Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Starks
But he was on roids, ant that is the Kerr I am referring to because the "Old Kerr" was a druggie, but he was a Tough SOB druggie.
|
When someone brought up the fact that he used performance enhancers during that time, you said you were
not talking about the old drugged up Kerr.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Starks
I'm not talking about the old drugged up Kerr, I am talking about The Mark Kerr who tore up the WVC, The UFC and the early Pride shows prior to the 2000 GP. Kerr's career started going downhill around 2000.
|
Yet now you are saying "he was on roids, ant that is the Kerr I am referring to because the 'Old Kerr" was a druggie". Which is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Starks
Without naming names or pointing fingers, there were lots of guys in Pride who also took performance enhancing drugs as well, yet we still talk about how great they are and we judge them by the fights that we have seen, which were enhanced by drugs. We don't have any "drug free" Kerr fights to speak of from that era, so your point is moot.
|
True, there were plenty of guys participating in organizations all over the world who used during that era, including the UFC, Pride, Pancrase, Shooto, etc. But how does that make the point moot. Which guys did he maul who were obvious steroid abusers? The topic of drug use is still relevant.
On the topic of his opponents, which of them would you say is his greatest victory? An undersized Enson Inoue? The lumbering Paul Varelans? Let's face it, Kerr faced a very underwhelming talent pool even for that era. Many of the biggest names of that era never ended up on his fight card. Would he have been so dominant facing real competition, especially without the enhancement of steroids and painkillers?
BTW, didn't you claim he would never take painkillers before a match as it would hamper his timing, reflexes, and make his drowsy. What happened to that argument?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Starks
Maybe you should start another thread saying, "If Mark Kerr didn't do drugs would he have been so dominant??" Because that is what you are arguing, Kerrs drug use has nothing to do with this thread.
|
Thanks for the advice as to what belongs in a thread and what doesn't, but just as you so thoughtfully place your opinion out there for debate, so can I and other members. His past drug use has plenty to do with this thread. In your opinion, he was an unbeatable beast. In the opinion of at least two members, he would not have been that unbeatable beast without the help of steroids and painkillers. Thus, that usage is fair game.