Heavyweight James Toney, are you kidding?

Yes, I agree that the only version we have is juiced Holy. (And probably juiced Toney, too.) If somebody doesn't want to reduce Holy's winning chances with a potential NC, they could always set the fight in the 70s. Or if they want to stack the deck against him, send 90s Holy to 2021 with USADA testing.

Notice, for example, that nobody disputes today the legitimacy of stripping Toney of his victory for failing a drug test, even though we acknowledge that he beat up Ruiz in the ring. So it's not totally illegitimate to expect the rules of fantasy fights to include a drug testing component. It's one of the things that the real fighters dealt with, in the same way that they dealt with the neutral corner rule.

(Honestly, there are also far too few "Fighter X wins by DQ" predictions in fantasy fights, considering how rules have oscillated...)

 

And a lot of old school fighters would probably flunk USADA/VADA, except with shittier PEDs such as amphetamines.

 

Quite possible.

 

Most of the 80s fighters probably get wiped out by the cocaine tests alone.

 

He beats Ruiz regardless of any drugs when in shape. That is clear from the poor condition he showed in that fight

 

I think with Toney one gotta put things into perspective. He is a 5 ft 10 middleweight. he never was a true heavweight. He is too small. He would beat some former heavweight champs based on his skills. Not the big super heavweights who are skilled. As for some of tthe old timers, they may look pretty rudimentary skilled on film, so one could draw the conclusion that the Toney with his technical skills could beat some of them. Nobody is saying Toney was a great heavweight.

 

He wasn’t a true middleweight. He came way down to get to that weight.

 

Which boxer does not ?

 

I'd imagine that ones who were not 200+ pound quarterbacks in their teens would have an easier time getting to 160.

 

football and boxing are 2 completely different sports though

 

Hello. James>Schmeling for sure.

Now you have.

 

Your case sounds reasonable & there are good points.
Except for two concerns.

1) What does 'widespread" mean? It could mean that a significant minority of athletes use PEDs, at least occasionally.
If it is say only 20% who ever dabbled OR use heavily often, that is still a large number that significantly effects the sport.
If it is half, that is a huge difference & IF 1/5th is not deemed widespread, 50% is.
If it is 3/4, that is pretty ubiquitous.

2) But the related point is you presumably unintentionally shifted the goalposts.
Even 3/4 (& I have no idea IF it is around that level or way lower) is nowhere near everyone.

In America it is "widespread" to be male-still only almost 1/2 of us are.
It is widespread to be white-although the percentages keep going down. Only about 1 in 8 are say black.
Still it is dramatically different to say everybody is white & there are no minorities...

You get the picture. There are many drug cheats, & certain places like Russia often tend to be worse. And sports like long distance cycling too.

But all the individual cases, & assurance that there are many other liars & cheaters, just does not tell us how common it is.

 

We don't know how many there are. That's part of the problem with lack of testing. The most rigorous testing in the "clean" divisions of the steroid-ridden sport of bodybuilding today are better than what you see in boxing (even including gimmicky stuff like lie detector tests), and they don't catch everyone, either. USADA testing hit MMA pretty hard, too.

If we are talking 90s boxing, it wasn't uncommon to see no testing. Flat out. I've posted an article on here from one of Lennox's earlier fights where they admitted that steroid use *wasn't even banned* by the major belt they were fighting for.

So, how prevalent was it? Prevalent enough that we should be suspicious of everyone.

 

Also, why should the baseline assumption be that top contenders are punctilious men of honor, who would not stoop to using drugs to improve their performance?

There was a survey of all kinds of athletes a while ago that I remember running across -- most of them agreed that they'd take something that drastically shortened their lifespans if it guaranteed a win. And that's not even combat sport athletes, who face all sorts of additional reasons to worry about losing. Heck, in MMA, half the fighters in the world were on steroids in Japan's PRIDE org at one point.

As to boxers being uniquely immune to PED blandishments, I don't really believe that, either. We are really open about the fact that the best 80s heavyweights were on cocaine en masse. I have trouble believing that so many 80s heavyweights would introduce cocaine into their bodies, but wouldn't dream of using (other...) PEDs.

Nor do we believe boxers about all kinds of other things. They're a more trustworthy profession than, say, pro wrestlers, but boxing has always been a sport with a lot of flim flam. FFS, our sport's standard bearer and #1 idol is Muhammad Ali, who was a creative reinterpreter of reality par excellence. (Who took diuretics to thin down for Holmes, btw.)

A surprising number of truly great fighters were also literal criminals. Tyson was an ex juvenile delinquent (and later convicted of ****.) Sonny beat people up for the Mafia. Monzon murdered his wife. LaMotta wasn't exactly husband of the year either, although I don't recall whether he went to prison for domestic abuse.

Same applies to less great fighters. Ibeabuchi was also convicted of ****, and was literally insane to boot. Wepner, like Liston, was involved in shady business. Kallie Knoetze shot down an unarmed guy.

And then there's the fight fixing, which some champions -- Burns (IIRC), LaMotta -- were involved in. Jack Johnson flat out admitted to at least one fix, with Willard...but he may have been lying. So either way, not exactly an honest source about his profession. Johnson may have also faked his way through the Ketchel fight. On and on it goes.

Look -- I don't like to dwell on people's failings. Really, I don't. I'm not trying to run down boxing here. It's just that I think the idea that most elite boxers are too upright and noble to use steroids is a bit unrealistic.

 

Most all of what you say is completely true!
But with the massive caveat is ou are debating a "Straw Man": I took great pains to say I was not assuming to know how common PEDs/cheating was. & how nobody can provide any sort of good estimate about that.
Which your information does not contradict.

I have honor as a single factor among many that applies in some cases.
I never claimed this always or usually applied.
Regarding your supporting evidence, I also bet you would agree that many boxers are non-violent outside of the ring, & we have no reason to assume *most* fighters are criminal or the likes of wife beaters. So none of this argues for knowing how common PEDs are either.

Although again there are other reasons not to use, including for health, questions about efficacy/how well will it work, fear of getting caught, fear of tarnishing a legacy & being permanently held in contempt by the public...

Even in that survey you must consider that unlike the hypothetical no wins are guaranteed.

You show intellectual rigor in most all cases CT.
Surely you can see (if I may call you S...... ;-)) that I am NOT doing the opposite of what I critiqued, assuming everyone is clean?
I am ostentatiously saying while many have cheated in numbers, we do not know if it is at most a significant minority, around half, or the vast majority.

The extremes of nobody not caught is ever guilty OR everyone always cheats are not rational.
And Johnson lied about throwing the Willard fight out of pride. Although it took over 20 rounds, the heat, & being in lesser condition than Jess to lose that fight.

Capiche?