No I don't think he's too dumb to realize something that simple. He probably just started an argument with that point and is now sticking to it because he doesn't want to admit he was wrong.
Yawn. This is boring now. I still disagree. If your opponent is roided, he is also tougher, more resilient, more relentless, so you will find him as tough as the clean fighter finds the clean opponent. I really don't understand how you can think that Sonnen and Reem juicing against clean fighters is the same as roided fighters fighting each other. It's just plain wrong. But I'm tired of going back and forth on it. We disagree. Not the end of the world.
:huh Then why doesn't everyone think that the Pride fighters that people suspected of roiding were much, much, much better than clean UFC fighters of today? Wanderlei, Shogun, Coleman, Crocop etc etc were some of the top men in Pride, did they really look so much better than the equivalent of today, like Machida, Cruz, Velasquez and Condit etc? I don't think so. The non-roiders of today can be every bit as brutal and emphatic without roids, because they're facing other clean fighters, so there is no imbalance. I don't think you grasped my point about the importance of balance vs imbalance in a fight. But as I said in my previous post, I have run out of interest in this subject really.
Yes, I agree. The guy is one of the best & greatest ever... he`s as great as any LHW thats ever done it at the moment. I like the top 10, hard to argue with, I`d personally have Sakuraba higher, definitely ahead of Matt Hughes.
Yes, he does look tired very easily these days, his will keeps him going but he looks worn out... the Rua from PRIDE would have finished Vera (& Henderson IMPO) quicker.... a lot of it has to do with him not being able to kick a grounded opponent, thats his favourite finisher, Vera would have been done in 2 rounds if kicks were legal.
So that's your stance, even after several people have corrected you and nobody has sided with you. Roids make zero difference to a fighter's ability or how good a fighter he looks, so long as his opponent is on them as well. I never said that. You got that idea in your head yourself. After all this time, you still don't even understand the argument. :nono Here's what it boils down to. Steroids make a pro fighter better. Win or lose, a heavily roided fighter will be tougher to beat and look more impressive than the same guy without roids. I (and everyone else in this thread) accept this as simple truth. You, for some reason, deny it. :conf :hat
I don't know maybe the UFC fighters are better? A better question to ask yourself is how different did the Pride fighters look when they were in the UFC and off roids and fighting against other fighters who were off roids. They still look worse to me.
I think you're getting a bit carried away by this one ******* who has strongly backed you. Proves nothing. A roided fighter vs a roided fighter is fair. A clean fighter vs a clean fighter is fair. A heavily juiced fighter vs a clean fighter is not. Not difficult to understand at all really. When there is an imbalance in a fight, one guy looks amazing. When there is balance in a fight, there is a true reflection of how the guys match up. Again, this is just very simple logic.
We both know you're talking nonsense now. :deal If what you're saying is even partly true, then the roided era of Pride would look like the Brazil soccer team of 1970 as compared to the current UFC era being the current England team (ie, ****). If all the roided guys looked so much better than their clean successors, the disparity between Pride and the UFC would be staggering. We both know that this is not the case. Some people may have a preference for Pride due to its more brutal rules, but there is no way that people now watch Anderson Silva, Jon Jones, Junior dos Santos, Jose Aldo, Lyoto Machida and all, and feel as if they are watching junior league baseball as compared to the vastly superior dynamic quality of the Majors like Wanderlei Silva, Fedor, Shogun, Hendo and Nogueira. There is no big disparity, even to people who prefer Pride. One had generally accepted great fighters, the other does too, and one group was clearly not way way way ahead of the other in terms of explosive dominance and brilliance. We both know you are wrong and talking bull**** here. Be fair. :good
This is a very, very silly point indeed. Makes me think I'm dealing with a bit of a dim fellow if I'm being honest. The majority of the guys in Pride spent their physical primes in that organization going to war after brutal war after brutal war, and then they came to the UFC with their physical primes behind them already, with brutal wars and bad losses behind them, and had to then adapt to a game with new rules, where many of their trusted old weapons were removed. To attribute this solely to being off roids is complete and utter bull****. Age and wear n tear had far more to do with it. :deal In the years following Pride, the guys who had been the major players in the UFC would be Chuck Liddell, Matt Hughes, Tim Sylvia, Randy Couture, Tito Ortiz, Jens Pulver, etc. Were all the losses they started to suffer either to lesser fighters or in embarrassing fashion, were they all down to fighters coming off roids as well, or was it really just that generation getting older and more worn, and fighting younger, fresher guys? :think You guys' know-it-all attitudes really pisses me off, as you talk nonsense yet are so far up on that high horse I can hardly see you at all.
Then what say you to the post below? :think I am no less convinced by this logic than when this thread began, despite reading and considering what everyone has said. :good
Its a bit annoying that a thread was made about Shogun & 2 guys have practically ruined the thread by arguing for the last 2 pages over nonsense like steroids.... especially when neither will ever agree with the other thru 200 pages. JMO :good