Ufc 116

Training
141

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]slimjim wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
So slimjim

You don’t understand that an old washed up, beat up smaller wrestler had Fedors back, and that if that position were held by a larger, younger, stronger wrestler of equal or greater skill he wouldn’t have won the fight? Is that what you don’t understand? I can’t believe that, as you are not a stupid person. So just think about it a while and then get back to me.
[/quote]

i’m not sure which wrestler had his back? the only one i can think of is randleman. further, smaller guys play smaller games - just because randleman got to fedor’s back, does not mean lesnar would be able to accomplish the same feat. in my opinion it would be much harder for lesnar to take fedor’s back than it would be for randleman to do the same.[/quote]

Coleman had his back, if it had been Lesnar, different outcome.
[/quote]

How so?

This will be interesting.[/quote]

Coleman was 40 plus years old at the time, only slightly bigger than Fedor. The biggest problem however was that Coleman had not choked anyone out since Dan Severn, which was at UFC 12 in 1997. I think you will agree that Coleman was not at his peak either time he fought Fedor, whether it be in 04’ or 06’. Coleman probably should have retired after he beat Don Frye in 03’, my personal opinion.

As a side note: Severn was the very first outstanding HW wrestler to become a UFC champ, of course that was before weight classes at UFC 5 if memory serves.

Anyway, what’s your take? Are you thinking that Fedor would run over the top of Lesnar if they fought right now? If so, give me a scenarior of how Fedor does that? Does he reach in with one of his looping punches and knock the big guy down? Does he submit him on the ground?

This will be interesting.

142

[quote]sardines12 wrote:
How is Lesnar better currently?[/quote]

How is Fedor better currently? It’s not record vs record, it’s Mano A Mano.

143

By the fact that he has about 157 more tools in his toolbox of skills than Lesnar has.

Jeezus, Lesnar doesn’t even have a clue what to do when he’s in bottom position, as he demonstrated quite clearly vs. Carwin.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:
How is Lesnar better currently?[/quote]

How is Fedor better currently? It’s not record vs record, it’s Mano A Mano.[/quote]

144

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]slimjim wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
So slimjim

You don’t understand that an old washed up, beat up smaller wrestler had Fedors back, and that if that position were held by a larger, younger, stronger wrestler of equal or greater skill he wouldn’t have won the fight? Is that what you don’t understand? I can’t believe that, as you are not a stupid person. So just think about it a while and then get back to me.
[/quote]

i’m not sure which wrestler had his back? the only one i can think of is randleman. further, smaller guys play smaller games - just because randleman got to fedor’s back, does not mean lesnar would be able to accomplish the same feat. in my opinion it would be much harder for lesnar to take fedor’s back than it would be for randleman to do the same.[/quote]

Coleman had his back, if it had been Lesnar, different outcome.
[/quote]

i had to go back and rewatch the fights…sadly with the amount of mma ive watched, and with the time lapse between that fight and now, i cant remember the specific details of them all.

that said, are we really to extrapolate some kind of x then y equation based on a previous match with a similar, but different opponent? when has that ever worked? as i said before, and i stick to my opinion, smaller guys play smaller games - what worked for coleman (though it ultimately didnt) would not work the same for lesnar. and i doubt fedor would approach a fight with lesnar in the same way.

145

[quote]slimjim wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]slimjim wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
So slimjim

You don’t understand that an old washed up, beat up smaller wrestler had Fedors back, and that if that position were held by a larger, younger, stronger wrestler of equal or greater skill he wouldn’t have won the fight? Is that what you don’t understand? I can’t believe that, as you are not a stupid person. So just think about it a while and then get back to me.
[/quote]

i’m not sure which wrestler had his back? the only one i can think of is randleman. further, smaller guys play smaller games - just because randleman got to fedor’s back, does not mean lesnar would be able to accomplish the same feat. in my opinion it would be much harder for lesnar to take fedor’s back than it would be for randleman to do the same.[/quote]

Coleman had his back, if it had been Lesnar, different outcome.
[/quote]

i had to go back and rewatch the fights…sadly with the amount of mma ive watched, and with the time lapse between that fight and now, i cant remember the specific details of them all.

that said, are we really to extrapolate some kind of x then y equation based on a previous match with a similar, but different opponent? when has that ever worked? as i said before, and i stick to my opinion, smaller guys play smaller games - what worked for coleman (though it ultimately didnt) would not work the same for lesnar. and i doubt fedor would approach a fight with lesnar in the same way.[/quote]

When you boil it down this is all speculation and opinion on both our parts anyway. But, from what I’ve seen of Fedor I think he’s a well rounded fighter who often gets into trouble and usually knows enough to get out. But as we saw recently, not always. I think giving up his back to a 40 plus year old Coleman may have showed a weakness in his game. Can you extrapolate from that Lesnar a much larger, faster, stronger and better conditioned athlete (than Coleman)would have taken better advantage? I did, only because Coleman (at least in his prime) had a similar game as Lesnar, given their similar backgrounds that is understandable.

I think speculation is almost half the fun of watching mma.

146

[quote]Damici wrote:
By the fact that he has about 157 more tools in his toolbox of skills than Lesnar has.

Jeezus, Lesnar doesn’t even have a clue what to do when he’s in bottom position, as he demonstrated quite clearly vs. Carwin.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:
How is Lesnar better currently?[/quote]

How is Fedor better currently? It’s not record vs record, it’s Mano A Mano.[/quote]
[/quote]

I see, you place a high value on Fedor’s multiple tools and that’s why you think he’d win. That argument has some validity. If he were to fight and defeat Lesnar it would most certainly be because of the things you listed. However, I don’t look so much at the number of tools as I do their strength.

If two men were to fight and one had a dozen knives and the other only one machine gun who would you bet on? But lesnar does have more than one tool of his own, mostly physical, but all quite powerful.

He’s the younger, faster, stronger, larger, better conditioned athlete with the far superior takedown. He’s also learned how to stay tight on top as evidenced by the second Mir fight. If you look at the recent history of mma HW fights these advantages usually prove to be overwhelming to the opposition. That isn’t to say that the one who possesses these traits always wins. So, don’t bother pointing out the exceptions because they are there. But over all the better technical fighter (as we both agree Fedor is) who does not have these advantages doesn’t usually win. Take the Couture/Lesnar fight. No one can argue that Lesnar is a better fighter than Couture on paper. But, Lesnar defeated Couture in the second round because of these very traits. Certainly, in mma you never know what the outcome will be and that’s one reason I love it.

Back on thread topic: I bet on Lesnar over Carwin because I knew that Carwin had one, and only one way to defeat Lesnar. This is the same way he had defeated everyone that he’s faced, and done so very convincingly. I was betting that Lesnar would be able to weather the storm and get out of the first round where Carwin has been so very dangerous. I was right, but only barely, Carwin was shockingly good on his feet against Lesnar, and a very bad dude! However, not quite bad enough that night (dang close). Lesnar came out in the second and surprised me with a submission, as I thought he’d G&P for a referee stoppage by the 3rd.

I’m looking forward to a Lesnar/Velasquez fight. Believe it or not I think Velasquez has a far better chance of defeating Lesnar than Carwin did, not saying he will. But, we’ll see how each of them train prior to the fight and with the many other important factors which could determine the winner.

In my opinion this is easily the greatest sport on earth.

147

What are you smoking and where can I get some.

148

You are the randman of the combat forum except in your case Brock=Kobe

149

[quote]Damici wrote:
By the fact that he has about 157 more tools in his toolbox of skills than Lesnar has.
[/quote]

And one of those tools apparently is to get triangled by Werdum?

150

Yes, and 31 of his other tools are submitting, knocking the living piss out of, or just continually pummeling that many of his opponents to take home vitctories.

Not 5. Thirty-fucking-one.

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

[quote]Damici wrote:
By the fact that he has about 157 more tools in his toolbox of skills than Lesnar has.
[/quote]

And one of those tools apparently is to get triangled by Werdum?[/quote]

151

[quote]sardines12 wrote:
What are you smoking and where can I get some.[/quote]

See below.

152

[quote]sardines12 wrote:
You are the randman of the combat forum except in your case Brock=Kobe[/quote]

When you can point out an opponent who can beat Lesnar and support that assertion with some strong evidence, I’d more than happy to read your post. Less emotion, more supporting evidence would help. I know Lesnar isn’t a popular guy, I don’t care for his on screen personality either (reminds me a bit of pro wrestling?). But we are supposed to be looking at who is actually better, not who we like better. No?

Hey, like I’ve stated in prior posts, I could be wrong, if I am I’ll be glad to take my lumps right here on the forum. But, at this point I have not read a compelling argument which has enough solid evidence to back it up which would be strong enough to change my mind. Until that point comes I’ll continue to bet on Lesnar.

153

Take your own advice

154

Man, why are you guys hating on zeb so much? He is making legitimate, intelligent arguments for what he believes, whereas you guys, with no intelligent response of your own, come up zingers like “the brock love from zeb is bordering on ridiculous” Wow. I bet that hurt his feelings.

Also, as far as who is right, and who is wrong, there is no fucking right or wrong when you are arguing opinions. you have your opinions, zeb has his, and he is just better at arguing them than you.

As for the imaginary fights that you guys are making up, skills vs. skills doesn’t always play out the way it should. Like zeb said, nobody would be stupid enough to argue that brock is a better fighter than cotour, but guess what, brock won. it really doesn’t matter who has the most training, or what kind of training, it just doesn’t. What matters is who wins. You can have all the training in the world, but if one brawler they threw 100 bucks at to have him fight you that night, lands a lucky flying knee on your chin, guess what? you’re gonna lose. Its better to be lucky than good. this is true in mma as it is in any sport.

You remember back when the patriots were going to the super bowl just about every year, here a couple years back? Well you know who usually beat them, pretty consistently back in those days? The dolphins. Yes. the miami dolphins. the 14-2 patriots, and one of those losses was to the dolphins. The 3-13 dolphins, and one of those wins, was over the super bowl champions, the patriots. Why am I telling you this? because it is the exact same principle. It doesn’t matter who is the better team, it matters who has the most points on the board when the clock runs out.

You can plan, and train all you want, but like Forrest said: “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”

155

[quote]sardines12 wrote:
Take your own advice[/quote]

This stuff is supposed to be fun. Are you having fun? You seem just a tad agitated.

156

???

157

[quote]Hyena wrote:
Also, as far as who is right, and who is wrong, there is no fucking right or wrong when you are arguing opinions…[/quote]

Yes there are… My opinions are right and everyone else’s are wrong (unless they agree with me)

:slight_smile:

.greg.

158

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]slimjim wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
So slimjim

You don’t understand that an old washed up, beat up smaller wrestler had Fedors back, and that if that position were held by a larger, younger, stronger wrestler of equal or greater skill he wouldn’t have won the fight? Is that what you don’t understand? I can’t believe that, as you are not a stupid person. So just think about it a while and then get back to me.
[/quote]

i’m not sure which wrestler had his back? the only one i can think of is randleman. further, smaller guys play smaller games - just because randleman got to fedor’s back, does not mean lesnar would be able to accomplish the same feat. in my opinion it would be much harder for lesnar to take fedor’s back than it would be for randleman to do the same.[/quote]

Coleman had his back, if it had been Lesnar, different outcome.
[/quote]

How so?

This will be interesting.[/quote]

Coleman was 40 plus years old at the time, only slightly bigger than Fedor. The biggest problem however was that Coleman had not choked anyone out since Dan Severn, which was at UFC 12 in 1997. I think you will agree that Coleman was not at his peak either time he fought Fedor, whether it be in 04’ or 06’. Coleman probably should have retired after he beat Don Frye in 03’, my personal opinion.

As a side note: Severn was the very first outstanding HW wrestler to become a UFC champ, of course that was before weight classes at UFC 5 if memory serves.

Anyway, what’s your take? Are you thinking that Fedor would run over the top of Lesnar if they fought right now? If so, give me a scenarior of how Fedor does that? Does he reach in with one of his looping punches and knock the big guy down? Does he submit him on the ground?

This will be interesting.[/quote]

Hmm…tsk…tsk…where’s your argument?? The only thing that resembled one implies that the only difference was size,strength,and age. The question WAS NOT “How would the outcome been different if Coleman was in his prime?” Let’s stick to the scenario you presented…and the question I asked of you.

How would the outcome been different if Lesnar was in Coleman’s position??

What would Lesnar been able to do that Coleman could not?

159

[quote]Hyena wrote:
Man, why are you guys hating on zeb so much? He is making legitimate, intelligent arguments for what he believes, whereas you guys, with no intelligent response of your own, come up zingers like “the brock love from zeb is bordering on ridiculous” Wow. I bet that hurt his feelings.

Also, as far as who is right, and who is wrong, there is no fucking right or wrong when you are arguing opinions. you have your opinions, zeb has his, and he is just better at arguing them than you.

As for the imaginary fights that you guys are making up, skills vs. skills doesn’t always play out the way it should. Like zeb said, nobody would be stupid enough to argue that brock is a better fighter than cotour, but guess what, brock won. it really doesn’t matter who has the most training, or what kind of training, it just doesn’t. What matters is who wins. You can have all the training in the world, but if one brawler they threw 100 bucks at to have him fight you that night, lands a lucky flying knee on your chin, guess what? you’re gonna lose. Its better to be lucky than good. this is true in mma as it is in any sport.

You remember back when the patriots were going to the super bowl just about every year, here a couple years back? Well you know who usually beat them, pretty consistently back in those days? The dolphins. Yes. the miami dolphins. the 14-2 patriots, and one of those losses was to the dolphins. The 3-13 dolphins, and one of those wins, was over the super bowl champions, the patriots. Why am I telling you this? because it is the exact same principle. It doesn’t matter who is the better team, it matters who has the most points on the board when the clock runs out.

You can plan, and train all you want, but like Forrest said: “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”[/quote]

Anybody who thinks Cain Velasquez has less wrestling ability than Carwin and Lesnar is void of intelligent opinions,imo(joking…slightly). He has all rights to his opinions and convictions…but they need to have some factual basis. ZEB…like you said…just knows how to argue. That is it. Present him with an intelligent argument/question(which I and others have done on numerous occasions)…he deflects and twists.

Basically,it’s not his opinions alone that people give him hell for.

160

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

[quote]Hyena wrote:
Man, why are you guys hating on zeb so much? He is making legitimate, intelligent arguments for what he believes, whereas you guys, with no intelligent response of your own, come up zingers like “the brock love from zeb is bordering on ridiculous” Wow. I bet that hurt his feelings.

Also, as far as who is right, and who is wrong, there is no fucking right or wrong when you are arguing opinions. you have your opinions, zeb has his, and he is just better at arguing them than you.

As for the imaginary fights that you guys are making up, skills vs. skills doesn’t always play out the way it should. Like zeb said, nobody would be stupid enough to argue that brock is a better fighter than cotour, but guess what, brock won. it really doesn’t matter who has the most training, or what kind of training, it just doesn’t. What matters is who wins. You can have all the training in the world, but if one brawler they threw 100 bucks at to have him fight you that night, lands a lucky flying knee on your chin, guess what? you’re gonna lose. Its better to be lucky than good. this is true in mma as it is in any sport.

You remember back when the patriots were going to the super bowl just about every year, here a couple years back? Well you know who usually beat them, pretty consistently back in those days? The dolphins. Yes. the miami dolphins. the 14-2 patriots, and one of those losses was to the dolphins. The 3-13 dolphins, and one of those wins, was over the super bowl champions, the patriots. Why am I telling you this? because it is the exact same principle. It doesn’t matter who is the better team, it matters who has the most points on the board when the clock runs out.

You can plan, and train all you want, but like Forrest said: “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”[/quote]

Anybody who thinks Cain Velasquez has less wrestling ability than Carwin and Lesnar is void of intelligent opinions,imo(joking…slightly). He has all rights to his opinions and convictions…but they need to have some factual basis. ZEB…like you said…just knows how to argue. That is it. Present him with an intelligent argument/question(which I and others have done on numerous occasions)…he deflects and twists.

Basically,it’s not his opinions alone that people give him hell for. [/quote]

Oh stop it, really.

I’ve presented numerous factual arguments as to why I think Brock Lesnar would beat Fedor (and others). I’ve even explained the reason why so many people think Lesnar is an inferior fighter. I have twisted and deflected nothing. I’ve tried to add a degree of intelligence to this forum (not difficult) that is sometimes missing.

By the way, Shane Carwin is a three time NCAA Division II National finalist. NCAA DII runner-up in 96’ & 97’. National champion in 1999. (Carwins web site). Cain Velasquez is not quite as decorated a wrestler as Carwin, but then again Carwin was DII, Velasquez highest place in the NCAA’s was 5th, DI. (information from Arizona State web site). Given the striking ability of both men, in addition to their wreslting prowess I feel that they would give anyone in the HW division a good fight.

Oh wait, now what did I just do? I brought more facts to the forum, you hate that.

Hold on.

Okay try this: “Carwin and Velasquez are both freakin animals man they’d maul the piss out of udder guys…um…yea they wood”

There you go, your place is secure, you don’t have to feel threatened by my alleged argumentation skills, go back to sleep.