Sonnen on Lesnar: he wasn't a good wrestler

I think it's a fair assessment to say someone got their results through sheer size advantage rather than being technically sound. That's not, in and of itself, denigrating.

With those physical advantages, you'd never have to develop the type of technical approach that 99% of others do. So in that sense he may not be a "good" wrestler. I'll take uncle Chanel's word on that.
 
Seems a stretch to say an NCAA D1 champion "wasn't good”.
yea, although i think lesnar agrees w the sentiment that he wasnt the most skilled but just a brute - this is at the elite level so he obv does know something about wrestling

sonnen knows how to get people talking - by making really provocative statements and defending w that intensity that he brings
 
It's insane to call someone effective, but not good. The point of wrestling is to win, if you win while following the rules, you are a good wrestler. And Sonnen said Brock won the NCAA title due to circumstances, but from his explanation of "circumstances," it's dumb. He followed all the rules, didn't have unfair referee/judges, didn't face opponents with injuries, etc.

Having a title due to favorable circumstances is like Overeem's K1 title. Ubereem was absolutely an elite Kickboxer, but he did have a very favorable tournament run. His K1 title is legit though
 
You highlighted the wrong points. I've Offered some editorial advice.

Angle is an Olympic gold medalist. Chael is a relative jobber.

I think I'll go w/ Angle's "“We were doing take-downs, and it was very, very tight,” Angle remembered. “Brock showed me that he knows how to wrestle. A lot of heavyweights are big and strong and know how to use their weight, but Brock knew how to wrestle. He was a lightweight who grew into a heavyweight body, and he brought that technique with him. That’s how good Brock was." over whatever Chael says here.
 
Last edited:
It's insane to call someone effective, but not good. The point of wrestling is to win, if you win while following the rules, you are a good wrestler. And Sonnen said Brock won the NCAA title due to circumstances, but from his explanation of "circumstances," it's dumb. He followed all the rules, didn't have unfair referee/judges, didn't face opponents with injuries, etc.

Having a title due to favorable circumstances is like Overeem's K1 title. Ubereem was absolutely an elite Kickboxer, but he did have a very favorable tournament run. His K1 title is legit though
He didn't say he was not good
 
"Although Brock was technically sound, Angle said that he did not score a point on him.

Angle is an Olympic Gold Medalist. Context matters, Dalek.
 
Last edited:
Angle is an Olympic 3x gold medalist. Chael is a relative jobber.

I think I'll go w/ Angle's "“We were doing take-downs, and it was very, very tight,” Angle remembered. “Brock showed me that he knows how to wrestle. A lot of heavyweights are big and strong and know how to use their weight, but Brock knew how to wrestle. He was a lightweight who grew into a heavyweight body, and he brought that technique with him. That’s how good Brock was." over whatever Chael says here.
Yeah, but the part I highlighted is the part where the two of them are in obvious agreement.

The part you highlighted isn't even an obvious disagreement.
 
Chael says some real intelligent things sometimes, then goes off the rails with comments like this.

Coming from one of the best wrestlers in the game, he should have given Brock more respect than that.
 
LOL @ Lesnar not being good. Chael is trolling you guys hard. Whether or not he used muscle or technique doesn't matter, he was still good. Period. The rest is just BS.
 
I think it's a fair assessment to say someone got their results through sheer size advantage rather than being technically sound. That's not, in and of itself, denigrating.

With those physical advantages, you'd never have to develop the type of technical approach that 99% of others do. So in that sense he may not be a "good" wrestler. I'll take uncle Chanel's word on that.

True. You see the same thing in other sports. Some guys in the NFL are physical freaks, and perform better than others who are more disciplined and work harder on their technique and skills.
 
All that matters is whether Lesnar's wrestling translates well into MMA.
 
According to the OP, that's exactly what he said.

It's all relative. Technically, Lesnar probably wasn't that "good" compared to other guys at the top of NCAA Div 1. However, if you put him on the mat with an NFL lineman who had the same physical gifts but only a high school wrestling background, Lesnar would look like a great technician.
 
"...According to Angle, Lesnar thought that he would dominate the match due to his size advantage. Lesnar was not only taller than Angle, but at about 300 pounds, held about an 80-pound weight advantage.

But Angle was undeterred as he used his impeccable technique to best the future UFC Heavyweight Champion.

“Brock was in the ring with Big Show,” Angle said. “He was literally throwing this 530-pound man around the ring like a little kid. I’d never seen anyone lift up Big Show like that without his help, but Brock was picking him up and throwing him around.”

“I said to Big Show, ‘Get out of the ring.’ Then I tapped Brock on the should and said, ‘Let’s go.’ And that’s when we started.”

“I know I’m not the biggest person, but I’ve annihilated people a lot bigger than me,” he said. “You’re one of the best in the world as an NCAA champion like Brock, but when you’re an Olympic gold medalist, that’s a whole other level. The guys who saw Brock and I wrestle that witnessed how much of a gap there is between the two.”

With two massive competitors (and egos) the intensity escalated rather quickly.


“We were doing take-downs, and it was very, very tight,” Angle remembered. “Brock showed me that he knows how to wrestle. A lot of heavyweights are big and strong and know how to use their weight, but Brock knew how to wrestle. He was a lightweight who grew into a heavyweight body, and he brought that technique with him. That’s how good Brock was.”


Although Brock was technically sound, Angle said that he did not score a point on him.

“When I got done with him, I didn’t want to wrestle him again,” Angle said...."
- Kurt Angle.
I read this in Kurt Angles voice in my head every time I see it quoted.
 
Sonnen says he was an effective wrestler, but not a good one.

He says that in the NCAA finals the year Lesnar won, he weighed in at 265. His opponent weighed in at 220.

He says that even with a 45 lb weight advantage, he needed double overtime to win the match. It's also very easy to Stall your way to overtime when you are pretty close talent wise in wrestling if the refs allow it.

He then says that there aren't many wrestlers alive who, given a 45 lb advantage, couldn't put that guy away in about 30 seconds.

There is no way Hand was 220 lol. They both are pretty close in size. Hand has much bigger thighs and thicker core

 
As with most things i don't think you can determine a good wrestler by 1 attribute. Its size, condition, technique, strength, etc....

A perfect wrestler has 10 "points" on each. But thats non-existant as i have never seen ANYONE being a 10 at size yet also a 10 at speed and strenght.
Brock might be "only" a 6 on technique, but he's definatly a 10 at size and strenght and for a guy as massive as him his conditioning is at least an 8.

So what determines a good wrestler? Sounds to me like chael is only talking about technique, and he might be right. But when you also take size, strength and condition into account, he's one of the best.

It's all a matter of interpretation of a "good wrestler".
 
Back
Top