What's Generally Considered Big?

Training
81

[quote]furo wrote:

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:
There’s a big man, and then there’s a big athlete. I’m scared of JJ Watt from my living room. Speaking of, let’s say Watt decided to give up football in favor of training mma full time. How long would he need to train to beat Dos Santos? 6 months? 2 years? longer? [/quote]

If you are saying that size and athleticism is more important than technique (providing the size difference isn’t too great) I really don’t agree. If that was how it worked Brock Lesnar would still be the UFC heavyweight champion. [/quote]

I am KIND OF saying that. kind of. Technique can be developed much more quickly than great size and athleticism, especially when practicing said technique is your FULL TIME JOB.
Brock Lesnar is/was not a great athlete. He got kicked out of Minnesota Vikings training camp at first cut. Then he went on to mma and win the heavyweight championship.

82

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:

[quote]furo wrote:

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:
There’s a big man, and then there’s a big athlete. I’m scared of JJ Watt from my living room. Speaking of, let’s say Watt decided to give up football in favor of training mma full time. How long would he need to train to beat Dos Santos? 6 months? 2 years? longer? [/quote]

If you are saying that size and athleticism is more important than technique (providing the size difference isn’t too great) I really don’t agree. If that was how it worked Brock Lesnar would still be the UFC heavyweight champion. [/quote]

I am KIND OF saying that. kind of. Technique can be developed much more quickly than great size and athleticism, especially when practicing said technique is your FULL TIME JOB.
Brock Lesnar is/was not a great athlete. He got kicked out of Minnesota Vikings training camp at first cut. Then he went on to mma and win the heavyweight championship. [/quote]
You must not be aware that he was an NCAA wrestling champ.

83

I know very little about American sports in general, so I’m sorry if I get my facts wrong, but didn’t he try out for the Minnesota Vikings with relatively little football experience? His main sport was amateur wrestling which he did at a very high level as far as I understand.

I personally think his speed and athleticism at his size is pretty incredible.

84

[quote]furo wrote:
I know very little about American sports in general, so I’m sorry if I get my facts wrong, but didn’t he try out for the Minnesota Vikings with relatively little football experience? His main sport was amateur wrestling which he did at a very high level as far as I understand.

I personally think his speed and athleticism at his size is pretty incredible.[/quote]
He won an NCAA title in wrestling and was known for being more athletic than technical. He tried out for the Vikings, at close to age 30 and after only having played high school football, and was good enough to play in some preseason games. I’d say he is an exceptional athlete.

On a side note: the man who Lesnar was a runner up to in the NCAAs in 1999, Stephen Neal, went on to play for the Patriots after never having played college football. So I guess that is a testament to just how athletic wrestlers at that level are.

85

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:

[quote]furo wrote:

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:
There’s a big man, and then there’s a big athlete. I’m scared of JJ Watt from my living room. Speaking of, let’s say Watt decided to give up football in favor of training mma full time. How long would he need to train to beat Dos Santos? 6 months? 2 years? longer? [/quote]

If you are saying that size and athleticism is more important than technique (providing the size difference isn’t too great) I really don’t agree. If that was how it worked Brock Lesnar would still be the UFC heavyweight champion. [/quote]

I am KIND OF saying that. kind of. Technique can be developed much more quickly than great size and athleticism, especially when practicing said technique is your FULL TIME JOB.
Brock Lesnar is/was not a great athlete. He got kicked out of Minnesota Vikings training camp at first cut. Then he went on to mma and win the heavyweight championship. [/quote]

You would be wrong in saying that.

That kind of shit works when you’re fighting scrubs, but when you get to the big leagues and you’re fighting guys who’ve been fighting since they were 5, you get fucked up pretty quick.

Lesnar was a wrestling champ so he had some experience in a related field, and still lost to other guys who were smaller, better fighters.

In boxing, the difference is GIGANTIC. A guy like Lesnar could train for two years, five years, whatever, and still get smoked by a cat like Andre Ward, even if he’s giving up 40 lbs.

86

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]furo wrote:
I know very little about American sports in general, so I’m sorry if I get my facts wrong, but didn’t he try out for the Minnesota Vikings with relatively little football experience? His main sport was amateur wrestling which he did at a very high level as far as I understand.

I personally think his speed and athleticism at his size is pretty incredible.[/quote]
He won an NCAA title in wrestling and was known for being more athletic than technical. He tried out for the Vikings, at close to age 30 and after only having played high school football, and was good enough to play in some preseason games. I’d say he is an exceptional athlete.

On a side note: the man who Lesnar was a runner up to in the NCAAs in 1999, Stephen Neal, went on to play for the Patriots after never having played college football. So I guess that is a testament to just how athletic wrestlers at that level are. [/quote]

Saying Lesnar was not a great athlete depends on your definition of great. Anyone who makes a living playing a sport is a great athlete, but he was not NFL material–miles from NFL elite.

Neal helps my point. He was one of the best wrestlers of all time and a solid player–still not NFL elite. He had the athleticism to play NFL ball and so he did. The best athletes go towards the most $$ (sure, there are a FEW exceptions of those who have great passion for something else). In the case of the big boys, this means NFL (occasionally N)A in the case of Lebron, Howard, Shaq…) The competition there is so much greater than mma… Here’s my point–you can train technique. It takes time and work, but it’s just a question of how much. You can’t train to be a genetic freak like Watt, Peppers, Joe Thomas…

All that being said, mma is on the rise. The popularity, money, and competition are increasing and hence the athleticism is too. Jon Jones and Anderson Silva are examples of elite athletes in mma. Speaking of Jones, what do his brothers do for a living? NFL.

87

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:

[quote]furo wrote:

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:
There’s a big man, and then there’s a big athlete. I’m scared of JJ Watt from my living room. Speaking of, let’s say Watt decided to give up football in favor of training mma full time. How long would he need to train to beat Dos Santos? 6 months? 2 years? longer? [/quote]

If you are saying that size and athleticism is more important than technique (providing the size difference isn’t too great) I really don’t agree. If that was how it worked Brock Lesnar would still be the UFC heavyweight champion. [/quote]

I am KIND OF saying that. kind of. Technique can be developed much more quickly than great size and athleticism, especially when practicing said technique is your FULL TIME JOB.
Brock Lesnar is/was not a great athlete. He got kicked out of Minnesota Vikings training camp at first cut. Then he went on to mma and win the heavyweight championship. [/quote]

You would be wrong in saying that.

That kind of shit works when you’re fighting scrubs, but when you get to the big leagues and you’re fighting guys who’ve been fighting since they were 5, you get fucked up pretty quick.

Lesnar was a wrestling champ so he had some experience in a related field, and still lost to other guys who were smaller, better fighters.

In boxing, the difference is GIGANTIC. A guy like Lesnar could train for two years, five years, whatever, and still get smoked by a cat like Andre Ward, even if he’s giving up 40 lbs.[/quote]

I agree that boxing offers paychecks big enough to attract top notch athleticism. It’s a shame that the sport is such a mess and far from its past glory.

Lesnar is NOT a good example. His athleticism is impressive until you have him perform next to pro bowl lineman. Then he looks undersized, slow, and weak.

88

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:

[quote]furo wrote:

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:
There’s a big man, and then there’s a big athlete. I’m scared of JJ Watt from my living room. Speaking of, let’s say Watt decided to give up football in favor of training mma full time. How long would he need to train to beat Dos Santos? 6 months? 2 years? longer? [/quote]

If you are saying that size and athleticism is more important than technique (providing the size difference isn’t too great) I really don’t agree. If that was how it worked Brock Lesnar would still be the UFC heavyweight champion. [/quote]

I am KIND OF saying that. kind of. Technique can be developed much more quickly than great size and athleticism, especially when practicing said technique is your FULL TIME JOB.
Brock Lesnar is/was not a great athlete. He got kicked out of Minnesota Vikings training camp at first cut. Then he went on to mma and win the heavyweight championship. [/quote]

You would be wrong in saying that.

That kind of shit works when you’re fighting scrubs, but when you get to the big leagues and you’re fighting guys who’ve been fighting since they were 5, you get fucked up pretty quick.

Lesnar was a wrestling champ so he had some experience in a related field, and still lost to other guys who were smaller, better fighters.

In boxing, the difference is GIGANTIC. A guy like Lesnar could train for two years, five years, whatever, and still get smoked by a cat like Andre Ward, even if he’s giving up 40 lbs.[/quote]

I agree that boxing offers paychecks big enough to attract top notch athleticism. It’s a shame that the sport is such a mess and far from its past glory.

Lesnar is NOT a good example. His athleticism is impressive until you have him perform next to pro bowl lineman. Then he looks undersized, slow, and weak.
[/quote]

It has nothing to do with the paycheck being “big enough” and has everything to do with the fact that the top boxers have honed their technique through literally decades of working on six punches. No amount of athleticism is going to make up for that level of expertise.

And do you know why Lesnar looked like shit on the football field? Because he had no technique. And his exemplary strength and athleticism couldn’t make up for the lack of experience in THAT field, either.

89

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:

[quote]furo wrote:

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:
There’s a big man, and then there’s a big athlete. I’m scared of JJ Watt from my living room. Speaking of, let’s say Watt decided to give up football in favor of training mma full time. How long would he need to train to beat Dos Santos? 6 months? 2 years? longer? [/quote]

If you are saying that size and athleticism is more important than technique (providing the size difference isn’t too great) I really don’t agree. If that was how it worked Brock Lesnar would still be the UFC heavyweight champion. [/quote]

I am KIND OF saying that. kind of. Technique can be developed much more quickly than great size and athleticism, especially when practicing said technique is your FULL TIME JOB.
Brock Lesnar is/was not a great athlete. He got kicked out of Minnesota Vikings training camp at first cut. Then he went on to mma and win the heavyweight championship. [/quote]

You would be wrong in saying that.

That kind of shit works when you’re fighting scrubs, but when you get to the big leagues and you’re fighting guys who’ve been fighting since they were 5, you get fucked up pretty quick.

Lesnar was a wrestling champ so he had some experience in a related field, and still lost to other guys who were smaller, better fighters.

In boxing, the difference is GIGANTIC. A guy like Lesnar could train for two years, five years, whatever, and still get smoked by a cat like Andre Ward, even if he’s giving up 40 lbs.[/quote]

I agree that boxing offers paychecks big enough to attract top notch athleticism. It’s a shame that the sport is such a mess and far from its past glory.

Lesnar is NOT a good example. His athleticism is impressive until you have him perform next to pro bowl lineman. Then he looks undersized, slow, and weak.
[/quote]

How does this relate to the original post? size matters. size plus overwhelming athleticism matters A LOT. Does it mean everything. Of course not. A great size and athleticism edge will trump a small technique edge. A great technique advantage will trump a small power advantage. It all matters.

90

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:

[quote]furo wrote:

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:
There’s a big man, and then there’s a big athlete. I’m scared of JJ Watt from my living room. Speaking of, let’s say Watt decided to give up football in favor of training mma full time. How long would he need to train to beat Dos Santos? 6 months? 2 years? longer? [/quote]

If you are saying that size and athleticism is more important than technique (providing the size difference isn’t too great) I really don’t agree. If that was how it worked Brock Lesnar would still be the UFC heavyweight champion. [/quote]

I am KIND OF saying that. kind of. Technique can be developed much more quickly than great size and athleticism, especially when practicing said technique is your FULL TIME JOB.
Brock Lesnar is/was not a great athlete. He got kicked out of Minnesota Vikings training camp at first cut. Then he went on to mma and win the heavyweight championship. [/quote]

You would be wrong in saying that.

That kind of shit works when you’re fighting scrubs, but when you get to the big leagues and you’re fighting guys who’ve been fighting since they were 5, you get fucked up pretty quick.

Lesnar was a wrestling champ so he had some experience in a related field, and still lost to other guys who were smaller, better fighters.

In boxing, the difference is GIGANTIC. A guy like Lesnar could train for two years, five years, whatever, and still get smoked by a cat like Andre Ward, even if he’s giving up 40 lbs.[/quote]

I agree that boxing offers paychecks big enough to attract top notch athleticism. It’s a shame that the sport is such a mess and far from its past glory.

Lesnar is NOT a good example. His athleticism is impressive until you have him perform next to pro bowl lineman. Then he looks undersized, slow, and weak.
[/quote]

It has nothing to do with the paycheck being “big enough” and has everything to do with the fact that the top boxers have honed their technique through literally decades of working on six punches. No amount of athleticism is going to make up for that level of expertise.

And do you know why Lesnar looked like shit on the football field? Because he had no technique. And his exemplary strength and athleticism couldn’t make up for the lack of experience in THAT field, either.

[/quote]

it has everything to do with the paycheck. Athletes try to make it in the big $$ sports. In the U.S. these are football, basketball, and baseball. Boxing used to be up there, but it’s on the decline. MMA might one day get there. Every kid in the U.S. gets a chance to play football and basketball. When the fail, they try the less competitive sports. There are exceptions, but this is the norm.

91

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:

[quote]furo wrote:

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:
There’s a big man, and then there’s a big athlete. I’m scared of JJ Watt from my living room. Speaking of, let’s say Watt decided to give up football in favor of training mma full time. How long would he need to train to beat Dos Santos? 6 months? 2 years? longer? [/quote]

If you are saying that size and athleticism is more important than technique (providing the size difference isn’t too great) I really don’t agree. If that was how it worked Brock Lesnar would still be the UFC heavyweight champion. [/quote]

I am KIND OF saying that. kind of. Technique can be developed much more quickly than great size and athleticism, especially when practicing said technique is your FULL TIME JOB.
Brock Lesnar is/was not a great athlete. He got kicked out of Minnesota Vikings training camp at first cut. Then he went on to mma and win the heavyweight championship. [/quote]

You would be wrong in saying that.

That kind of shit works when you’re fighting scrubs, but when you get to the big leagues and you’re fighting guys who’ve been fighting since they were 5, you get fucked up pretty quick.

Lesnar was a wrestling champ so he had some experience in a related field, and still lost to other guys who were smaller, better fighters.

In boxing, the difference is GIGANTIC. A guy like Lesnar could train for two years, five years, whatever, and still get smoked by a cat like Andre Ward, even if he’s giving up 40 lbs.[/quote]

I agree that boxing offers paychecks big enough to attract top notch athleticism. It’s a shame that the sport is such a mess and far from its past glory.

Lesnar is NOT a good example. His athleticism is impressive until you have him perform next to pro bowl lineman. Then he looks undersized, slow, and weak.
[/quote]

It has nothing to do with the paycheck being “big enough” and has everything to do with the fact that the top boxers have honed their technique through literally decades of working on six punches. No amount of athleticism is going to make up for that level of expertise.

And do you know why Lesnar looked like shit on the football field? Because he had no technique. And his exemplary strength and athleticism couldn’t make up for the lack of experience in THAT field, either.

[/quote]

it has everything to do with the paycheck. Athletes try to make it in the big $$ sports. In the U.S. these are football, basketball, and baseball. Boxing used to be up there, but it’s on the decline. MMA might one day get there. Every kid in the U.S. gets a chance to play football and basketball. When the fail, they try the less competitive sports. There are exceptions, but this is the norm.
[/quote]

Dude what are you even talking about? I’m talking about technique and sport specific prowess beating strength and athleticism, and you’re talking paychecks?

I’m not even sure what you’re arguing.

92

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:

[quote]furo wrote:

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:
There’s a big man, and then there’s a big athlete. I’m scared of JJ Watt from my living room. Speaking of, let’s say Watt decided to give up football in favor of training mma full time. How long would he need to train to beat Dos Santos? 6 months? 2 years? longer? [/quote]

If you are saying that size and athleticism is more important than technique (providing the size difference isn’t too great) I really don’t agree. If that was how it worked Brock Lesnar would still be the UFC heavyweight champion. [/quote]

I am KIND OF saying that. kind of. Technique can be developed much more quickly than great size and athleticism, especially when practicing said technique is your FULL TIME JOB.
Brock Lesnar is/was not a great athlete. He got kicked out of Minnesota Vikings training camp at first cut. Then he went on to mma and win the heavyweight championship. [/quote]

You would be wrong in saying that.

That kind of shit works when you’re fighting scrubs, but when you get to the big leagues and you’re fighting guys who’ve been fighting since they were 5, you get fucked up pretty quick.

Lesnar was a wrestling champ so he had some experience in a related field, and still lost to other guys who were smaller, better fighters.

In boxing, the difference is GIGANTIC. A guy like Lesnar could train for two years, five years, whatever, and still get smoked by a cat like Andre Ward, even if he’s giving up 40 lbs.[/quote]

I agree that boxing offers paychecks big enough to attract top notch athleticism. It’s a shame that the sport is such a mess and far from its past glory.

Lesnar is NOT a good example. His athleticism is impressive until you have him perform next to pro bowl lineman. Then he looks undersized, slow, and weak.
[/quote]

How does this relate to the original post? size matters. size plus overwhelming athleticism matters A LOT. Does it mean everything. Of course not. A great size and athleticism edge will trump a small technique edge. A great technique advantage will trump a small power advantage. It all matters.
[/quote]

hahahahhahaha are you arguing with yourself now?

Or did you forget to switch accounts?

What’s going on with this guy…

93

And by the way, slightly off topic - boxing isn’t as popular as it once was but try finding another sport where one guy can make $40-50 million for one night’s work. The money is totally still in the sport.

94

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:

[quote]furo wrote:

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:
There’s a big man, and then there’s a big athlete. I’m scared of JJ Watt from my living room. Speaking of, let’s say Watt decided to give up football in favor of training mma full time. How long would he need to train to beat Dos Santos? 6 months? 2 years? longer? [/quote]

If you are saying that size and athleticism is more important than technique (providing the size difference isn’t too great) I really don’t agree. If that was how it worked Brock Lesnar would still be the UFC heavyweight champion. [/quote]

I am KIND OF saying that. kind of. Technique can be developed much more quickly than great size and athleticism, especially when practicing said technique is your FULL TIME JOB.
Brock Lesnar is/was not a great athlete. He got kicked out of Minnesota Vikings training camp at first cut. Then he went on to mma and win the heavyweight championship. [/quote]

You would be wrong in saying that.

That kind of shit works when you’re fighting scrubs, but when you get to the big leagues and you’re fighting guys who’ve been fighting since they were 5, you get fucked up pretty quick.

Lesnar was a wrestling champ so he had some experience in a related field, and still lost to other guys who were smaller, better fighters.

In boxing, the difference is GIGANTIC. A guy like Lesnar could train for two years, five years, whatever, and still get smoked by a cat like Andre Ward, even if he’s giving up 40 lbs.[/quote]

I agree that boxing offers paychecks big enough to attract top notch athleticism. It’s a shame that the sport is such a mess and far from its past glory.

Lesnar is NOT a good example. His athleticism is impressive until you have him perform next to pro bowl lineman. Then he looks undersized, slow, and weak.
[/quote]

Cmon lets be realistic, the vast majority of dudes in the NFL are on steroids, so comparing anyone who isnt, to them, is going to come up short in measures of speed and power components regardless of inherent athletic ability.

95

Size only really factors into intimidation if its a glaring size difference. Im a pretty large human being, currently at 6’3 near 280lbs. I dont care how badass you think you are, how crazy people say, but if you are 5’9 170 lbs, i am not gonna feel the least bit threated by you unless you’re armed. Despite what people say, size DOES matter in a fight.

Last time i got into a fight was the first time in a long time ive been a bit intimidated by the guy standing across from me, it was at a ghetto ass bar on the south side of chicago, so right there you get a bit worried when shit kicks off, i was hammered and the dude was at least 3 inches taller than me (extremely rare) and had to be well over 300 lbs.

There are always those rare guys who just have that intimidation factor though, no matter how big you are. A great person that usually comes to mind for me when i think of intimidating people is Alistair Overeem. There is almost no one i have ever met that i would let get away with calling me a bitch or slapping me in the middle of a bar or something, whether i was gonna get my ass beat or not. However, if Alistair Overeem ever insults me, im walking the fuck away. That guys is fucking intimidating.

96

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]rundymc wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

They can bite your leg and grab your balls and try to rip them off. One is just as bad as the other.[/quote]

Nope, not if you tighten it up. If you merely lock those legs up and allow your opponent to posture etc. however, well, yeah you’re fucked.

Well, actually you’d be fucked anyway for attempting a triangle in any situation where you’d be concerned about someone biting your balls.[/quote]

I depends on how early into the technique they see it/how explosively and deceptively you set it up. If they recognize it early it’s pretty easy to catch the leg that is coming across the neck and sink your teeth in. If they don’t and you’ve already got the legs locked up then yeah, pretty tough to bite without posturing first.[/quote]

The thing is, we are talking about fighting someone on “the street”, not someone who knows what a triangle choke is. To expect them to see anything coming and then react appropriately is a stretch. Having said that, I don’t think it would be on my list of go to moves in a real fight but if someone did attempt one it would probably be because the guy on top has one arm in and one arm out, trying to throw a leg out of the way to pass. In other words: he isn’t even aware of the triangle in the first place. And if someone were able to posture they would simply get armbarred or there is also the teepee choke. The triangle choke has been around a long time. It has existed in many grappling arts around the world, not just Japan. It was used by old time catch wrestlers and hookers. The whole question of how vulnerable you are has been answered long ago by people who fought under extreme conditions.

And it goes both ways: one can say that they will bite or grab balls but there are two people in the fight. You can grab someone’s hair to control posture. Their face is open to eye gouging. Again, I’m not saying it’s the smartest move to try and pull off, you’re better off trying to get up or get on top when on your back, but if someone who knows how to do the technique properly is applying it then the only real defense is a technical one.

One thing about biting: it isn’t the best way to escape a submission hold. Bruce Lee bit the leg of Bob Wall (I think) in a movie to escape an armlock. In the movie Wall reacts like he has just been shot and releases the hold. In reality Lee’s arm would have been broken. If someone has your arm in a position where they can break it then biting will only make them apply enough pressure, very quickly, to break it. Royce Gracie was mounted on an opponent and choking him. He bit Royce on the ear and Royce just choked harder until he tapped and proceeded to hold the choke a little bit longer. [/quote]

Good post.

Regards,

Robert A

97

Heres another thing you have to keep in mind too, big fuckin guys can take big fuckin punches. This is definitely true, maybe not universally but for the most part a huge dude will take a bigger punch than a little guy. I have shrugged off punches from pretty big guys, punches i didnt see coming and probably should have knocked me out or hurt a lot worse. This isnt meant as a brag, its just my personal experience, ill be the first to admit i havent won every fight ive been involved in.

I have personally witnessed some of the most enormous geared up bouncers ive ever seen eat brutal shots that look like they should have knocked their head off and then proceed to go Uncle Phil on the dudes ass and throw him out like Jazz from fresh prince. So if you are significantly smaller, but a trained boxer/mma fighter, i still wouldnt rely on your technique/power to take out a big mofo. There comes a point where you swallow your pride and fight dirty or risk getting your ass beat bad.

98

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:

[quote]furo wrote:

[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:
There’s a big man, and then there’s a big athlete. I’m scared of JJ Watt from my living room. Speaking of, let’s say Watt decided to give up football in favor of training mma full time. How long would he need to train to beat Dos Santos? 6 months? 2 years? longer? [/quote]

If you are saying that size and athleticism is more important than technique (providing the size difference isn’t too great) I really don’t agree. If that was how it worked Brock Lesnar would still be the UFC heavyweight champion. [/quote]

I am KIND OF saying that. kind of. Technique can be developed much more quickly than great size and athleticism, especially when practicing said technique is your FULL TIME JOB.
Brock Lesnar is/was not a great athlete. He got kicked out of Minnesota Vikings training camp at first cut. Then he went on to mma and win the heavyweight championship. [/quote]

You would be wrong in saying that.

That kind of shit works when you’re fighting scrubs, but when you get to the big leagues and you’re fighting guys who’ve been fighting since they were 5, you get fucked up pretty quick.

Lesnar was a wrestling champ so he had some experience in a related field, and still lost to other guys who were smaller, better fighters.

In boxing, the difference is GIGANTIC. A guy like Lesnar could train for two years, five years, whatever, and still get smoked by a cat like Andre Ward, even if he’s giving up 40 lbs.[/quote]

I agree that boxing offers paychecks big enough to attract top notch athleticism. It’s a shame that the sport is such a mess and far from its past glory.

Lesnar is NOT a good example. His athleticism is impressive until you have him perform next to pro bowl lineman. Then he looks undersized, slow, and weak.
[/quote]

How does this relate to the original post? size matters. size plus overwhelming athleticism matters A LOT. Does it mean everything. Of course not. A great size and athleticism edge will trump a small technique edge. A great technique advantage will trump a small power advantage. It all matters.
[/quote]

hahahahhahaha are you arguing with yourself now?

Or did you forget to switch accounts?

What’s going on with this guy…
[/quote]

This.

cubuff2028,

Are you actually of the opinion that 4 years, often 5, of specific Division 1 football experience would only yield a “small” technique edge? That is 4-5 years of focused training. I would say that Lesnar’s offer to play in NFL Europe(putting him ahead of many players who spent the last 5 years of their lives preparing for the NFL job “interview”), his NCAA performance and his style of wrestling, and his MMA career are evidence that he is a superb athlete. He was edged out in the NFL and the UFC because of predominantly technical issues.

RE Lesnar and boxing: This is the one area where I don’t think we could say he had any natural abilities. The man did not handle getting punched in the face at all well. Seriously. He is reputed to have tremendous pain tolerance and training ethic, but he hated getting hit in the face. Boxing would have been an awefull fit.

Regards,

Robert A

99

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And by the way, slightly off topic - boxing isn’t as popular as it once was but try finding another sport where one guy can make $40-50 million for one night’s work. The money is totally still in the sport.[/quote]

I agree, but I think the other end is more telling. The guys making that for “one night” are training in 3-4 month camps and are full time fighters. There are also very few of them. Full time athletes make money.

However the undercard fighters, and even many of the journeyman, make far more than the top MMA guys. Being the number 50 guy in boxing is a hell of a lot more profitable than being the number 20 guy in MMA.

Regards,

Robert A

100

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

You must not be aware that he was an NCAA wrestling champ. [/quote]
BAAHAHAHAHA
Whatever the fuck that means. Sorry, we laugh at that shit around here. Hearing all that NCAA shit makes us giggle.

Fuck Lesnar.

In the words of the Sifu from College kickboxers, “Look like Bambi”.