Yes, he was just fast, powerful and huge and such a great wrestler and the rules of mma actually favour a wrestler more than any other style, this is why wrestlers are so successful. It was just a matter of time before they worked him out. He was useless on his back, he was useless standing up. All he had was take you down get a dominant position and the ground andpound with his hammer fists.

The were saying he would be underfeated heavy weight and would remain like that his entire career. once they worked him out he was nothing and i wouldnt rate him in the top 10 now in his weight class.

I suppose Lesnar deserves some credit for being a UFC champion, but the fact that he even GOT a title shot after only 3 MMA fights in his entire career (one of them a LOSS) is/was a joke. Cain Velasquez didn't get his title shot (where he demolished Lesnar) until he'd already had 6 dominant UFC wins. There's no way Lesnar would have been able to fight his way up the rankings to get a title shot were he forced to follow the path of a no-name fighter -- his technique was just too limited and by the time he retired opponents seemed to have him completely figured out.

Im not a fan of Brock Lesnar but he was more than just so huge guy who had no technique.There have been many fighters in MMA way bigger and stronger than Brock Lesnar who got demolished by smaller fighters,and that's because they lacked technique and knowledge on how to use their body weight and size to their advantage.Brock Lesnar is one of the fighters in MMA who did know how to use his size and weight properly.I hear alot of people saying he was crap and had no technique and that's not true,he was Champion at one point remember.He did lack a lot of technique but the technique he did have he used and he used it well. so overrated or not he was still a good fighter.

No I think he is a monster that abused the **** out of every legal or unknown but now illegal means Of improving his performance.