yes, there are many others that people fall all over giving credit to for their great wrestling ability and each of them deserves it!

But, for some reason many like to leave Brock Lesnar out of that group. Not because he doesn’t have the wrestling pedigree as it’s better than most.

It should be obvious at this point that Brock Lesnar does not get enough credit for his incredible wrestling ability BECAUSE he has incredible size and power, which casts a shadow over something a little less obvious, and this is my entire point in a nutshell

175

[quote]ZEB wrote:
What I find interesting regarding this debate is that guys like GSP have been talked about as having incredible wrestling ability because he has trained with the Canadian Olympic wrestling team, that’s the extent of his wrestling background.
[/quote]

GSP’s wrestling ability is talked about as being incredible because he has only been at it for a relatively short period of time, and has since become the “best” wrestler in the UFC (in the process surpassing and dominating other high caliber wrestlers) The fact that he trains with the olympic team is a huge part of that, but not necessarily the reason his ability gets credit.

No, again it’s because his wrestling was very effective and apparent while he was at his peak. I doubt many (MMA fans)care that he finished in the top 10.

Kos is one of the most decorated collegiate wrestlers to ever enter MMA, and he does get credit for that fact. But, he hasn’t proven to be able to apply his wrestling skills to MMA as effectively as GSP or Hughes (at least against top competition).

No, he captured 3 division 1 wrestling championships. There’s a big difference.

I haven’t heard anyone in this thread question Brock’s wrestling ability. No one has ever once said that he wasn’t an effective wrestler. That’s not the same thing as saying that he’s a technically superior wrestler though.

[quote]
It should be obvious at this point that Brock Lesnar does not get enough credit for his incredible wrestling ability BECAUSE he has incredible size and power, which casts a shadow over something a little less obvious, and this is my entire point in a nutshell[/quote]

What is obvious is that you equate effectiveness with skill, while I and others do not. We see skill as being a facet of effectiveness, but not the same thing.

176

This is going to be a nice fight. Highly anticipated.
I’m going for Brock Lesnar here, since he’s constantly evolving. People think that because he’s a fake WWE wrestler, he’s going to suck at real fighting, but he is learning rapidly and picking up a lot of stuff from his camp.

His win over Frank Mir shows how he is learning from his mistakes and improves his game.

177

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Matt Hughes because he finished in the top 10 at the NCAA tourny.

No, again it’s because his wrestling was very effective and apparent while he was at his peak. I doubt many (MMA fans)care that he finished in the top 10.[/quote]

That’s not the point, the point is that he finished lower than Lesnar yet got much praise for his great wrestling ability. Lesnar’s wrestling is also “very effective” where are your kudos for him?

[quote]
Josh Koscheck is an incredible wrestler. Everyone gives him credit for being one of the best.

Kos is one of the most decorated collegiate wrestlers to ever enter MMA, and he does get credit for that fact. But, he hasn’t proven to be able to apply his wrestling skills to MMA as effectively as GSP or Hughes (at least against top competition).[/quote]

Lesnar was not only a Division I winner he was also runner up the previous year. And I think if we compare the two Lesnar has certainly used his wrestling skills more effectively than in the octagon than Kos. Yet, he gets no credit from some for this achievement.

[quote]
His credentials? He captured a Division I Wrestling championship.

No, he captured 3 division 1 wrestling championships. There’s a big difference.[/quote]

Not according to this:

http://departments.edinboro.edu/athletics/media0506/60303wrestling-hof-ewl.asp

“Josh Koscheck is Edinboro Universityâ??s only four-time All-American and one of just two wrestlers to win an NCAA Division I national championship. He captured the title at 174 lbs. in 2001, along with a second place finish in 2000, a third place in 2002, and a fourth place in 1999. He is a two-time EWL champion (2000, 2001) and was named the EWL Wrestler of the Year in 2000 and 2001, the Freshman of the Year in 1999, and the EWL Tournament Outstanding Wrestler in 2001. Koscheck concluded his brilliant career with a 128-17 record, including a perfect 42-0 campaign in 2000-01. He ranks fifth in career victories at Edinboro, and is first in career winning percentage (.883). After a 31-9 record as a redshirt freshman, he went on to go 38-4 as a sophomore, losing in the 174 lb. title match to Byron Tucker of Oklahoma by a 3-0 decision. He came back the next season to cap a brilliant 42-0 season with an 8-1 decision over Armyâ??s Maurice Worthy. A neck injury limited him as a senior, yet he still battled his way to a third place finish and a 17-4 record. He finished with 27 career falls, good for fifth all-time at Edinboro.”

Either way he’s a great wrestler with a 128-17 record. Hey did you know that Brock Lesnar had a college wrestling record of 105-6?

[quote]
And yes, there are many others that people fall all over giving credit to for their great wrestling ability and each of them deserves it!

But, for some reason many like to leave Brock Lesnar out of that group. Not because he doesn’t have the wrestling pedigree as it’s better than most.

I haven’t heard anyone in this thread question Brock’s wrestling ability. No one has ever once said that he wasn’t an effective wrestler. That’s not the same thing as saying that he’s a technically superior wrestler though.[/quote]

As I said about 200 posts ago, when you give someone credit for winning because they are big and strong you are at the same time taking away the real reason that they win, that is, superior wrestling ability. I give him credit for both.

[quote]It should be obvious at this point that Brock Lesnar does not get enough credit for his incredible wrestling ability BECAUSE he has incredible size and power, which casts a shadow over something a little less obvious, and this is my entire point in a nutshell

What is obvious is that you equate effectiveness with skill, while I and others do not. We see skill as being a facet of effectiveness, but not the same thing.[/quote]

No, I feel that he’s effective BECAUSE of his skill. With that said he has many other attributes, but so does Hughes, Couture, Henderson, Kos and all the other wrestlers and mma fighters in the UFC. But, for some reason people just don’t like to go beyond Lesnars size and attribute to him the most important reason why he is the UFC champion and that is his skill!

178

Who cares end this shit already!!! We’ll see when Brock fights more.

179

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Matt Hughes because he finished in the top 10 at the NCAA tourny.

No, again it’s because his wrestling was very effective and apparent while he was at his peak. I doubt many (MMA fans)care that he finished in the top 10.

That’s not the point, the point is that he finished lower than Lesnar yet got much praise for his great wrestling ability. Lesnar’s wrestling is also “very effective” where are your kudos for him?
[/quote]

When have I ever in this whole thread not given Lesnar credit for being an effective wrestler? Find the quote where I said otherwise.

Again, where did I write that Kos has been more effective at using his wrestling in his MMA career than Lesnar? And where have I failed to give him credit for his effectiveness?

I haven’t.

Damn. Well I stand corrected then. Could have sworn that I’ve read from several sources that he’d won it 3 times. Guess I’ve been listening to the wrong sources.

In that case, he certainly doesn’t deserve more credit than Lesnar, in any sense.

Yup. Fantastic record indeed. Still doesn’t prove that he’s a technically superior wrestler though. Just proves that he’s an incredibly effective wrestler.

Nonsense. When you cite someone winning because of superior physicality, you are simply citing them for winning because of superior physicality. You want that to be a put down, but it’s not, it’s just being truthful. His great wrestling “ability” is being fueled primarily due to his superior physicality not his technical superiority. Again, that’s not saying that he doesn’t have any skill, just that it’s not the primary reason for his success.

I’m of course not saying that he isn’t more skilled than some of the opponents that he’s faced. He’s more skilled in just about everything than Herring; he’s a better wrestler than Mir. But he was inferior to Randy technically speaking in terms of both wrestling and striking.

I honestly think that he’s got the wrestling advantage on Carwin, but I’d give the striking and submission advantage to Shane (at least judging by what we’ve seen from both so far).

None of those other guys also has 50 lbs on their opponents. Nor are do any of them have the physical capacities that Lesnar possesses. And again, no one is saying that he sucks at wrestling or has no skill, just that technical superiority has not been the driving force behind his success, his attributes have.

180

[quote]drewh wrote:
Who cares end this shit already!!! We’ll see when Brock fights more.[/quote]

Too bad it looks like it’s gonna be a while before that happen.

Maybe we should start talking about who we think would make a good Interim title match for Carwin. Velasquez? Nog? Dos Santos?

181

The most logical fight would be Dos Santos vs. Valsquez, which is sick fight imo.

182

[quote]drewh wrote:
The most logical fight would be Dos Santos vs. Valsquez, which is sick fight imo.[/quote]

Really? What about Carwin? The poor guy has been training in preparation for a title shot. Now you’re just gonna say “screw you” and make him wait until Brock feels better? Why not have him fight one of those guys for the interim belt and then have the winner of that fight Brock to unify the belt when he returns?

So, which one of them do you think would make a better match-up for Carwin?

183

Does anyone else still have the Carwin and Lesnar fight advertising on Comcast? I saw it about twenty times on Saturday while watching football. Surely there will be someone gravely disappointed on the 21st demanding their money back.