Is brock lesnar retired from the ufc
Brock Lesnar is no longer going to fight Shane Carwin at UFC 106. He has been sick with the swine flu and it has effected training ( Source: http://www.chacha.com/question/is-brock-lesnar-retired-from-the-ufc )
More Answers to "Is brock lesnar retired from the ufc"
- Who won the heavy weight UFC fight between Brock Lesnar and Frank...?
- Brock Lesnar defeated Frank Mir in the 2nd round of their mixed martial arts fight in UFC 100 last week. ChaCha again!
- Who agrees with me that Brock Lesnar has a looooooooooooong way t...?
- Nobody who knows anything about MMA is going to agree with you, Mr Main Event. Did you watch that fight? Lesnar is EXPLOSIVE! His athleticism makes up for his lack of standup technique and his wrestling is effing sick. Did you see that...
- Is brock lesnar the ufc fighter DEAD!
- no hes not died, but he might be HIV positive, he got tested not to long ago for it. he got it from one of his fights not to sure which one
Related Questions Answered on Y!Answers
- Is Brock Lesnar's win over Couture good for MMA?
- Q: I don't think Lesnar's win over Couture is good for MMA from a credibility standpoint. I'm sure the fight did well financially, but what does it say when a fighter who came from the WWE and only has 3 fights is able to win the UFC title? I know Brock has good wrestling skills, but i doubt he'd last one minute with a retired Lennox Lewis. if Mir beats lesnar again, or if Nougiera submits him, i really think that would be better for the sport. Just my opinion.
- A: brock lesnar has little skill all he knows is the hammerfists, the superman punch and his wrestling. the onl;y reason he beat randy was because he was just too big for him to handle.
- Don't you hate those people who compare Sheamus and Brock Lesnar?
- Q: How? Brock Lesnar was and is now a physical specimen. Sheamus has as much muscle as the next guy in the WWE locker room. Brock Lesnar proved his worth by squashing the Hardys,(Kayfabe) injuring Hollywood Hulk Hogan and if it weren't for Austin "taking his ball and going home" in 2002, Brock Lesnar was going to beat him in a squash match. It's true. Sheamus proved his worth by squashing a retiring Jamie Noble, beating a few jobbers, staring down Shelton benjamin and having a little pin fall over John Morrison. Brock Lesnar is now a huge MMA star in UFC. 7 years from now, do you see Sheamus as big as Lesnar. Sheamus will still be clinging on to Vince's then 70 year old ass. The sad thing was that as soon as Lesnar became champ, he slapped Raw in the face by announcing the WWE title as Smackdown exclusive and beginning a feud with Undertaker over the title. As soon as Sheamus became champ, he bragged about his title and watched the former champ dominate in two matches in the same night. Shows his championship dominance, right. WWE did it because they still don't have hope in his ability.BTW:Lesnar won the title because he was athletic and strong. Sheamus, however just won it because he was the first guy to say hi to Triple H and HBK in the gym. What I said is all the truth and nothing else other than the sarcastic line about Sheamus being a great champ. I know the Raw results because I just wanted to spectate the next failure of a move WWE make or if they fix up their mess of a company. Sheamus is the worst world champion since Vince Russo and David Arquette in WCW( WCW is otherwise known as EFW, Epic fail wrestling).BQ:Does anyone hate WCW more than me?
- A: Nice rant. And while you're completely right in your comparison between the athletic build of Brock and Sheamus (since you're not a big fan we'll call him by his real name of Stephen, besides the name Sheamus is offensive to my Irish heritage), Brock is by far a physical freak in every sense of the word where as Stephen is a big man, but he's dimensions are no different than Test (both are/were 6'6 and 180 pounds and both were personal body guards for musicians). There can however be a comparison to their rise within the WWE ranks. Both spent two years in a WWE development territory (Brock OVW from 2000-2002, Stephen from 2007-2009), both won their first major championship within the calendar year they appeared in (Brock debuted in March of 2002, won the Undisputed Heavyweight title in August of 2002, Stephen debuted in late June of 2009 and won the WWE title in December of 2009) and both won their major titles in almost the same amount of time in the WWE. So a comparison at least as a professional wrestler in the WWE can be made somewhat.My problem is their both two totally different people. Because of the success of Kurt Angle and he's totally freakish athleticism it was believable for Brock to have such a meteoric rise due to his background as NCAA champion. Besides he got his title shot in a more legit way, won the King of the Ring (which at one time use to actually mean something) and this gave him a shot at The Rock, someone who he was stronger, faster and younger than. It made sense. Stephen as you so eloquently pointed out really didn't have any major wins and this was for all accounts his first pay-per-view (other than Survivor Series which usually has more wrestlers on the card than a normal pay-per-view). I mean who the hell wins their first world title (WWE and World Title are both "world title" reigns IMO) in their first singles match at a pay-per-view. Stephen while being from Ireland (where you can start professional wrestling as a teenager) didn't start wrestling professionally until he was 24 (that's late for Europe) and while he may have 5 years over in Britain just really how did he "pay his dues". Yes he got his title shot because of his association with the son-in-law, but isn't that what wrestling as always been about, politicking? Like I said there is no comparison between Brock and Stephen physically (there really aren't many people who can compare to Brock physically), but there can be a comparison to their professional careers at least the first three years. While I was shocked and to be honest a little peeved about Cena dropping the belt to someone with such little "quality wins" I remember feeling the same way in '02 win Brock beat the Rock. I'm a little old school win it comes to the world titles and I believe a wrestler should have a lengthily title reign with a smaller belt (IC title, U.S. title or the X-Division Belt in TNA) before being able to challenge for the world titles, that's just the bumps one should have to take to "make it" again IMO. But I am intrigued to see how the WWE makes Stephen a transitional champ and what they do with him after he drops the belt back to Cena. BQ: I doubt anyone I know hates WCW more than you.
- Who would you rank top 5 in the UFC for each division?
- Q: mine are from present day with retired fightersheavyweight:brock lesnarantonio rodrigo noguieradan severn cheik kongoshane carwinlight heavyweight:quinton jacksonchuck liddelrich franklinlyoto machidaforrest griffinmiddleweight:anderson silvadan hendersonnate marquardtmichael bispingnate quarrywelterweight:georges st. pierrematt hughesthiago alvesjon fitchjosh koshchecklightweight:diego sanchezsean sherkbj pennjoe stevensonkenny florian
- A: heavyweight:LesnarNogueiraMirCarwinCain Velasquez LHW:MachidaShogunThiago SilvaRashad EvansRich FranklinMW:Anderson SilvaNate MarquardtDan HendersonVitor BelfortDemian maiaWelter weight:GSPThiago AlvesFitchHughesKoshcheckLight weight:PennSanchezSherkFlorianStevenson
Prev Question: Is the influenza bacterial or viral
People also view