[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:
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.
[/quote]
The concensus here seems to be that his failure to make it in football was down to a lack of skill rather than a lack of athleticism or strength. I don’t think being an amazing athlete equates with being NFL material. You can be incredibly athletic and not make it in NFL.
[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:
The best athletes go towards the most $$ (sure, there are a FEW exceptions of those who have great passion for something else).
[/quote]
I disagree here too - I think athletes are likely to stick with where their passion lies and with what they’ve been doing from a young age. Again, maybe its different in the states, but you don’t see any rugby players over here switching to soccer because they’d get paid a lot more.
Also combat sports such as MMA are really very different to team sports like football - I don’t see why you think success at one equates with success at another. I don’t think they’re comparable like that. Saying a combat athlete is a bad athlete because he didn’t make it in a team sport is like saying a lawyer is a bad academic if he couldn’t make it as a Doctor - there are so many other factors besides athletic ability (or in this analogy academic ability).
In summary my view is that Brock Lesnar was an incredible athlete who couldn’t make it in MMA because of a lack of technical ability (especially in striking). I feel that any other athlete from a similar background would have to dedicate a long time to training so as not to fall into the same difficulties he fell into.
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”.[/quote]
It means he is a great athlete, nothing more, nothing less. Maybe if you read the post that my post was responding to you would have something known as context. The bottom line is that Lesnar, like it or not, like him or not (I don’t), is a better athlete than anyone who has posted on this thread. Does that make him a great fighter? Of course not as we have his UFC performances to judge him by but, that was also the point…again…context. And to those who giggle at NCAA “shit”: I would bet Lesnar would take them, easily. Just because a much more experienced mma fighter who was also a K1 champ beat him shouldn’t make someone think they could get the same result. I would take any NCAA champ over the best Thai boxer in a no rules fight.
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.
[/quote]
The thing is that you are making a bunch of assumptions about a potential opponent in the street fight that could be very dangerous. Personally I’m always going to assume that anyone who forces me to fight them is extremely dangerous (especially a really big person) until they prove themselves otherwise. I agree that the decision to perform a triangle would be situation dependent. It’s just good to recognize that such a counter/opportunity exists and to plan set-ups or tactics to avoid it happening.
Absolutely agree about it going both ways. Gotta disagree though about the ONLY way to defend a proper triangle is the technical way. For the majority of the population I’d agree, but we’re talking about people who are above the curve physically. Just think Rampage vs Arona for a great example of a purely physical and extremely effective triangle counter (had that been cement Arona would not be with us today).
Biting is not some sort of cure all by any means and I’d agree that it’s not a great defensive tactic against submissions in and of itself. But all a really strong person needs is to buy themselves a little space or time and biting can be a very effective means of shutting down a submission. I can’t speak for anyone else, but again when i’m talking about a “big” person i’m talking about someone who’s sheer size pits them at a severe force disparity to the average person (even physically fit/trained person); such people can create exceptions to rules. Of course it becomes harder if the person doing the submission is aware of the possibility of bites and knows how to position to prevent them/trains them regularly, but again we’re talking about a pretty rare individual, certainly not your average person or even average Martial Artist/fighter. But, since this whole thread is about exceptions to the rule anyways I guess that’s fair to bring up such a person.
[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:
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.
[/quote]
The concensus here seems to be that his failure to make it in football was down to a lack of skill rather than a lack of athleticism or strength. I don’t think being an amazing athlete equates with being NFL material. You can be incredibly athletic and not make it in NFL.
[quote]cubuff2028 wrote:
The best athletes go towards the most $$ (sure, there are a FEW exceptions of those who have great passion for something else).
[/quote]
I disagree here too - I think athletes are likely to stick with where their passion lies and with what they’ve been doing from a young age. Again, maybe its different in the states, but you don’t see any rugby players over here switching to soccer because they’d get paid a lot more.
Also combat sports such as MMA are really very different to team sports like football - I don’t see why you think success at one equates with success at another. I don’t think they’re comparable like that. Saying a combat athlete is a bad athlete because he didn’t make it in a team sport is like saying a lawyer is a bad academic if he couldn’t make it as a Doctor - there are so many other factors besides athletic ability (or in this analogy academic ability).
In summary my view is that Brock Lesnar was an incredible athlete who couldn’t make it in MMA because of a lack of technical ability (especially in striking). I feel that any other athlete from a similar background would have to dedicate a long time to training so as not to fall into the same difficulties he fell into. [/quote]
In England that maybe the case, but in the states where the potential salary gap is considerable between the mainstream sports (basketball, football, and baseball) and more fringe sports (like combat sports) most kids grow up dreaming of one day playing in the big leagues and earning ridiculous amounts of money. Sure, you’ll get the occasional outstanding athlete that either grows up around combat sports or gets into them very early in life and has a real passion for them; but those are the exception, not the rule.
It’s surprising to me that with MMA on air for 20 years, that anyone would think that large, tattoo, shaved head, etc automatically means fighting/death machine. I guess it is just self preservation to attempt to size up your surroundings.
To OP - the larger caliber I have in vicinity, the smaller the guy gets in my eyes haha[/quote]
But didn’t MMA also deal some heavy blows to myth that size doesn’t matter. It didn’t take long for the open-weight stuff to go away, because the mediocre heavyweight who is gassed after a minute still has plenty of time to obliterate their featherweight opponent.[/quote]
Actually, you know what, I think if you check out most of the open weight matchups and freakshow matchups in PRIDE and what not, the smaller guy almost always won.
That isn’t to say size doesn’t matter, but just interestingly I think the outcome of most of those matches was a smaller man winning.
I should point out in a lot of these cases the “smaller man” isn’t really small, they were still dudes of considerable power and size at 180lbs+ which is more than enough force to drop someone flat on their ass with a well placed strike.[/quote]
That’s true, but:
all those fights started from a standpoint where both fighters knew it was “on”, were able to be told when exactly the fight was going to start, and were starting from across a ring/cage.
all those fights occurred in a padded ring with no obstacles (walls, counters, bars, tables, curbs, etc…) to potentially be pushed, slammed, or thrown into.
Change either one of those conditions (especially the first one) and it may change the outcome. I’m not saying that the bigger person will always win, just that sport matches aren’t always an accurate predictor of how things would pan out in reality.
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”.[/quote]
It means he is a great athlete, nothing more, nothing less. Maybe if you read the post that my post was responding to you would have something known as context. The bottom line is that Lesnar, like it or not, like him or not (I don’t), is a better athlete than anyone who has posted on this thread. Does that make him a great fighter? Of course not as we have his UFC performances to judge him by but, that was also the point…again…context. And to those who giggle at NCAA “shit”: I would bet Lesnar would take them, easily. Just because a much more experienced mma fighter who was also a K1 champ beat him shouldn’t make someone think they could get the same result. I would take any NCAA champ over the best Thai boxer in a no rules fight. [/quote]
Man you keep talking about this ‘great athlete’ stuff. Fact is, if he wasn’t in wwe and then the ufc, he’d be just another guy who wrestled. No one would remember him so his athletic greatness has somewhat been overplayed by the people who marketed him. If he was truly a great athlete then his athletic achievements alone would have carried him through, not his WWE personality.
Everyone knows the Jordans, Tiger Woods, Agassi’s, Mayweather’s etc… sure they might have marketing and hype around them too but their athletic achievements alone would propel them anywhere in the world. Brock doesn’t fit into that category.
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”.[/quote]
It means he is a great athlete, nothing more, nothing less. Maybe if you read the post that my post was responding to you would have something known as context. The bottom line is that Lesnar, like it or not, like him or not (I don’t), is a better athlete than anyone who has posted on this thread. Does that make him a great fighter? Of course not as we have his UFC performances to judge him by but, that was also the point…again…context. And to those who giggle at NCAA “shit”: I would bet Lesnar would take them, easily. Just because a much more experienced mma fighter who was also a K1 champ beat him shouldn’t make someone think they could get the same result. I would take any NCAA champ over the best Thai boxer in a no rules fight. [/quote]
Man you keep talking about this ‘great athlete’ stuff. Fact is, if he wasn’t in wwe and then the ufc, he’d be just another guy who wrestled. No one would remember him so his athletic greatness has somewhat been overplayed by the people who marketed him. If he was truly a great athlete then his athletic achievements alone would have carried him through, not his WWE personality.
Everyone knows the Jordans, Tiger Woods, Agassi’s, Mayweather’s etc… sure they might have marketing and hype around them too but their athletic achievements alone would propel them anywhere in the world. Brock doesn’t fit into that category.[/quote]
Is fame the real determinant of athletic greatness? I believe that there are plenty of great athletes out there who no one has ever heard of. Loads of guys are out there toiling away in obscurity performing mind boggling feats of athleticism that people simply don’t care about. Many NCAA wrestlers are beasts, but nobody really cares in a “household name” type of way. That doesn’t lessen their prowess IMO.
In the context of what we were discussing though, his NCAA status is nothing in the real world of fighting as there are plenty of better NCAA standard athletes who never got any recognition. So the point remains, all this NCAA hype is a joke in reference to Brock. Not trying to sound rude against Yanks or anything but we kinda cringe when we hear it all around the world like as if to say the NCAA is the hallmark of all things wrestling.
humble - it’s the only real high level organized wrestling in the US, and a lot of guys that end up succeeding in the UFC seem to start there (Liddell, Couture, Rampage Jackson, Rashad Evans, Koscheck, Coleman, Phil Davis, just off the top of my head) It may not mean much outside the US, but it certainly seem to mean something in the octagon.
[quote]humble wrote:
In the context of what we were discussing though, his NCAA status is nothing in the real world of fighting as there are plenty of better NCAA standard athletes who never got any recognition. So the point remains, all this NCAA hype is a joke in reference to Brock. Not trying to sound rude against Yanks or anything but we kinda cringe when we hear it all around the world like as if to say the NCAA is the hallmark of all things wrestling.
[/quote]
Maybe you should actually read the thread because you aren’t making sense. Someone said that great athletes, football players for example, would make great fighters because of their athleticism. Lesnar was brought up as an example of a great athlete who didn’t go on to be a great fighter. Then it was said that Lesnar was not a great athlete because the person obviously was not aware of Lesnar’s amateur wrestling background.
And no one said the NCAAs are the high point of wrestling but how many Americans who went on to medal at the Olympics were NCAA champs first? Rulon Gardner did not even win an NCAA championship yet he beat the GOAT, won an Olympic gold and bronze, and won a world championship.
Absolutely no one in this thread has said that Brock was a good fighter.
The only reason I brought him up was as an example of a huge, strong and athletic guy who COULDN’T make it in MMA. As much as everyone hates on him I don’t think it can be denied that he is huge, strong and athletic.
I said that in my response to cubuff2028 who suggested that huge, strong, athletic football players could make it in MMA with relatively little training.
Also, on a side note, I not only think that technique is more important than size, I actually think in some cases size might be a disadvantage at the UFC level. I mean most of the successful heavyweights aren’t pushing the 265lb limit - JDS, Velasquez, Cormier, Werdum, Big Nog, Barnett, Kongo etc are all in the 230s or 240s - and the extra weight must have disadvantages in speed and endurance.
So all I’ve been saying is disputing cubuff2028’s implication that huge athletic football players could do very well in MMA with relatively little training. That’s all.
[quote]humble wrote:
In the context of what we were discussing though, his NCAA status is nothing in the real world of fighting as there are plenty of better NCAA standard athletes who never got any recognition. So the point remains, all this NCAA hype is a joke in reference to Brock. Not trying to sound rude against Yanks or anything but we kinda cringe when we hear it all around the world like as if to say the NCAA is the hallmark of all things wrestling.
[/quote]
I’d agree that the NCAA is not the gold standard for all things wrestling (it is the undisputed standard of folkstyle wrestling though), but there have been some very internationally successful wrestlers who’s started out by winning the NCAA tournament (Gable, Mills, and Sanderson come to mind), and quite a few successful MMA fighters who come from that background (Coleman, Kerr, Hendricks, Kos, and Askrin to name a few). As a counter argument, other than Overeem can You name some highly successful MMA fighters who began as champion Muay Thai fighters or boxers? The truth of MMA is that you need to be well rounded these days to hold a belt (in the UFC at least, maybe in the smaller shows you can get away at just being outstanding at one aspect) and Lesnar’s striking sucked and he refused to humble himself and actually go train with a legitimate striking coach and camp and instead surrounded himself with fellow wrestlers/grapplers and yes men.
Lesnar also seemed to lack that “fighters spirit” that would continue to fight and believe that it will win no matter how bleak the outlook may appear. I suppose that if we are talking about what makes an all around great athlete then Brock would be lacking in several characteristics which would mean that he was not great (most of them being mental/cerebral), and by that criteria I’d agree. But if we are just talking about pure physicality, then it’s pretty tough to argue with Lesnar’s athletic prowess.
These numbers are from the NCAA combine:
-4.7 second 40 yard dash
-10 foot standing long jump
-475 lb bench press
-695 lb squat
-body weight 290 lbs
he also supposedly benched 225 for 30 reps (though I can’t find a highly reliable source for that number)
Those stats place him in the elite category of physical athleticism.
[quote]furo wrote:
Also, on a side note, I not only think that technique is more important than size, I actually think in some cases size might be a disadvantage at the UFC level. I mean most of the successful heavyweights aren’t pushing the 265lb limit - JDS, Velasquez, Cormier, Werdum, Big Nog, Barnett, Kongo etc are all in the 230s or 240s - and the extra weight must have disadvantages in speed and endurance.
So all I’ve been saying is disputing cubuff2028’s implication that huge athletic football players could do very well in MMA with relatively little training. That’s all. [/quote]
Maybe in MMA you are right (though I think Overeem is pretty close to the limit and I think he would give any of those guys a fight). But, you are talking about them fighting other large and highly trained individuals, not average sized people. And again you are talking about a sport fight; since when did that become the gold standard for predicting real world combative outcomes?
Let’s take the Bob Sapp vs Minotauro fight for example:
Pride/sport outcome- long drawn out fight where Sapp eventually gasses out and Nog arm bars him
Real world terrain outcome- Nog shoots for the double which Sapp stuff. Sapp then picks Nog up and pile drives him into the cement. Nog’s skull is split open and he dies from brain trauma
Of course you could argue that the smaller person might have a weapon that allowed them to overcome the larger one, or used the element of surprise to get the jump on the larger one, or had a bunch of buddies ready to jump in and help him, or been willing to escalate the ferocity level and gouged, bit, ripped or otherwise brutalized the bigger fighter and thus destroyed their will to continue fighting, but those are all just great examples that illustrate that sport combat is very different from real combat.
As others have stated the NCAA is, in the US, where amateur wrestlers go after hight school. The Universities dominate amateur athletics here. Brock’s Division 1 championship and record paint him as the best collegiate wrestler at heavyweight.
In the US the NCAA is often the step before international competition, and switching from folkstyle to either greco or freestyle. His championship isn’t the be all, end all of wrestling, but it IS a fairly big accomplishment. Anyone who achieves that is well past the “pretty good” level in athletics.
To All,
I have read a few posts that have characterized Brock Lesnar as “not making it” in fighting, or not being a “good” fighter. I don’t think that is at all fair. I didn’t root for the guy either, but he beat Randy Couture, Frank Mir, and Shane Carwin. He held and defended the UFC championship. He made a bunch of money. I don’t think he was ever the best in the world, but he certainly rose to the level of “good”.
If Lesnar wasn’t “good” than neither is anyone outside of the top 3 in the world. For the record that might mean Overeem hasn’t “made it” in MMA and isn’t good either(beaten exactly 2 top ten guys at HW, and one of them was a post surgery Brock).
I have multiple friends in the 6’3" to 6’6" 280-350lb range. Outwardly, yes they are very intimidating to some people. However, neither of them strike that hard or are good fighters.
Conversely, I have a couple friends that are 5’5" to 5’7" probably 155-160 with years of experience in combat sports. One of them is always looking for an excuse to fuck somebodies world up.
As others have stated the NCAA is, in the US, where amateur wrestlers go after hight school. The Universities dominate amateur athletics here. Brock’s Division 1 championship and record paint him as the best collegiate wrestler at heavyweight.
In the US the NCAA is often the step before international competition, and switching from folkstyle to either greco or freestyle. His championship isn’t the be all, end all of wrestling, but it IS a fairly big accomplishment. Anyone who achieves that is well past the “pretty good” level in athletics.
To All,
I have read a few posts that have characterized Brock Lesnar as “not making it” in fighting, or not being a “good” fighter. I don’t think that is at all fair. I didn’t root for the guy either, but he beat Randy Couture, Frank Mir, and Shane Carwin. He held and defended the UFC championship. He made a bunch of money. I don’t think he was ever the best in the world, but he certainly rose to the level of “good”.
If Lesnar wasn’t “good” than neither is anyone outside of the top 3 in the world. For the record that might mean Overeem hasn’t “made it” in MMA and isn’t good either(beaten exactly 2 top ten guys at HW, and one of them was a post surgery Brock).
Regards,
Robert A [/quote]
I was thinking along the same lines about Brock Lesnar. I don’t think I’d like to fight him on the street. People of that size and muscularity are why smaller people invented guns and knives.
[quote]furo wrote:
Also, on a side note, I not only think that technique is more important than size, I actually think in some cases size might be a disadvantage at the UFC level. I mean most of the successful heavyweights aren’t pushing the 265lb limit - JDS, Velasquez, Cormier, Werdum, Big Nog, Barnett, Kongo etc are all in the 230s or 240s - and the extra weight must have disadvantages in speed and endurance.
So all I’ve been saying is disputing cubuff2028’s implication that huge athletic football players could do very well in MMA with relatively little training. That’s all. [/quote]
Maybe in MMA you are right (though I think Overeem is pretty close to the limit and I think he would give any of those guys a fight). But, you are talking about them fighting other large and highly trained individuals, not average sized people. And again you are talking about a sport fight; since when did that become the gold standard for predicting real world combative outcomes?
Let’s take the Bob Sapp vs Minotauro fight for example:
Pride/sport outcome- long drawn out fight where Sapp eventually gasses out and Nog arm bars him
Real world terrain outcome- Nog shoots for the double which Sapp stuff. Sapp then picks Nog up and pile drives him into the cement. Nog’s skull is split open and he dies from brain trauma
Of course you could argue that the smaller person might have a weapon that allowed them to overcome the larger one, or used the element of surprise to get the jump on the larger one, or had a bunch of buddies ready to jump in and help him, or been willing to escalate the ferocity level and gouged, bit, ripped or otherwise brutalized the bigger fighter and thus destroyed their will to continue fighting, but those are all just great examples that illustrate that sport combat is very different from real combat.[/quote]
Yes I didn’t mean in a street fight, sorry. I was going off on a tangent and only referring to MMA.