[quote]ZEB wrote:
kmcnyc wrote:
People seem to really be playing up the Div I NCAA title…
Sento seems to have caught on- maybe a few more.
Carwin’s choice of school had more to do with where he wrestled, then his ability.
You’re saying he could have wrestled at a division I school but chose not to. The fact remains he competed against division II wrestlers and there is a difference between division I and division II, that’s why they have different divisions. Hence, winning a division II title, while impressive, is not as impressive as winning a division I title.
I can also tell you that Lesnar is NOT the wrestling phenom you people want him to be.
Why don’t we look at his record to determine how good he is. He had a 33-0 record his senior year in HS. He then went on to have a 106-5 record in College winning the NCAA division I (not II) championship his senior year. Before that he was ranked as the number one HW of the big ten.
Certainly an impressive career. I don’t think that he’s the best wrestler to ever set foot in the Octagon. Obviously there are more impressive wrestlers, but his wrestling pedigree is quite good and certainly better than Shane Carwin’s by leaps and bounds.
I can tell you first hand the difference between HS, D3, D1 and international competition.
and how at each level the game changes, unless your a heavyweight.
most other weights from 55 to 100 kg are far far more competitive then Heavy.
Just by the fact that there are less big people.
and less big people who get to that level.
But he beat them all, the best that the country had to offer at division I.
and for all the people saying his wrestling is great. I’m not sure there are as many saying he was a great wrestler as there are people saying that everyone thinks he’s a great wrestler. Odd huh?
go watch his youtube stuff on him wrestling
its not that good,
Naw, he’s no good at all. I think it was just luck that caused him to win the NCAA title in division I. Yea that’s it, luck.
when your bigger, stronger , faster then most if not all of your competition.
This is the second time (both on this thread) where the words “bigger, stronger or faster” are actually used as a put down when it comes to Brock Lesnar. This now borders on the comical.
Karelin.
No comparison.
None.
I agree that Brock Lesnar sure could never have competed with perhaps the greatest olympic wrestler of all time. Wasn’t Alaxander Karelin undefeated for 13 straight years? Wow. But, what does that really mean? What other mma athlete with a wrestling background could have competed with Karelin? Certainly not Couture, Kerr, Henderson, Lindlin, Coleman or any of the other really good mma wrestlers. What does that prove? And furthermore how come you’re not on this (or any other) thread demeaning those wrestlers for not being the greatest?
Before people get their panties wet, and say I’m discrediting Lesnar.
there always seems to be someone
Don’t wear panties, but you are certainly discrediting Lesnar, but you have a reason, you don’t like him. And (most) people will simply not give much or any credit to people they don’t like. Simple.
his take downs average. Yes I said it.
That’s funny usually when you are successful at 90% of your takedowns as Lesnar was in his final year of College (before winning the NCCA’s) most would say that you have strong takedowns. Didn’t he also takedown everyone he’s been in an mma match with? But I guess none of this matters if you don’t like someone you don’t allow facts to get in the way of a first class berating.
His striking less then average
Let’s see he knocked down Couture, sent Herring rolling ass over head and beat Frank Mir to a bloody pulp. I think his striking is quite good based on what he’s done so far, but then again I don’t base my analysis on emotion.
People can say he beat Randy a real wrestler, I say sure , an old as dirt dude giving up 50 lbs.
That’s funny most people polled by the UFC (and many on this board) thought that Couture was going to beat Lesnar. If he had lost it would have been Captain America to the rescue. But, since he won Couture is too old. Got it!
and Mir, well Mir made a mistake
Have you noticed something about people who win? They cause their opponents to make mistakes, they make their opponents play their game. Mir had no game because Lesnar took it away from him.
His mediocre skill set
He’s knocked opponents down, he’s taken them down and he’s kept them down, but for some reason he’s only mediocre.
Maybe I am missing something?
Yes, you can’t detach your emotion from your analysis.
I am not surprised at his winnings, look at him
the only time I might say that size would trump technique
Size doesn’t really trump technique, check out Bob Sapp, he outweighs Lesnar by 80+ pounds and is a good 2" taller as well and he’s lost many times to smaller more skilled opponents. There are others out there bigger and taller who have not made an impact. But if you have both size and skill as Lesnar does then you are deserving of respect, even if you don’t like him personally, or should I say his persona.
I’m not saying the guy can’t be beaten because on any given night anyone can be beaten. But, he is a very skillful guy who has shown that he can get better with every fight. Keep in mind I don’t like his public persona. He’s an obnoxious ego driven moron, at least that’s how he acts, maybe in private he’s a different man. But, I will give him his due. Brock Lesnar is real force to be reckoned with and not only because of his size, strength and speed, but because of the skills he brings into the Octagon. It’s okay to boo your favorite villain, but try to use some analytical skill and give him credit for his ability while continuing to hate him for his obnoxious behavior.
You sound butt hurt about the whole post.
[/quote]
