Was Brock Lesnar title shot deserved with a 2-1 record?

[Takes Two To Tango]

(I know there is a topic about it recently, but it didn't have a poll. So I'd like to see what the numbers are like.)

It's obvious to me the UFC wanted to fast track Lesnar with his massive hype and popularity. Imagine if Lesnar lost along the way to getting the title shot, which could have easily happen and his hype train and their cash cow would have been over. So I understand why the UFC did what they did. So they gave him a tailor made fighter for Lesnar in Heath Herring (who was ranked #10 at the time I believe).

Therefore he has a really good chance in beating him and he did. So thus skyrocketing Lesnar to a title shot against Couture.

Tell me this any other HW in history with a 2-1 record and only beating Heath Herring and Min Soo-Kim (who had a 2-6 record when he fought Brock) would have got a title shot just like Brock?

It's simply undeserving, he needed at least 3 good wins in the top 10 imo to get a solid shot to a title. Just because he had no professional combat fighting history. Zero, zilch, nothing.

Funny enough Couture is the perfect fighter for Lesnar to win a title against. A guy who virtually has no dangerous submissions threat. And he's vastly smaller and just like a miniature version of Lesnar imo.

Anywho I understand it was a business decision to do what they did with Lesnar, but if we're going by achievements at that point, he definitely didn't deserve it. There was a good amount of top 10 guys who earned it more at the time.

Anywho, that's my two cents on this.

 

[BigTruck]

Absolutely not but it worked out in their favor

 

[Takes Two To Tango]

Absolutely not but it worked out in their favor

Yes, because when your in a fight anything can happen. I could have fought Couture with a 2-1 record and somehow beat him by lucky shot. Doesn't mean I deserved the title shot in the first place.

 

[Simple Southerner]

 

[Randy Fandy Fo Fanders]

If he was a no-name fighter who had to work his way up the rankings, he would’ve gotten exposed much sooner and the UFC would have missed out on millions of dollars and significant promotional opportunities.

Brock did not like getting punched in the face. I still think he would’ve done very well in MMA. Given his size, strength, and wrestling. But his notoriety obviously boosted him to the top of the rankings very quickly.

 

[Get To Da Choppa]

(I know there is a topic about it recently, but it didn't have a poll. So I'd like to see what the numbers are like.)

It's obvious to me the UFC wanted to fast track Lesnar with his massive hype and popularity. Imagine if Lesnar lost along the way to getting the title shot, which could have easily happen and his hype train and their cash cow would have been over. So I understand why the UFC did what they did. So they gave him a tailor made fighter for Lesnar in Heath Herring (who was ranked #10 at the time I believe).

Therefore he has a really good chance in beating him and he did. So thus skyrocketing Lesnar to a title shot against Couture.

Tell me this any other HW in history with a 2-1 record and only beating Heath Herring and Min Soo-Kim (who had a 2-6 record when he fought Brock) would have got a title shot just like Brock?

It's simply undeserving, he needed at least 3 good wins in the top 10 imo to get a solid shot to a title. Just because he had no professional combat fighting history. Zero, zilch, nothing.

Funny enough Couture is the perfect fighter for Lesnar to win a title against. A guy who virtually has no dangerous submissions threat. And he's vastly smaller and just like a miniature version of Lesnar imo.

Anywho I understand it was a business decision to do what they did with Lesnar, but if we're going by achievements at that point, he definitely didn't deserve it. There was a good amount of top 10 guys who earned it more at the time.

Anywho, that's my two cents on this.

It was not the title shot Brock deserved, but it was the title shot the UFC needed

 

[BFoe]

No, he didn’t deserve it. That said, he made the most of it, and those were good years with fun fights.

 

[Kung Fu Kowboy]

 

[Necrocrawler]

Lesnar's title shot was a win-win situation for the UFC:

1 - If he wins, people would get hyped for him being a champion and could even attract prowrestling fans with the "pro wrestling is legit" gimmick
2 - If he loses, people would also get hyped for having a famous pro wrestler challenging for the belt and showing that, even though he was a pro wrestler, he was legit and "pro wrestling is legit" gimmick would also keep its momentum.

OFC i say all that considering Brock's wrestling credentials.

Also, keep in mind that these were the top ranked HW fighters in 2008:



The situation was perfect for Brock challenging the belt. Specially after Couture took it from Sylvia at the time.

 

[ninja boot]

of course it doesn't make sense from a competition/rankings standpoint.
If we're being real, along with an amateur record, he should have had 5 fights after Herring climbing the ranks to a title but of course none of that was ever going to happen for very obvious reasons.
Instead the UFC did what the UFC does and fast tracked him to sell tickets and ppvs.

 

[GordonMMARamsey]

I remember someone here made a tournament bracket, and every time Brock got eliminated a new spot was added in the next round with Brock advancing

 

[MMACro]

Yes

Also Brock is bigger then pretty much anyone so saying how Randy was smaller is nothing strange

 

[Tito Tapped]

It all comes down to how you personally define deserving.

For the no's, it's based on factors like your rank, record, and who've you've recently defeated. Titles are earned through performance. You could probably make a case Brock didn't have any of those at an expected championship caliber.

But for the Yes crowd, they recognize this is a prize fighting business. The true biggest prize has always been money. Brock was a monster draw. Also it's harder to argue he didn't deserve it after he both won and successfully defended the belt. If not for injury, he might have even more defenses and we never have this conversation.

Nobody is right or wrong.

 

[Gamer2k4]

It wasn't deserved, but he won, didn't he? And pretty convincingly too, as I recall.

 

[HereticBD]

Deserve has got nothing to do with it. I mean, he was fighting a guy who got a title shot coming out of retirement after getting KO'd.

That said, the division was a complete mess at the time. Lesnar was a convenient opponent, since the other notable HW's(there weren't many back then) were tied up when Randy came back. It was barely a title fight, and more a semi-final in a mini-tournament for the undisputed title.

 

[Clark Rogers]

I could have fought Couture with a 2-1 record and somehow beat him by lucky shot. Doesn't mean I deserved the title shot in the first place.

This is such a false equivalent.

You aren't a Brock Lesnar level talent, you couldn't have done a damn thing to Randy Couture.

Facts

 

[Takes Two To Tango]

This is such a false equivalent.

You aren't a Brock Lesnar level talent, you couldn't have done a damn thing to Randy Couture.

Facts

Obviously, I'm just giving an example that anyone with 2-1 record regardless of hype. It's not deserving of a title shot. The only reason he got is because of his massive popularity.

I understand why they fast tracked him, but it wasn't deserved. That's the point.

 

[Takes Two To Tango]

It was not the title shot Brock deserved, but it was the title shot the UFC needed

Exactly, Brock was their winning ticket in terms of PPV and massive appeal. It makes sense business wise, but it doesn't make sense record wise. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Thepaintbucket]

Definitely did not deserve it. They were plenty of fighters who could have fought for the title before him.

The funniest part was when they conveniently had Nog and Mir do TUF and strategically fight one month after Lesnar/Couture. This was when Nog had the interim belt and was defending it against Mir

 

[Takes Two To Tango]

It all comes down to how you personally define deserving.

For the no's, it's based on factors like your rank, record, and who've you've recently defeated. Titles are earned through performance. You could probably make a case Brock didn't have any of those at an expected championship caliber.

But for the Yes crowd, they recognize this is a prize fighting business. The true biggest prize has always been money. Brock was a monster draw. Also it's harder to argue he didn't deserve it after he both won and successfully defended the belt. If not for injury, he might have even more defenses and we never have this conversation.

Nobody is right or wrong.

That's a fair response, it is what it is. Brock got special treatment, because he was anomaly to be honest. So that's fair.