Are you of the opinion Brock was clean in that fight?
Is Cowboy Cerrone a HOF'r
- Thread starter Weidman's right nut
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cerrone
Under the rule set of the day, he was clean.
It’s tough to separate emotion from HOF arguments. Cerrone is a huge fan favorite (and can count me as a big fan), but I’m on the fence.
Is he as game as they come? Definitely. Is he well rounded and exciting? Hell yes. Was he ever the best in any division he fought in? No. Did he excel in the biggest fights with the most on the line? No.
For me he is on the bubble when I look at him from a historic lens because I think years from now he will be remembered for being an any place any time Cowboy as opposed to being one of the best ever. That being said, with his stats on fights and finishes, I would have no problem having him inducted. I think he is in a situation where this next phase of his career could determine his fate.
Is he as game as they come? Definitely. Is he well rounded and exciting? Hell yes. Was he ever the best in any division he fought in? No. Did he excel in the biggest fights with the most on the line? No.
For me he is on the bubble when I look at him from a historic lens because I think years from now he will be remembered for being an any place any time Cowboy as opposed to being one of the best ever. That being said, with his stats on fights and finishes, I would have no problem having him inducted. I think he is in a situation where this next phase of his career could determine his fate.
Nice non answer.
If you honestly answer yes that's willful ignorance.
100%.
I can honestly tell you that under the rules he fought he was deemed to be clean. It's disingenuous for me to project my ethics onto someone who isn't breaking any rules, particularly when we know that no one is above bending the rules to help themselves out. I think it's horseshit that some of the super rich guys are going to Panama to get shot up with stem cells which is a PED clear as day, but it's not on the banned list so it'd be unjust for me to say they aren't clean.
Not trying to split hairs but you still haven't answered really. I'm curious on your opinion specifically here whether you think Brock fought against Reem clean, not what the rule book says. I think I know but I want to see it on my screen.
I don't believe anyone in professional sports hasn't used PED's. So my belief is to simply put everyone into 2 straight forward categories. "Failed" and "Passed" at that point Brock has passed, so he was clean.
Bisping should get in first
everyone except for frank shamrock
Everyone gets in the Hall of Fame!!!
Guy has never been champ. Not surprising to see Stephan Bonnar brought up, but there is no reason to be held hostage to shit precedents.
You're going to want to read the middle of the post.
I did of course. You could've ended your post at "at that point Brock has passed" and I would've left it alone. Actually I would've still said you haven't stated your personal opinion yet.
So how do you approach it? Just arbitrarily decide who you think is or isn't "clean" by your own metric rather than the ruleset they've all agreed to fight under?
All things within reason of course. Right now we're just two fans chatting, no real consequences how it ends so why not just speak frankly? But to answer your question no I (we) shouldn't just pick and choose at random but there should be some level of common sense here. We follow the sport, see what goes on behind the scenes, read about failed tests and so on. Brock is a monster, doesn't pass "the smell test", has a failed test and spent years in THE WWE where as far as I know PEDs are rampant (I'll trust your judgement if I'm off on that one). Knowing that I don't rely on a rule set to tell me that yes he's clean in this scenario. I see what you're saying and agree to an extent but in some scenarios I look outside the box. If you and I have different levels of when that is needed then that's cool.
Another example would be Bisping vs Hammil. Records show Mike won but myself and many other fans know that's bullshit.
The problem is we know that isn't an accurate way to gauge PED usage. So all you're doing is casting judgment on people who for all you know haven't done anything wrong.
For what it's worth, I'm speaking very frankly. The fighters all agree to fight under a ruleset, I believe as fans we're obligated to respect that. It's not up to us to pick and choose who we believe is being ethical. If you want a very clear example of what I'm talking about, look around this site and notice the difference in how people speak about Jon Jones and Yoel Romero. Look at how people speak about Brock and Overeem. Look at how people speak about Lombard and Hendricks. The second you step outside of the ruleset you step into a world where people's personal biases make up the bulk of their opinions, and objectivity goes out the window.
You quoted the one thing that's easy to argue against. If that was the only reason I gave then sure but I purposely gave others to support my reasoning. One or two reasons alone don't hold much weight against anyone, its the complete view that paints a clearer picture. I'd never just point and say "look, dudes jacked so he must be using". Now if the jacked up guy came from an industry with lots of other users, has a failed test and iirc was arrested (not charged) for having possession of PEDs which later were confirmed as HGH then ya, I think I have a reasonably sound position on the guy.
All sports are known for PED use so I'm not sure how you'd attempt to rationalize that an athletic history of the Olympics followed by MMA would make someone less likely to be a PED user.
This is getting silly man. You're making multiple statements about high level sports being known for PED use but then still try to say Brock didn't use in the Reem fight. Dress it up how you want but that's willful ignorance. We can do the agree to disagree thing and leave it that.
I reiterate. I judge on whether or not they are clean under the ruleset they agree to compete under, not whether or not I believe what they're doing is ethical. You're trying to complicate something that's very straightforward.
A guy like DC I can guarantee is using and has throughout his career. But seeing as he hasn't failed any tests, is it right for me to cast shade on his accomplishments? Of course not. If we're going to make our own moral judgments outside of the sports agreed upon rulesets, why bother having rules at all?
Without a doubt he is. Nobody has ever taken more short notice fights, and he brings it everytime, not to mention he can finish from anywhere. I look back at a time when I didn't like him and wonder what the fuck was I thinking...
It was the cowboy hat.
It was the cowboy hat.
Respect to everyone's view point but its shocking to me that this is even a debate. The guy is tied for most wins , tied for most finishes, huge wins, multiple weightclasses, saved many cards, not even understanding why its not clear cut to some.
Slam Dunk HOF to me
Slam Dunk HOF to me
I think some of the debate comes from the viewpoint that Cerrone always seems to fizzle in "BIG" fights.....that he is a GOOD fighter not a GREAT fighter....for which HOF induction should require. Now I'm not saying that is my perspective, just some of the arguments I've seen