Brock Lesnar news/appreciation/hate thread

[jimufctna24]

Contractual hurdles and title implications aside, I would bloody love to see this happen. As someone said on the previous page, it's one of those fights that people will have strong opinions on going into. It would be fascinating to watch on the night. As a fight and as a spectacle. 

Jones is somewhat of a situational draw. If he's against the right opponent (Rampage, Rashad, etc), he'll draw respectable numbers. If not, and he's against a weaker opponent (OSP, etc), then he doesn't tend to do all that well at the box office. Right now in particular, he needs the right opponent to draw. In this day and age, people are still willing to pay money to watch fights, but they are much more selective. Hence why we get record high buyrates for PPV cards headlined by McGregor and Rousey, and record low buyrates for cards headlined by Nunes and D.J. 

I believe that Brock vs Jones is one of the very few fights that would bring out the paying audience. Yes, Brock would do respectable numbers against D.C or Barnett, but I don't think those fights will tap into the casual market in the same way. They don't have more appeal than Brock's previous fight with Hunt.. The Jones fight is a step above. Whether it will actually happen or not, is another question. 

[jimufctna24]

5 minutes ago, Noah Southworth said:

Re: Losses hurting drawing power.

Chuck Liddell got destroyed by Rashad Evans at UFC 88 and by Mauricio Rua at UFC 97. Yet a fight bereft of meaning at UFC 115 against Rich Franklin still drew over 500,000 buys. It even outdrew the Evans fight at UFC 88. The point is that losses, even one-sided losses, don't automatically hurt drawing power, and fighters can recover from them. And if Jones does lose to Lesnar, do you really think people are going to hold it against him that he lost to a guy who outweighed him by 50lbs or more? I think, for various reasons, people are greatly overplaying the affect a loss to Lesnar would have on Jones' drawing power.

Jones's aura would take a dent, without question. 

However, in terms of drawing power, what would be ruined? Jones isn't going to draw big numbers with anyone at Light Heavyweight bar D.C. I really want to see him rematch Gusty, but even that fight has limited appeal. Who else is there for him to draw against? Manuwa? 

The UFC would lose a lot of face if Brock won, and then sodded back off to wrestling though. That would be a concern to go along with the drug testing, etc. 

[Keith Houchen]

15 minutes ago, Noah Southworth said:

And if Jones does lose to Lesnar, do you really think people are going to hold it against him that he lost to a guy who outweighed him by 50lbs or more

But you and lamby have been discussing on the previous page that Jones isn't a great draw on his own to begin with.  With his aura gone against a part timer, I can't see his draw getting better.

[David]

3 minutes ago, Noah Southworth said:

Re: Losses hurting drawing power.

Chuck Liddell got destroyed by Rashad Evans at UFC 88 and by Mauricio Rua at UFC 97. Yet a fight bereft of meaning at UFC 115 against Rich Franklin still drew over 500,000 buys. It even outdrew the Evans fight at UFC 88. The point is that losses, even one-sided losses, don't automatically hurt drawing power, and fighters can recover from them. And if Jones does lose to Lesnar, do you really think people are going to hold it against him that he lost to a guy who outweighed him by 50lbs or more? I think, for various reasons, people are greatly overplaying the affect a loss to Lesnar would have on Jones' drawing power.

The main difference is that Jones is considered one of the greatest of all time, a fighter who is in his prime, his appeal is on his athleticism and his "legacy", all of which takes a serious dent if he loses to a 40 year old part-time WWE wrestler.

You can try and spin it any which way you like, but that's how it'll be looked at, and for that reason there's virtually zero chance of us ever seeing this Jones vs Lesnar fight. 

You mention Liddell and his losses to Rashad Evans, Shogun etc. He was pushing 40 years old by that point, dropped the title almost a year and a half earlier and had since lost to Keith Jardine, of all people.

Sure, fans tuned in to see Liddell fight but no one took him seriously by that point really. After his loss to Jardine it was widely considered that his chin was gone and he was there for the taking.

This isn't pro wrestling, the aim of fighters isn't to draw at all costs where wins and losses mean nothing. This is a competitive sport, wins matter. You don't just brush them off and have the company "build" you back up with some squash matches. The fans don't look back in years to come and say "Jon Jones? Yeah, that dude could draw a hell of a PPV number and his in-cage work ethic was second to none." They look back on who he beat, how many fights he went unbeaten, how many titles he won. 

A Lesnar vs Cormier fight could work if DC loses this weekend. He's coming to the end of his career and probably wouldn't mind a good payday with the knowledge that his time at the top of the division is done.

But when it comes right down to the brass tacks of it all why the fuck would Jon Jones go from beating DC and reclaiming his 205lbs title to trying to pack on weight and muscle to fight a guy who's likely gonna have a good 70lbs weight advantage on him? Where if he wins he's "only" beaten a drug-using 40 year old WWE guy?

Jones is 30 years old. He has a good five or six years at the top if he plays his cards right, and in that time he can go on to cement his legacy as the greatest of all time, defend his title against all comers and establish himself as the dominant force in the sport. All the while making a lot of money.

Will he jump to heavyweight at some point? most likely, yeah. But he'll probably do that to face the champion, not some part-timer who's looking for a last big payday.

[ColinBollocks]

Maybe Dana just wants to see him get smashed? If he dies, he dies.

[Gus Mears]

As a total MMA casual (I may, or may not, be representative of that group as a whole), I absolutely would have significantly less interest in Jon Jones if he lost at this point. Particularly if he did so to someone he's got fuck all chance of facing again to get revenge. 

As for Big Daddy Brock, Josh Barnett would be an absolutely sterling match-up. 

[Egg Shen]

3 hours ago, David said:

This isn't pro wrestling, the aim of fighters isn't to draw at all costs where wins and losses mean nothing. This is a competitive sport, wins matter. You don't just brush them off and have the company "build" you back up with some squash matches. The fans don't look back in years to come and say "Jon Jones? Yeah, that dude could draw a hell of a PPV number and his in-cage work ethic was second to none." They look back on who he beat, how many fights he went unbeaten, how many titles he won. 

 

i agree to an extent, but it's been proven time and time again in MMA that if you break through a barrier in MMA in terms of popularity a loss doesn't really do anything to hurt you. All the top draws in the sport have lost fights and come back to have success from a drawing standpoint, plus imagine if Jon Jones stepped to heavyweight and beat Lesnar...the guy just goes to a whole new level. I think with McGregor/Mayweather happening it's going to drum home that these big dream fights are the ones that draw the money and the spotlight at this point.

I'm game for Lesnar/Jones or Lesnar/DC myself.

[Keith Houchen]

The way I view it in MMA it isn't so much if you lose, it's who you lost to and in what manner.  For instance, Lewis losing to Hunt won't damage him so much as it was a great spectacle. Jones losing to Lesnar wouldn't be career killing, but he would be damaged by it immensely. 

[Egg Shen]

you could also say that Mark Hunt losing to Lesnar didn't hurt him (from a in cage perspective, not the drug allegating stuff) he still came out and got a top 5 opponent next, lost again and then headlined a card in his very next fight. Once you reach a certain level in MMA you've got it made. Obviously continuing to win is better, but i don't think much to gain in protecting fighters these days, get the big fights made whilst they are there.

[David]

1 hour ago, Egg Shen said:

i agree to an extent, but it's been proven time and time again in MMA that if you break through a barrier in MMA in terms of popularity a loss doesn't really do anything to hurt you. All the top draws in the sport have lost fights and come back to have success from a drawing standpoint, plus imagine if Jon Jones stepped to heavyweight and beat Lesnar...the guy just goes to a whole new level. I think with McGregor/Mayweather happening it's going to drum home that these big dream fights are the ones that draw the money and the spotlight at this point.

I'm game for Lesnar/Jones or Lesnar/DC myself.

It depends on who they lose to, and it also depends on who the fighter is in the first place. Someone like Jones, who's mystique is built around him being this unbeatable phenom would stand to lose more than someone like Mark Hunt by losing, especially if its to a heavyweight that, if we're honest, isn't up to much. Brock may look the part but he got absolutely handled by Cain and Overeem. If Jones loses to a 40 year old Lesnar then his claim as GOAT goes right out the window, along with a lot of his appeal.

It was the same with Tyson. Once he lost, he was never the same. The mystique of him being unbeatable is what kept him at the top.

There are certain guys who can drop fights here and there without much effect, because their selling point isn't their record. A large part of Jones appeal is his unbeaten record (the Hamill fight doesn't really count), and once that goes, regardless of who it's against, a lot of his appeal will go to. Even more so if it's in a fight where he get's held down and dominated by a guy who has been smashed by the top heavyweights.

It's not going to happen, no matter what Meltzer has to say about it.

[Egg Shen]

Tyson loosing never hurt his appeal though, i agree it hurt the mystique though.

I see what you're saying Dave and i understand the viewpoint but i think its worth the risk for Jones to take that fight, imagine his claim to be the GOAT if he went upto Heavyweight and beat an absolute tank like Lesnar? it goes both ways.

[David]

6 minutes ago, Egg Shen said:

Tyson loosing never hurt his appeal though, i agree it hurt the mystique though.

I see what you're saying Dave and i understand the viewpoint but i think its worth the risk for Jones to take that fight, imagine his claim to be the GOAT if he went upto Heavyweight and beat an absolute tank like Lesnar? it goes both ways.

If he beats Cormier (and I think he will, quite handily) the fight never happens. There's a better chance that Cormier takes the fight, as he's already on his out of the game and if he loses again to Jones he's not getting another crack at the belt.

[Keith Houchen]

24 minutes ago, Egg Shen said:

Tyson loosing never hurt his appeal though, i agree it hurt the mystique though.

Perhaps not, but it was 6 years before he got a title shot again, but prison might have had something to do with that.  But it's apples and oranges, innit.

[Guy Bifkin]

Jon Jones would beat up Brock Lesnar so bad he'd be shitting blood for a week.

[wandshogun09]

I 'd be up for Jones vs Lesnar but I can't see it happening.

Jones has pretty much always said that if he takes a fight at heavyweight, it will have to be a carefully planned decision and specifically that it would have to be "the right fight" against a fighter at the smaller end of the heavyweight division. Brock would certainly be the "right fight" from a payday POV but he certainly doesn't fit the mold of heavyweight opponent Jones usually talks about fighting.