Why Shane vs Brock?

[Irish Pride]

Just wanted to know the reason behind giving Shane Carwin a HW title shot? I saw a point to Shane vs Cain getting a title shot since they are both undefeated. But why just up and give Shane the fight?

Shane has won three fights in the UFC, his other fights were on much smaller promotions. What's he done, who's he beat (Besides Gonzaga), of notable status to deserve a fight against the Champ?

Because this fight will keep you on the edhe of your seat!

[Vizion]

Answer: no one. Carwin doesn't deserve a shot, and he will be driven the edhe of his skills against Brock.

[Irish Pride]

You guys spell edge weird.


So they are doing a title fight because it'll be exciting..not because the guy deserves it. That stinks. I REALIZE that's what they did with Brock, he didn't really deserve a title shot to begin with, but at least that was more understandable in that he was massively popular. It just seemed like a legitmate marketing move and perhaps a big reason was because Randy requested it. But Carwin? Don't understand.

If Brock was given a title shot with only only three fights under his belt, I see no reason to criticize Carwin. I mean, before that, who did BROCK beat to get a title shot? Herring? Herring's tough, but he's not exactly a contender. He's more of a gate keeper, imo.

Gonzaga may not be a contender either, but come on. Brock was no more deserving of a title shot than Carwin. I say give the man his chance, and if he wins, well, you can't criticize him then because he'll have beaten somebody big-named besides Gonzaga.

Originally Posted by Krupp

If Brock was given a title shot with only only three fights under his belt, I see no reason to criticize Carwin. I mean, before that, who did BROCK beat to get a title shot? Herring? Herring's tough, but he's not exactly a contender. He's more of a gate keeper, imo.

Gonzaga may not be a contender either, but come on. Brock was no more deserving of a title shot than Carwin. I say give the man his chance, and if he wins, well, you can't criticize him then because he'll have beaten somebody big-named besides Gonzaga.

Thank you.

[Vizion]

Originally Posted by Krupp

If Brock was given a title shot with only only three fights under his belt, I see no reason to criticize Carwin. I mean, before that, who did BROCK beat to get a title shot? Herring? Herring's tough, but he's not exactly a contender. He's more of a gate keeper, imo.

Gonzaga may not be a contender either, but come on. Brock was no more deserving of a title shot than Carwin. I say give the man his chance, and if he wins, well, you can't criticize him then because he'll have beaten somebody big-named besides Gonzaga.

Two wrongs don't make a right...yes?

[MattHughesRocks]

It's like watching two skyscrapers fight.Who'd pass that up?

[Irish Pride]

I'm not criticizing Carwin at all. I liked watching his fights. I'm criticizing the DECISION to give him a title fight.

Your point about Brock not deserving a shot was a good point and one I anticipated people making which was why I posted, "I REALIZE that's what they did with Brock, he didn't really deserve a title shot to begin with, but at least that was more understandable in that he was massively popular. It just seemed like a legitmate marketing move and perhaps a big reason was because Randy requested it. But Carwin? Don't understand."

If a champion (Randy) actually requested the fight against a guy that doesn't necessarily deserve the shot (Brock) Then I say give the champ the fight, but Brock didn't request Carwin.

a better question would be why not? this is gonna be a great fight and its what ive wanted them to do all along. i never liked the idea of cain and shane fighting because i think they should try to build cain up a bit more and now they are doing just that.