Some of this depends on how well you think non-PED using boxers can compete against PED users. It's the same in sprinting. There's a handy chart of all the top world records in that sport. Every single one of the record holders (except Bolt; we'll get there) were caught using PEDs. Bolt, meanwhile, trained as a teammate with many of the same people who were caught, and is an extreme outlier if he doesn't use drugs. And I mean extreme. No drug free athlete in history has posted records close to his. Reasonably, I think, many who follow sprinting look at the tiny little outlier in the sea of positive steroid tests and conclude that Bolt, too, will eventually be caught after his archived samples are tested with new methods in a few years. Because they find it improbable that he competed with and dominated equally elite, genetically gifted athletes who were on PEDs. Same story with Armstrong, who was an island of clean tests in a sea of busted steroid users...until he wasn't. Again, they tested his old samples and found out that he wasn't a magically gifted outlier after all. The same argument is being made in boxing. And unlike the example you mention of ancient aliens building the pyramids, terrestrial athletes' access to drugs (and reasons to use them) are well evidenced. As is the fact that, when testing lags behind, elite athletes in every other sport generally use when they think they can get away with it. Why should we think boxers are more noble or fearful of exposure? The consequences for boxers have typically been *lower* than other athletes. Sometimes nonexistent back when PEDs were still legal. So anyway, first step would be asking how much we believe PEDs actually make a difference in fights between top level boxers. If they're usually decisive, we have a lot of explaining to do about how all these noble, exposure-fearful boxers even manage to successfully compete against guys using PEDs.
Good post. This subject pops up every now and then and usually involves those who think fighters are clean and those who don't. As you say, the chances of Bolt being THAT much better than his already world-class opposition who have been using, while being clean himself, are absolutely minimal. It makes no sense whatsoever. I don't see it cheating so much as leveling the playing field. At least these days. I look at the financial implications. These are professional sportsmen. This is their job. Do poorly, and you suffer. No sponsorships, no prize money, no fans, no nothing. The exact opposite for a successful athlete. If a boxer is busted, what's the worst thing that can happen? A year's suspension? A fine? A slight tarnishing of your reputation? Small price to pay. The consequences of an Olympic athlete being busted are far greater, yet they still do it anyway.
Top ten at heavy for me and possibly number one at cruiser ( Usyk is a close competitor. ) the man fought everyone and usually came out on top. I would have liked to see him cut off his career a lot earlier but his urge to continue only capitalizes the true warrior within him.
He did fight ,almost, everybody but did not come out on top most of the time.......he won ONE out of 5 against Bowe/Lewis.............is 1-1 with cannon fodder Moorer and 1-1-1 with Heavyweight disgrace Ruiz................but but but Tyson, yeah he beat a washed up post prison Tyson twice who fought like 8 rounds in close to 5 years..........Evan Fields entire legacy is build on beating the Tyson impersonator from the mid 90's..........because beside Tyson he has nothing to hang his hat on in regards to winning on the top level.
That’s one way of looking at it but I don’t see it that way. He medaled in the 84 Olympics. He unified the cruiserweight title and beat two hall of fame men in the process. He then moved up to heavy and became the divisions only 4 time champion and gave 80s and 90s fans a lot of good exciting showings. Among his wins were Tyson, Bowe, Douglas, Moorer, Deleon, Qawi, Mercer, Dokes, Ruíz, Rahman and resurgent versions of Holmes and Foreman. You could say he had a lot of defeats but the vast majority came in old age.
I never said he did not come to fight and he did provide some exitement in the Ring but neverteless in his "prime" or close to it he picked up FIVE losses against top fighters, fact, he was beaten like a rented mule two out of three against Bowe and lost decisively twice against Lewis...lost against one hit wonder Moorer who was iced with one shot ion his first defense by a fossil.....yeah, Tyson Tyson Tyson Tyson BTW, almost everybody in the top ten would have iced the Douglas Holyfield faced, not even up to debate, still not Holyfields fault. IMO, Holyfield would loose more than win if matched in fantasy matches against past and present fighters............supported by real life events becuase Holyfield was never ever dominant or pulled together a hard string of top wins, was to inconsistant, some say his Roid cycle malfunctioned more often then not.
I don’t know where you got the idea that he lost five fights while prime. I can see an argument that he was prime for the first Bowe fight but not really any of the others. Guess maybe I remember things differently
Thanks. And the "slight tarnishing of your reputation" thing isn't unique to the steroids issue. We see all the time that fighters are willing to take a hit to their legacy by avoiding the best opponents. More lucrative and safer that way most of the time. This is, after all, a questionably regulated professional sport; it makes sense that the sportsmen would consider cost benefit analysis. And back in the 80s and 90s, which this thread is also focusing on, I'm not sure there were any consequences. Steroids weren't banned substances (at least according to the sport's rules; legal standards varied I imagine) when Lewis fought Ruddock. Moreover...There was a time frame, IIRC, where steroids weren't even regulated by the Federal government. If it wasn't even cheating in any legal or sporting sense, how the frak is that supposed to threaten a boxer's legacy? Is he supposed to have a crystal ball that these substances will be banned by a Federal enactment in the early 90s? That was one of the weirder parts of that confrontation between Foreman and a fan on Twitter who accused Norton of being roided up. Foreman leaped to Norton's defense, saying he was known as a clean athlete, etc, while the fan was indignant about Norton being a cheat. Neither guy checked to see whether there would have been anything illegal about Norton using (commonly available, widely prescribed) steroids in 1975.
OK good post. To address your points & several below: we do not know how much of an advantage it is, boxing has been conservative, even to adopt weight training, & the problem is much of the arguments made are against why athletes would not do these drugs. That is fine IF I said they did not. But again, I am saying it is crazy to insist they all did, or nearly so, absent any evidence. Maybe more used before the 1990 steroids control act banning them. But some like Holyfield only used afterwards-or he might have earlier, but from his body transformation in the early '90's, it seems unlikely. Sprinting or weightlifting is a single physical capacity; we know the advantages there are much less ambiguous. Extra muscle & bulk may well help a boxer, but given the need for aerobic capacity, speed & work rate, not necessarily worth the trade off. Other sprinters are overwhelmingly not Bolt's build/6'5", so he may well be an outlier. Or he may be a Pharmstrong-like drug cheat. There was always a stigma attached, & in the '90's more than that. Guys may have mae the cost-benefit analyses, & especially given that it is unknown that it would help them-& many frowned upon modern methods generally-came to the conclusion that it was not worth it. And I am not saying boxers are uniquely ennobled etc. But some athletes in all sports do not used PEDs, lie & cheat, in part for ethical reasons. It strains credulity that boxers would be uniquely *corrupt* & everyone uses them. Especially since it is not such a clear advantage. Even in say sprinting, the 90% of usage among the top times ever (if it is still that much) does not show that PED usage was that high. Could have been. It could also be that the best dirty athletes were able to post the best records. & the honest men fell below.
So a couple points: First, if PEDs do not provide a clear advantage in boxing, then it seems wasted effort to test for or ban them at all. If we can't even tell that they do anything for the boxer's performance, then all of the drug testing to protect "clean" competitors against dirty ones could be better spent elsewhere (fight promotion, athlete pay, or what have you.) You'd also expect that the Soviets and later Russians / successor states, who perfected scientific PED use, would avoid using PEDs for their boxers if PEDs didn't provide an advantage. But as far as I know, their boxers used PEDs just as readily as the rest of them. (And Povetkin apparently took them with him to the pro ranks.) Second, we are of course talking about the top performers. I agree that in theory, the majority of sprinters in the world may not be on steroids. (Probably not many roided up middle school track runners, for example. At least I hope not...) But the top performers are on PEDs, as you note with your 90% figure. Same with the Tour de France, etc. And it's the top performers we care about in a boxing context, just like it is in sprinting or bicycling or whatever. As long as we assume that steroids provide a big advantage in boxing (which, it is true, you do not concede) then the presence of positive tests at the top suggests that most of the elite use them to stay competitive. Some just got unlucky and tested positive. The argument would be by analogy to every other sport where PEDs were/are abused by top performers as long as the testing regime is weak. Heck, in the Olympics, there was a documentary recently about how the entire Russian sporting establishment uses steroids en masse. And interestingly, *other countries' athletes are competitive against them.* Which suggests that most Olympic athletes, despite the testing regimens available, are indeed using substances of their own to level the playing field against the Russians. Again, we are talking the absolute best guys. So while boxers as a whole are not uniquely corrupt, I would not expect *elite boxers* to be significantly less corrupt than elite athletes from most other sports. So when you say that the dirty guys in sprinting posted the best records, and honest guys fell below them, that's *exactly* what many are proposing has happened in boxing. The dirty guys are more likely to be the top guys *if* steroids are a big advantage for a boxer.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying CT. I think often steroids provide an advantage in boxing. But I cite things like stamina, work-rate & speed which may decline & not be worth the trade off. But people may not know until the try it, get cycles "right"... The effort to regulate them is very worth it to prevent the advantages that people often get. Also so the public may have confidence that the best, man, not doping regime or chemical factory, will win. To prevent athletes from compromising their health to try to keep up or even be competitive-which can happen regardless of the effectiveness. To care about principles, honesty, as an example for kids-you can think of other reasons. That many are competitive with the Russians does not show more than it is likely some use & get away with it. Yet you cannot automatically assume that others may not have a better training program & athletes even clean. There are many ways to maximize effectiveness. The presence of positive tests at the top does not show what most do. What many do, sure. But just as in sprinting-where it is more of a clear advantage-it is possible a disproportionate # of those at the top cheat in boxing. And we see nothing like an analogy to the vast majority of fastest times historically in the 100 Meters-since most at the top do not test positive. Again, we just do not know how common it is. Remember I have always been saying what I first opposed-the extreme conclusion that everyone must use. Even in the Tour de France that is not logically tenable, & boxing has never seemed to be either at that level of known corruption, OR likely not very corrupt at all.
