Photo via Esther Lin / MMAFighting.com
Dave Meltzer's history in covering pro wrestling may be the reason that he's had some of the most insightful things to say on the retirement of Brock Lesnar, but the hits keep on coming. In his most recent edition of the Wrestling Observer newsletter, Meltzer talks about Lesnar's legacy and what he would do to champions from the UFC's past.
From the newsletter:
The next question is Lesnar's legacy. Most have been positive about it. The reality is he was an amazing athlete who won the title despite inexperience and a long layoff from competitive sports, succeeding based on athletic ability and a lifetime of wrestling to beat some solid people at their own game.
Others, whether blinded by their hate for Lesnar, pro wrestling, or UFC, have used this loss to say he was never any good, and discredit him. Some have written he was the worst UFC heavyweight champion in history, which is beyond laughable. If you line up every UFC champion in history, when they were champion vs. what short window of prime Lesnar had, Lesnar beats most of them almost every time. He'd pound Shamrock, Severn, Coleman, Randleman, Smith, Rodriguez, Sylvia and Mir into the mat when all of them were champions. He'd struggle with Couture before beating him the majority of the time if not almost every time. He'd beat the Josh Barnett when Barnett was champion, although I'm not sure what would happen if he fought today's Barnett. He'd lose most of the time to Cain Velasquez, because that's a bad style match for him. He may not beat Junior Dos Santos either, and as the sport evolves, he wouldn't beat the majority of the champions of the future. He was a legitimate champion for his time, even though he had major holes in his game, and brought a ton of new fans to the sport, and drew more than anyone in history.
I'm not really sure what the grand point of saying he'd beat men from a different era is. Guys like Shamrock, Mo Smith, Dan Severn and so on are hardly men that Lesnar's ability to dominate is particularly meaningful when discussing legacy.
Still, Lesnar's accomplishments shouldn't be diminished. What he was able to do with his experience level was impressive. When I wrote the article questioning his retirement and legacy across all his endeavors it wasn't meant to belittle what he did achieve.
That being said, I think it's fair to question how good he truly was or could have been given that we can't really know if the same results would have happened against Velasquez and Overeem had Lesnar not had the issues with diverticulitis.
0 recs | 98 comments
The point of him saying he'd beat all those guys
Was a response to the point that people said he was the worst HW champion. By pointing out that he would’ve beaten those guys, he refutes that point.
The Burning Scheyer Jersey - January 6, 2012
I guess the question is, isn't it obvious Lesnar would beat the old-school champs?
I mean Kevin Randleman is tiny next to Lesnar. Randleman wrestled in college at 177 pounds. I think it would go without saying that if you could build a time machine and transport the Randleman of UFC 23 and the Lesnar of UFC 100 into the same Octagon, Lesnar would squash Randleman.
MichaelDavidSmith - January 6, 2012
Man what a shitty argument on Meltzer's part
That’s like saying a T-72 tank would wreck the shit out of a Cromwell tank. No kidding, guy, the fighter of today is an actual mixed martial arist, it’s no longer the mixing of martial arts. Sometimes that dude needs to be slapped, can we do a group buy on a plane ticket for psychoblack?
menckenstein - January 6, 2012
except Brock's not an actual mixed martial artist
he’s a wrestler with a tiny bit of sub training and almost no striking game.
Kid Nate - January 6, 2012
Yes, because MMA has never seen a wrestling focused champion without much in the way of striking.
Oh, whoops!
MicahtheCynic - January 6, 2012
Man look at those gloves...
menckenstein - January 6, 2012
Hughes had many more years of MMA training than Lesnar
he’s virtually a BJJ blackbelt for god’s sake. Lesnar’s a blue belt level at best. And Hughes doesn’t flinch when he’s punched.
Kid Nate - January 6, 2012
Uh, Matt’s never had the best chin.
MicahtheCynic - January 6, 2012
He does the wave, hehe.
But Lesnar’s BJJ coach is COMPRIDO, man!
menckenstein - January 6, 2012
Comprido reckoned Lesnar was purple belt level in the run up to UFC 100
KJ Gould - January 6, 2012
But in the era of MMA that we're in that's no excuse, especially when you're a millionaire with two/three amazing grappling coaches.
There wasn’t that kind of crosstraining available in the neolithic days of MMA and Matt Hughes and Sakuraba did pretty well for themselves against “actual mixed martial artists”
menckenstein - January 6, 2012
he's not making excuses for Brock
he’s pointing out a fact. Brock wasn’t a modern MMA fighter. He was a freak athlete with a great wrestling background who was able to walk into MMA and win the UFC title in his 4th fight. It won’t happen ever again.
Kid Nate - January 6, 2012
I agree with that last bit. I'm more impressed by his smashing of Herring than I am of his win over Randy
I am not trying to take away that he won the championship belt in that fight but Randy had been out for a long time, was a lot smaller, a lot older and given how his fights since then have gone, it was basically the stars aligning for Brock to do what he did (in terms of a newbie with one strong skill set becoming champ). Nobody else will have as easy a time (unless they’re already famous coming into the sport) reaching a title shot and there’s no Old Man Randy to take the belt from.
menckenstein - January 6, 2012
Brock would have been a great champion
if he was not such a quitter. He had all the talent. He got in late. But we all knew he wouldn’t last more than 6 or 7 fights. This guy does not stay in one sport for too long. I loved his fights, except the last two which he clearly just showed up to cash his paycheck.
SheepleBuster - January 6, 2012
There's a flip-side to that coin that I've mulled over for awhile.
I sometimes wonder what would have happened if you could take say a prime Mark Coleman, and bring him into modern MMA complete with today’s training and knowledge. He may very well have beaten a lot of the top guys today; who knows. The point is, it’s always silly to compare the athletes of yesterday with the athletes of today as if they are all on some level playing field. The sports change, so it’s not fair to say “Brock Lesnar would’ve destroyed Mark Coleman when he was champion.”
Example: I’m willing to bet today’s Frank Mir beats the Frank Mir who won the title. However, if THAT Frank Mir had been forced to compete in today’s MMA, in today’s HW division, he would have had to step up his game, and most likely would have done just that. There’s no way to know, and no fair way to make a comparison.
Machiel Van - January 6, 2012
Yeah that’s why it doesn’t work. The closest thing you could do is imagine all of the fighters at an equal skill set and then compare size, speed and strength. I think it’d be hard to find an ex UFC champ that can compare with him in that area, but it really doesn’t matter. You just can’t compare guys from different era’s.
DayGeaux - January 6, 2012
Kerr or Coleman would be my picks
menckenstein - January 6, 2012
Kerr before the downfall is hard to beat. He was a lot like Coleman except better subs and cardio.
DayGeaux - January 6, 2012
And he saved the world from SAFTA
menckenstein - January 6, 2012
It was Vitor who smashed Jon Hess.
Kerr put an end to Greg Stott and the RIP (Ranger Intensive Program).
rabrown - January 7, 2012
I think the best we could say is what potential did a historical fighter have
If we are going to project at all we are going to have to look at what is missing from a fighters game hypothesize whether they would have been able to make up those deficits going forward.
I very strong case can be made that an elite historical fighter CAN improve over time. I feel Randy Couture improved his standup considerably over time. Yves Edwards has become much faster on his feet in recent years. But the real deal is Dan Henderson. I frankly thought he was done after his back-to-back title unification losses. But this guy is, if anything looking better than ever.
But then there is the question, what makes a guy like Mark Coleman different from Dan Henderson? Why has Hendo excelled and Coleman floundered? I think it has to do with a personalty type that actually has a degree of curiosity about becoming a better fighter, and maybe enjoying the process of training. I obviously don’t know Coleman but from what I have seen in the cage, has never really done much to evolve his game.
So projecting these ideas onto Brock, we would need to know whether Brock is more like Hendo or more like The Hammer. A young, hungry Brock Lesnar, one who wasn’t already financially settled, one who wanted to fight MMA as a primary career, would, I feel have been able to grow into the sport and cross train the various MMA disciplines – just like a Cain Velasquez has done – and gone on to become a real legend in the sport.
Imagine Brock in PRIDE in 2004 rather than transferring NJPW after his stint in the WWE. (We no offers made?) We would have seen Brock/Big Nog, Brock/CroCop, or at least Brock/Bob Sapp. Who knows… even Brock/Fedor. He would have lost a few but he also would have won a bunch as well. And I think he would have become a major draw in UFC for both is pro wrestling background, as well as his success in PRIDE.
jackbox - January 6, 2012
I question if he'd beat Coleman when Coleman was champ
If Brock had been born a decade earlier and they’d fought in 1997 then it would have been a matchup of two wrestlers. This was before cross-training became the norm, so I don’t know if a wrestling only Brock has any advantage over a 1997 wrestling only Coleman.
This is also why I hate comparing fighters from different eras.
John Nash - January 6, 2012
I think Coleman would have the advantage in the wrestling departmant, but Brock’s spped and size could be the difference maker if they had fought. Brock’s just such a huge, fast, and agile guy. Man would I have loved to see that fight!
DayGeaux - January 6, 2012
Coleman by head-butt.
Dave Strummer - January 6, 2012
Lesnar won his title and defended it consecutively twice
Randy Couture and Tim Sylvia are the only other Heavyweights to have done so.
Sylvia beat Arlovski and defended against Arlovski and Monson in hideous matches before losing to Couture.
Randy Couture won it off Kevin Randleman and defended twice against Pedro Rizzo.
Lesnar beating Couture, Mir and Carwin is definitely a bigger achievement considering Mir had bounced back with a win over him, and the first to stop Antonio Nogueira. Plus Carwin was an undefeated wrecking machine when he faced Lesnar.
Lesnar is far from the worst UFC Heavyweight champion ever.
KJ Gould - January 6, 2012
it’s laughable to call Lesnar the wost Heavyweight champ ever. Or even a bad Heavyweight champ. The attacks on Lesnar are almost the same attacks on Fedor. It is true that both have big questions hovering over their careers, but for reasons that probably have little to do with their in-ring performances, people feel the need to denigrate their records.
John Nash - January 6, 2012
Um..we talkin about the same guy who showed up for a paycheck in his last fight?
Lets not praise a guy who quit on the promotion and the fans in his last bout. Don’t tell me its okay to phone in fights, then quit, and please dont tell me he didn’t phone in the Reem fight. He sucker 750,000 people out of their money. “best I’ve ever been” my ass
warren305 - January 6, 2012
No one is ever going to say "Hey, I feel awful, I really shouldn't be in there"
What else was he going to say other than “best I’ve ever been”? All fighters say that.
KJ Gould - January 6, 2012
*
except Tito
Phildo - January 6, 2012
OMGitsME - January 6, 2012
phoned it in?
Let’s be fair here. He didn’t get a chance to take the Reem down, he got caught with some nasty knees by (arguably) the best striker in MMA, and didn’t get a chance to carry out his gameplan. He looked a little gunshy, but I would too after eating some Uberknees.
It was almost the same as Cain’s fight with JDS. They knew they couldn’t just dive in for a shot, had bad luck with their first shot, and got taken out by better strikers. Are you saying Cain phoned it in?
thirdparty - January 6, 2012
Quality wins over quality opponents
The Carwin win for me is his highlight match. Apart from the excitement of Carwin coming close to getting the win, seeing Lesnar come back and sub Shane was truly a remarkable moment.
jackbox - January 6, 2012
Who is Meltzer referring to
When he says, “Some have written he was the worst UFC heavyweight champion in history”? When I google “worst UFC heavyweight champion” I can’t find a single person who has ever written that Lesnar is the worst UFC heavyweight champion.
MichaelDavidSmith - January 6, 2012
CollegeDropIn
Rob Young - January 6, 2012
My thought exactly
I think Meltzer is throwing up a giant straw man.
Most of the criticisms I’ve seen about Lesnar have been about his heart and his commitment to the sport. I have seen virtually no debate about the quality of his athleticism, or his potential. Quite to the contrary, I think it’s that potential — which wasn’t every truly fulfilled — that causes people to question him.
Dave Strummer - January 6, 2012
Doubt it's any reputable source
Just angry Youtube fanboys and the like
Cunny - January 6, 2012
I do not believe we will never really know Brocks legacy until a couple of years from now.
Are the fans that he brought in permanent or will they pick up their steel chairs and leave the arena. One cannot deny that Brock made an impact and that he fought the top of the division at that time and now. While I will never deny Lesnar took tough fights, brought fans and more media exposure to the UFC, I cant say with certainty that these positives will stay with the UFC post-Brock.
dandeman - January 6, 2012
I enjoyed his fights and ordered all of his pay per views.
At first I wanted him to lose, then I just wanted to watch his fights win or lose. The Carwin fight definitely was what won him over with me and many people.
I think he had a huge short term effect on UFC and MMA in general. But I have to think you pose a valid question about “will those positives stay with the UFC post Brock.” I don’t think they will very long. I think the fact that he didn’t have that many fights will hurt him in the end. I think many people looking back will be fixated on his record and just think of him as nothing more than a celebrity who had a very brief, yet successful, fight career.
RashadsLeftNipple - January 6, 2012
Lawdy lawdy
This argument reads like a fucking Sherdog forum post.
Subbevil - January 6, 2012
uh oh
Our Bovine Public - January 6, 2012
It is an interesting question though.
What would happen if a 260lbs+ one dimensional wrestler with crazy athleticism was in MMA a decade or so ago, but had problems with getting hit?
Oh. Ok.
pdl - January 6, 2012
Imagine if Karelin was born about a decade later.
memitim - January 6, 2012 via mobile
I get it, but Mark Kerr was never the athlete that Lesnar was (speed disparity). I’d argue Coleman was actually the superior athlete between himself and Kerr, Kerr was just more aggressive.
Machiel Van - January 6, 2012
I wonder why...
[scene from Smashing Machine where Mark tosses out all his prescription confidence]
menckenstein - January 6, 2012
Come on, you think Coleman was training on good steaks at the time? They were all juiced up then, take a look at guys like Kimo, Coleman and Shamrock.
sheikybaby - January 6, 2012
That much is obvious but Kerr is the only one who was that badly ruined
menckenstein - January 6, 2012
Shamrock aint pretty either
dandeman - January 6, 2012
But he's still an articulate human being capable of leading a normal life.
menckenstein - January 6, 2012
Maybe in stringing 4 or 5 coherent words together yes, having good insight and judgment no.
dandeman - January 6, 2012
Brock didn't lose to natural 205ers though.
MicahtheCynic - January 6, 2012
Brock was tremendously gifted athletically, especially for his size. He used that to overcome many of the fighters he faced but once that advantage was negated he really didn’t have any answers and never tried to develop any. Still, he was fascinating in many ways.
memitim - January 6, 2012 via mobile
MMA fans
Are the quickest fans to bury someone after they lose. It happened with Arlovksi, it happened with Fedor, and it is happening with Brock. Never mind that these men were at the top of their sports for an extended period of time, as soon as they lose, fans want to bury them. The same will happen the first time Jon Jones gets beaten. People will get on here and be like “OVERRATED, HE WAS NEVER GOOD, HE WAS LUCKY”. Lesnar was hardly the worst HW champion ever, and did more with less than any other modern day MMA fighter.
HeadKickOfDoom - January 6, 2012
I dunno man...
He was a champion collegiate athlete with millions of dollars to fund his own training camp, bringing in whoever he wanted to do whatever he wanted. He hardly had “nothing” to work with.
menckenstein - January 6, 2012
Yup
“do whatever he wanted” like NOT get hit in the face.
nickrodamous - January 6, 2012
Really?
this isn’t sherdog give people here a bit more credit.
nickrodamous - January 6, 2012
I didn't say everyone
But the majority of MMA fandom is ready to bury a guy when his time comes to an end. The list goes on and on really. Rich Franklin is literally the best example of this. The man went 22 -1, with 21 finishes to start his career. He dropped two fights to Anderson Silva, lost a razor close decision to Dan Henderson, got KOed by Vitor and dropped a decision to Forrest, and if you talk to like 95% of MMA fans, they will be like “Rich Franklin isn’t that good”. MMA fans are the worst example of “what have you done for me lately” mentality. I don’t mean this as an insult or anything, it is really just my observation.
HeadKickOfDoom - January 6, 2012
It’s pretty similar to boxing in this regard, but more pronounced in high level MMA because the athletes don’t fight as many times in their careers. For a lot of fans, at a glance a 50-4 record with wins mostly against “cans” (I just can’t use that term without the quotes, always feels very disrespectful) is much better than a 16-4 record with wins against nothing but top competition. MMA and boxing just aren’t sports where stat sheets tell the tale of someone’s career; it requires context and a decent amount of knowledge to understand what a combat sports athlete’s record means, hence it requires effort to understand, and a lot of fans won’t have the desire or time to familiarize themselves enough with the ebbs and flows of the sport to really get it.
Machiel Van - January 6, 2012
I think you will probably find...
…that those who railed against a given fighter did so consistently. It’s not like someone was a huge fan and then become dump machines. Anti-Brock folks mixed with those who have legit, but respectful criticisms of Brock’s career probably make it seem like a ground swell. But this is the way things seem to go. Eventually things will settle down and Brock’s place will be secured.
jackbox - January 6, 2012
I agree with Luck Rockhold
100% what he said is spot on. Now the question is was Brock the biggest bust in UFC history? According to this site a few months back it was Shogun…who went on to KO Forrest then put on the best MMA fight ever.
nickrodamous - January 6, 2012
Bust don’t win belts. Bust go fishing in Privlaka.
DayGeaux - January 6, 2012
Not sure who Luck Rockhold is, but what Luke said made him look like a douche, and he wasn’t right. Saying Brock wasn’t a “real fighter” is idiotic.
People who aren’t real fighters don’t do shit like this:
MicahtheCynic - January 6, 2012
Opps
LUKE* sorry I am not worthy……..but for real what he said is right and not idiotic at all. It didn’t look like he tried to hard in his last 2 fights.
nickrodamous - January 6, 2012
Saying someone who reached a level in MMA that Rockhold will never reach “isn’t a fighter” reeks of someone who is just jealous of someone else’s success.
MicahtheCynic - January 6, 2012
If I ever get banned from BE I'll come back as Luck Boulderclench.
Rob Young - January 6, 2012
Everyone that wins is the best everyone who loses is the worst, there is no in between, welcome to the internet.
Phildo - January 6, 2012
Meltzer, stick to pro wrestling, i hear you know what you’re talking about on that subject. Meltzer is good for finding out PPV figures, Meltzer the MMA historian fucking stinks.
sheikybaby - January 6, 2012
“Dave Meltzer’s history in covering pro wrestling may be the reason that he’s had some of the most insightful things to say on the retirement of Brock Lesnar”
That post goes with what I was going to say about the opening quote. Meltzer has covered MMA far longer than most of the current “hardcore” MMA fans even knew it existed. His vast knowledge of the history of the sport mixed with his history of the business makes him one of the very few legit people who cover MMA.
Look at how he was able to use both to completely embarass many MMA sights when the first numbers for UFC on Fox came out. MMA sights were running around with the first number reported and acting like it was a complete failure. Meltzer, having a clue of how to be a professional, waited for the more accurate number and was able to put it in context.
The fact that his banner is “pro wrestling” he’s wrongly dismissed out of hand by fanboys wanting to act cool, when in reality he’s probably the most reliable and long-term source for MMA news.
ChicagoMMAFan - January 6, 2012
Cool....
so you must subscribe to his newsletter do you have to pay for that? and good for him he has the inside info when it comes to nelson.
nickrodamous - January 6, 2012
Nielsen Ratings.
nickrodamous - January 6, 2012
You don't need inside info on Nielsen Ratings
they are released. What he has is the experience and knowledge of how to interpret them.
Again, to my point, he has a vast knowledge base for MMA… and no, I don’t subscribe to the newsletter, not really sure what my subscribing or not subscribing has anything to do with Meltzer’s credentials in covering MMA
ChicagoMMAFan - January 6, 2012
I almost rather listen to Jim Ross talk about MMA
jackbox - January 6, 2012
My take away from this.
A lot of excuses for Lesnar. Basically using MMA math to explain how he would win against the Dan Severns and Ken Shamrocks 18 years ago. Funny he didn’t mention how he would do against Fedor. Who unlike Lesnar seems to have reinvented himself after a few humbling losses.
nickrodamous - January 6, 2012
Fedor is an all time great...
Meltzer is defending the people he’s heard say Lesnar is the worst UFC champ ever. Two completely different arguments.
ChicagoMMAFan - January 6, 2012
What does Fedor have to do with anything?
Obviously, Fedor’s MMA career was far superior to Lesnar’s. Not sure what that has to do with this discussion.
MichaelDavidSmith - January 6, 2012
It has to do with the list of names he dropped
and Fedor is curiously absent. He admits how Cain would beat him most of the time and even how JDS would most likely beat him as well.
nickrodamous - January 6, 2012
when was Fedor UFC champion?
Phildo - January 6, 2012
Wait... you're serious with this?
Chris Barton - January 6, 2012
why’d you do that? This could have been easy, I got the one liner about how he missed the part where he was being compared to UFC champions, we all could have laughed and moved on. Now we’re going to have 3000 comments of Fedor bullshit. I hate you.
Phildo - January 6, 2012
You see
I was gone for a couple weeks. I need this to acclimate.
Chris Barton - January 6, 2012
Brock Lesnar was awesome.
MicahtheCynic - January 6, 2012
Brock was good for the sport
Thanks for helping us get there man.
menckenstein - January 6, 2012
"Hope you didn't pay for the last one"
warren305 - January 6, 2012
I just don't get this.
warren305 - January 6, 2012
so then you're wondering..
Rob Young - January 6, 2012
Lesnar was an odd case
He was athletic enough to beat the old guard of the UFC HW division, not good enough to compete with the newer incarnation of the same division.
discoandherpes - January 6, 2012
His timing was perfect. Great stroke of luck for the UFC.
He used star power to get himself into the UFC, bridged the gap between the “generations” and brought a lot of new eyes to the sport, most people won’t remember this sad showing against Overeem because history is kind to champions (usually).
menckenstein - January 6, 2012
Yup
I don’t like him at all which made it such a good moment when he folded in half via a liver kick but he was good for the UFC I can at least admit that.
nickrodamous - January 6, 2012
Poor Brockle.
Sucks to be Brockle, right about now, but there you go.
Unabomberman - January 6, 2012
Why are you talking about diverticulitis when mentioning Overeem? What's the connection? He was cured when they fought?
Overeem? Eh?
Robust23 - January 6, 2012
You’re never cured of diverticulitis. And if you think the Brock in there against Overeem last week was the same than the one against Mir at UFC 100, well you’re wrong.
Shnak - January 6, 2012
what the f’ evidence do you have of that? Are you his doctor? When the inflamed/infected diverticula are resected you no longer have diverticulitis. His ass getting beat doesn’t mean he was suffering from diverticulitis at the time.
“You’re wrong” is a bullshit argument
Robust23 - January 6, 2012
but the argument that losing a large piece of his colon and sitting out for so long and having multiple major surgeries would have no effect is somehow not bullshit, interesting.
Phildo - January 6, 2012
Explain to me please scientifically why losing a piece of colon would effect this fight? Also explain to me how the 1st surgery effected his performance at 141 or even the 2nd.
I have trouble seeing why when the fighter himself states he feels fine and in good health, when his training partners said he’s training harder than ever & looks better than ever, when his doctors gave him a clean bill of health and told him he’s good to fight, that you somehow know better.
Robust23 - January 6, 2012
Not when you're fucking wrong.
MicahtheCynic - January 6, 2012
based on fucking what?
Robust23 - January 6, 2012
the Brock fans have myths that they need to believe
Like Brock from UFC 100 would have beat the Reem. Or at least wouldn’t have had such a pathetic showing.
Let them believe what they want.
The Lethal Haze - January 6, 2012
The big thing about Lesnar is his inexperience.
Athletes from the beginning era of MMA were just as inexperienced as Lesnar. He came in only knowing his wrestling and made it to the top of the heep of the modern MMA 265 lb. weight class. Lesnar was a force to be reckoned with. I think that he still is. He could easily be a middle of the pack heavyweight at this point. And being able to even compete in the UFC heavyweight division with little experience is pretty impressive if you ask me.
RyanHobbs - January 6, 2012
Disagree with the Coleman assessment
Coleman was extremely athletic albiet one dimensional, he would have given Brock problems with his wrestling in his prime for sure, people discount Coleman he won the UFC HW championship and the Pride HW GP, that is quite the accomplishment.
elmojo - January 7, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bloody Elbow to post a comment.