Paul Heyman Casts Doubt On CM Punk's UFC Run
While complimenting Punk, he also points out the obvious
Phil Brooks is not in his mid-thirties, hes cruising rapidly into his late-thirties. He doesnt have a documentable athletic background. Do I know that he has been in the gym with the best Brazilian jiu-jitsu practitioners in the world for several years? Sure I do, but hes never been in a competition. I dont know of any sports he played in high school. He went straight from high school into the wrestling world so theres no college background there. Brock Lesnar was an NCAA Division I champion, who was a champion in junior college, he was a bad !*$% wrestling in high school and he was wrestling since he was five years old. He was a competitive athlete so thats a different jump to make.In short, for those thinking CM Punk will find similar success, the two athletes have very different starting points - and likely extremely different learning curves. That said, Heyman also highlighted that the very improbable if not impossible nature of succeeding in his new career is what makes Punk stand out.
Phillip Brooks does not have that background. It makes it all the more improbable, which is exactly why hes so driven to do it. Because he looks in the mirror and he sees not only a rebel and an uncompromising spokesman for the beliefs that are near and dear to him, but he sees someone that will defy conventional wisdom and pull off miracles if thats what it takes because he has one shot in life and he wants to do something quite special with it.Time will tell and history will be the ultimate judge of CM Punk/Phil Brooks' MMA attempt, but to date Heyman seems to have the most realistic grasp of the situation: appreciate the Punk has a hard road ahead of him and may not succeed, but admire him for trying.