Brock Lesnar or Ken Shamrock?

[greatdara]

Whose MMA career you prefer?
Whose "wrestling" career entertained you more?
Would you pay to see them fued over this in wwe?

 

[greatdara]

And if you think about this, win or lose at UFC 200, this is a natural feud for Brock. If he wins, Ken comes back as the crazy heel veteran (a la Bob Backlund). If he losses, Ken comes back to gloat and rub it in. :-D

 

[Big Burly]

For MMA, I'm a big Shamrock fan, especially for his early UFC, Pancrase, and Pride fights. He's still fighting, but he should have retired long ago. A slight breeze can KO him now.

Lesnar had a really good early career in pro wrestling, and his current run is a damned fine attraction. BUT, I was a fan of Ken's PW career, too. He had a good move set, and played his character in WWF/E well. Shamrock, IMHO could carry a lesser wrestler to a better match than Lesnar could.

 

[greatdara]

I never saw Shamrock's MMA work but always thought he was a GREAT upper middle tier worker in wwe. His style was crisper and he seemed a complete natural in the ring. He also introduced the ankle lock! I too prefer his run to Brock's especially because he managed to be competitive in a field with the likes of Bret Hart, Austin, Owen, early Rock, Undertaker.

 

[greatdara]

And oh yeah, despite the millions that Brock makes from PPV, I think few would seriously despute the case that as Ken as is one of the 3 fighters who "made" MMA, he is a far bigger deal in MMA.

 

[Bang Bang]

brock via shooting star press in an mma match




oh, you mean, who is betta, career wise? uhhh. brock. because he didnt take dives and he has legit titles, fake wrestling titles that mean something.


I hear he had an amateur career as well, but who cares about that shit

 

[greatdara]

But for me personally I would take being a pioneer in 2 different areas over being the 1 in 21 and 1. and the 5 and 3 MMA record. But that's just me. :-D

 

[Frank23]

Brock has made more money and Ken has been downright embarrassing for the last decade. It's an easy choice.

 

[Wrath of Foamy]

Brock Lesnar wins both.

Ken Shamrock was a pioneer in early MMA and has beaten some fellow legends of the spot, but Brock was the Heavyweight Champion. Brock is also still winning fights, unlike Ken.

Ken Shamrock was a great wrestler back in the day, but he was never the spectacle that Brock was/is. Brock is an anomaly, a unique wrestler who has stolen shows left right and centre.

I've heard other MMA fighters state just how strong a wrestler Ken was, but his skills were wrecked because of the damage that he took during his WWE career.

 

[sleepwalk]

Brock Lesnar wins both.

Ken Shamrock was a pioneer in early MMA and has beaten some fellow legends of the spot, but Brock was the Heavyweight Champion. Brock is also still winning fights, unlike Ken.

Ken Shamrock was a great wrestler back in the day, but he was never the spectacle that Brock was/is. Brock is an anomaly, a unique wrestler who has stolen shows left right and centre.

I've heard other MMA fighters state just how strong a wrestler Ken was, but his skills were wrecked because of the damage that he took during his WWE career.

I'd have to agree with this part.

MMA is kind of a draw (no pun intended,) but Brock's ability to be both submission/shoot fighter and a monster heel makes for a better wrestling product.