Over the weekend, Brock Lesnar's best friend and biographer Paul Heyman made the case for his UFC-HoF-doubts-return/">worthiness in the UFC Hall of Fame.
MMAJunkie's Ben Fowlkes begs to differ.
When I read the story by Danny Acosta on Saturday that quoted Lesnar's old pro wrestling running buddy Paul Heyman as saying "of course" Lesnar was worthy of a spot the UFC Hall of Fame after a 5-3 run in a four-year career, I had to stop and read it again.
His case for Lesnar is especially weak. It's the kind of argument only a friend could make, and also the kind that only a friend would accept.
"Five and three?" Heyman said of Lesnar's record. "But look at the five – and look at the three."
Don't mind if I do, Paul. First there's Min-Soo Kim, who also sports losses to Bob Sapp and an over-the-hill Don Frye on his record. Then there's Heath Herring, who, by that point, had been winning one and losing the next like it was part of some schedule he felt compelled to keep. There's also Randy Couture, who had no business fighting at heavyweight, and Frank Mir, who won one and lost one against Lesnar, but somehow only seems to get credit for the latter. Finally, there's Shane Carwin, who might have beaten Lesnar if he'd had better cardio or been smarter about how he used it.
That wraps up his victories as a professional fighter. You add in two first-round TKO losses, and you have his entire body of work. Five and three. A career that spanned just over four years. That's his case for a spot on the wall next to guys like Matt Hughes and Chuck Liddell? Sorry, but I don't see it.
Lesnar fans also love to talk about what he did for the sport and for the UFC simply by hanging around and generating so much interest and attention. The fact that he did this exclusively for his personal gain doesn't get mentioned. Suddenly the unintended consequences of his own career are justification for treating him like one of the greats.
Read entire article...
Related MMA gear from the UG Store