How would AJ have done in the 70s?

When you challenged me on the details of Ali's relationships with underage girls I checked & found that what I had read about an affair with one that was 13 was wrong.
And discovered unopposed allegations that he had sex with many who were underage-although one affair was a 16 year old-& some as young as 12.
Nobody claimed the girls were prepubescent, so I corrected the accusation that it was pedophilia-which itself is defined by merely desire for such children.

I did not do what would be the literal parallel to what I critiqued: assume that without citing or there seeming to be any reports or evidence that because there must have been opportunity-the equivalent to looking at a level of muscularity which most with decent natural T-levels & top training can achieve-that he must have committed a crime.

Nor did I assume everyone or most everyone was guilty.
The analogy to this case would be what famous & even just many professional athletes encounter-so many females available & documented affairs, thus someone must have slept with them, or minors, without even accusations.
Of course he took it a step further & assumed most everyone is guilty, unlike me.

And when I critiqued assuming an individual was guilty on the bases of no known even accusations-& that virtually all other professional athletes were, an exponentially more sweeping claim than I made-still I did not go beyond saying it was not logical or unfair & seeming to order him what not to dare say.

But I am glad to have been corrected that something I read was wrong re: the (under)age of a specific affair.
So including the other information I hyperlinked, I think we got much closer to the Full Truth.

It is just quite unlikely that a renowned author who did 400 + interviews & I detect no formal or inner circle objections to what he documented...Was wrong or lying.

 

A good argument, first while you did not literally say AJ was using PEDs, when you say he would compare access to PEDs between eras, the implication seems to be either he would also use them then, or something I did not consider at first-that his access now could be at best limited today, so he might use somewhere between seldom & less often than he would have in the 1970's. Either way my point stands that he may well have never taken anything.

The example you use with Usain Bolt is pretty dissimilar, because in that case most every top guy has been caught-last I heard 9 of the 10 fastest 100 meter times the guy had some + test in his career-& you are making no such claim about most all champions, just how many guys tested were ever caught or seemed to evade testing-& it is a dramatically lower percentage.

Although still very significant.
And in all the times I have challenged folks about assuming that most everyone or all are guilty, nobody ever had the ability or intellectual rigor to make such a statement.
I would like to see a source, but I have little doubt that you are accurate here.

Although I will add that it is also plausible that some missed tests were mistakes, stupidity, stubbornness-not most, but it is not reasonable to assume every single time that it happened-& all explanations made are lies-someone is covering up.
Just like that at least occasional positive tests are unknowingly taking a contaminated supplement or food...
I will not make the opposite mistake of assuming that is usually the case!

So the evidence is that sprinting & say the Tour de France/endurance cycling is likely the most corrupt.
But I do not doubt that many use.
That is very different from knowing most all do-or whether most might have dabbled instead of building their bodies with it.

About Joshua-steroids & HGH help build more muscle, more occasionally to be stronger while limiting bulk, & part of the ability to do this is faster recovery to train more.
But too much muscle tends to limit endurance.
And again the level of muscularity AJ has had, even at his peak, might have been built naturally, some can do so.
Or he could be a cheatin' liar!

Likewise I know nothing about his athletic prowess & specific feats that insists he must have or almost certainly used drugs to achieve it.

 

PEDs or no PEDs I highly doubt a 70s version of Joshua reaches the same level of athletic development he reached in real life.

As it was already mentioned IMO a 70s Joshua does OK at the national/continental stage, but once he jumps into the world championship pool he is just shark bait...

Ali, Joe, Big George, Ernie and Larry blow him out of the water per sure...
If I am feeling a little daring I would also put my money on Kenny, Ronnie, Jerry and Gerry....
Heck, I think even Ringo manages to stop him.

 

Loses to Holmes, Foreman, Ali, and maybe Lyle. I’d make him the favorite against everyone else

 

That is a new & good point.
He still may well have moral or health concern qualms, but may not at all.
Would the unfair advantage of knowing how much they help worry him?
None of this nor his athleticism shows me he is likely using now.
Nor proves it is very unlikely.

Yes track & field is more regulated.
So there may be more that boxers get away with.
Although the advantage they get is also more direct so that may account for at least part of what may be a somewhat higher rate-since the sport measures absolute capacity of a brute physical ability, not the complexities of toughness & strategy & whether someone might be better by being defensive or evasive, mucho skills involved beyond mere physicality & an efficient technique.

While folks tend to get more from PEDs for weightlifting/strength events, any small advantage in explosiveness helps sprinters.

 

Say what???? Tyson Fury is both taller and better.

 

"Unopposed Allegations". Well Ali himself isn't around to oppose them anymore is he?

I'd already stated previously, regardless of the interviews he did and who made the claims (I'm still a bit skeptical those allegations were sourced in the book), Ali's ex-wives have slandered his name greatly over the years with various accusations. Had he had non-consensual sexual intercourse and/or affairs with minors, they would've shouted it from the rooftops long before this book came out.

At the least, Ali would have multiple lawsuits and/or settlements from parents of the alleged minors looking for dollar signs from a very rich man.

At the VERY least, you'd have at least ONE victim who would've come out in the 55 or so years since it potentially happened.

Not one person has come forward as a **** victim of Muhammad Ali, let alone one who claimed to have been underage at a time.

It's a good thing you're not a judge, or a District Attorney.

 

You are wrong, citing sources in a well researched book is not making firm conclusions or correlated with how someone like me as a D.A.or Judge would present or weigh evidence for or in a trial.

However It does not seem reasonable or objective to assume that his ex-wives slandered his name-especially when he was alive-rather than at "the very least" reserve judgment about whether what multiple exes said was true.
According to your logic, why would Ali & his estate not protect his reputation & sue for slander to preserve his good name if they lied?

Again you should stop saying "r*pe": it is not accurate, you must mean by statutory standards, but using the term absent qualification makes it seem like force was involved.
Just like bringing up pedophilia is inaccurate, since nobody even accused Ali of sleeping with kids before they reached puberty.

Maybe victims would have come out since then-but this is far from sure.
You would need to know if & when the statute of limitations expired on it.
Also numerous men who were actual r*pists were never exposed-or not for decades, more often after the "MeeToo" movement made it possible.
If Cosby had not lived that long, & if the movement had not gathered traction-more after Ali's death-this really rich & famous man, like so many others, would have never been exposed for the Monster he was.

I am *not* saying Ali was like that at all.
But making the example that when another man had numerous & extremely serious, sex crime & drugging woman allegations since the 1960's-& an investigation that went nowhere until a comedian Hannibal Burress made a comment that brought out 60 + alleged victims due to the culture change & exposure of social media reaching a critical mass-he would likely live & die unpunished.

So there are many good reasons why victims or affairs do not come forward sometimes for life-many having to do with the Trauma of a case, whether material benefits are available or realistic, & whether potential victims feel confident or empowered to even try.

 

i think he would have done well

 

In the “tremendous athlete stakes”, I think you will agree, Athletically AJ is the best a tall guy be. Much in the way Michael Grant was also presumably a tremendous athlete.

Fury is the better boxer of course. He will kick AJ’s ass. But so far as what is physically achievable from an athlete that size, to make him a tremendous athlete, which has nothing to do with who would win, AJ is better.

I think Tyson Fury’s overall aesthetic condition leaves a whole lot to be desired. He happens to be better because he has more experience heart and size. He has failed drugs tests, so of course he also benefits from modern advances too.

 

Fair enough - i see what you are saying now. Just one thing - just because Joshua looks to be such an athletic specimen doesn't necessarily mean he is as good as it gets in boxing. Big muscles, ripped physique, great size, it still comes down to functionality and skills, heart etc.

There are also a great many more big men in various sports now too, including boxing.

For all we know Fury might lift more than AJ, run faster and have more aerobic capacity etc.

If John Tate, by sheer chance, had an Ali type chin he would have been quite successful 40 years ago.

 

This is because of better information. Advances in science. I agree with you.

I doubt it. The guy is a fighter. As much as a great fighter needs to first be a decent athlete, Fury is all boxer. He’s bred that way too. He just happens to be living at a time where a guy that size gets to be a better athlete than before. And he failed to show up for doping tests

been watching me some big John lately. Was damn good.

 

That's some of the story.

You doubt it but you don't know.

Was Joe Frazier a great fighter? Would you consider him a "decent athlete"? I wouldn't.

Has Fury missed all doping tests? He does eat a lot of wild boar you know.

The other thing is if all these big guys are on roids the little guys have just as much chance "to be a better athlete than before". What works for one will work for others.

Yes he had a lot of talent and was a damn good boxer. Some considered him the legit champ over Holmes but alas John didn't have the durability or fortitude that Holmes did.

 

I always answer this the same way and nobody ever counters it with anything logical. Yes the little guys benefit in becoming better athletes than before too.

But now they have to compete with big Athlete’s.

whereas before those big guys were largely unable to become good enough athletes in combat sports.

About that, I think once he became damaged his resistance just went. And unfortunately it happened to him when he was quite young. Perhaps there was one injury that set off that demise?

Without beating Ali or Spinks or Norton or Young or Shavers I can’t see how that WBA stuff could ever have made a logical claim.

Tate beat knoetze and Bobbick . That was it. Then they gave him a fight with Coetzee who had beat Spinks..but gerrie should have fought Larry because he was the guy who beat Norton and Shavers. Both guys meant more in the division than Knoetze.

After beating Coetzee, Tate always would have had to have beaten Larry because that was never enough. holmes had cleaned out the old guard.

 

if this is true. ( & could might not be so.]]
: it is because more persons in the world & more tall persons.
equals more tall athletic persons.
no "advances ' '