I'm sick of people saying Lesnar should fight Kongo and then so and so and then someone else.
Can any of the people saying this provide a reason other than their irrational belief that a fighter should have x number (a number which they can't specify or give a reason for again) of fights before being given title shots no matter how good they've proven themselves to be? It makes no sense. I'm sure all of the people saying he should fight kongo, when it came time to discuss the match, would say "kongo has almost no chance." So what's the point of that match?
Give it up with the arguments about how many fights he's had. He's fighting for the title, and he has proven that he's good enough to be in there. Looking at this poll he appears to be the favourite so you can't possibly justify saying he doesn't deserve a title shot.
"well, I think he's going to win, but he doesn't deserve this title shot!"