If you heard a story that would hurt boxing legend, should you tell it?

It depends what you mean by "really better". Tommy Burns didn't get the chance to be born as tall as his opponents; was Jack Johnson really better than Tommy Burns? Zeljko Mavrovic was born with smaller hands than Lennox Lewis: was Lewis really the better man?

If we are to ask, "would Ali, if he had used steroids and his opponents had not, better than them?" Well, by and large yes, because he beat them! If we are to say "ah, but what if Ali did not have steroids, if he used them?" then we would raise two big questions: (1) how can we possibly know what Ali would have been like in any given fight without steroids and (2) why not extend this reasoning and ask "what if Ali was the same height as Joe Frazier? What if he was a natural 175 lb boxer like Bob Foster? What if he had the natural speed of George Foreman? What if he had the skin of Henry Cooper? What if he had the reach of Jerry Quarry?"

However, we know for a fact that Ali and all of his contemporaries had easy access to steroids. It was not the same under-the-counter, friend-of-a-friend, Ukrainian-national-boxing-team-doctor-leading-to-ban-from-Olympics situation, as it was with a modern example of steroids use such as Vitali Klitschko. Ali and all of his fellow boxers were boxing in an environment where steroids were legal and available; if any given boxer didn't use them, it was likely out of (a) practical concerns at their consequences in terms of performance and/or (b) rejection of them on some moral grounds.

 

Did Bummy start this rumor?

 

Whoa, back right up here. I know you're probably playing devil's advocate, but don't try and spin it like taking steroids means nothing. If he was taking steroids, it was an unfair advantage that was also kept secret.

But in any event, I think Mendoza should divulge his source.

 

I was almost sure this was gonna be about Aaron Pryor...lol
Ever since that whole Panama Lewis/Luis Resto stuff resurfaced
I've been waiting for someone to come foward and admit that
Pryor knew about it aswell & maybe he also participated in it.

 

I think you should consult Janitor.


Or better yet, don't.

 

i have another point of view on this matter, if like was said, steroids was perfectly acceptable at that time, then i feel ali had every right to take it, who knows, maybe other subscribers where joe frazier, ron lyle, ken norton, george foreman and earnie shavers, geez they would probably benefit them more from it due to their powerfull fighting styles and sure as heck wont say anything now that theres so much heat these day.

your right it would make ali look bad, but in a sense if legal was allowed for him was also allowed for every else at that time.

 

Of course, it would hurt his legacy if it was found to be true. We would still have the exceptional prime version of him, though.

But this about just telling bits and parts or just plain teasing (Janitor, you know who you are) is annoying in any case. Cards on the table, please!

 

I think you over emphasise the results any revelations of steroid abuse would make.Ali took quite a lot of different stuff as his pathetic fight against Holmes proved ,when he came close to endangering his life taking **** that reduced his weight ,as Pacheco's biography confirms.Pacheco also admitted he injected novocaine into Alis hands late in his career.This is hardly smoking gun stuff ,since steroids were not viewd in the same light they are today.Read a Sherlock Holmes story and you will find accounts of the famous detective playing his violin while under the influence of cocaine,times and attitudes move on ,things are more cynical now.If ,and its only an if ,till proven,Ali did take steroids ,do you think he is likely to have been the only one of that era?If you have conclusive proof I see nothing wrong with sharing it ,if not ,keep quiet ,unless you want a libel suit.

 

After the Foreman fight a couple of guys wanted to test him under the cover that they wanted to check if his kidneys had been damaged in the fight (as if that needed checking), but this was shortly after the fight and, still dehydrated, he couldn't squeeze anything out.

 

I honestly think you've got to be very careful when comparing fighters from different eras. I think it's almost impossible.

Things like speed and power have been changed by the use of drugs. So you can't diretcly draw a parrallel. Similarly things liek weigh in times have changed the sport completely.

 

I can't say I'm shocked at the kidglove treatment suggested here in regards to Ali and potential steroid use. I think I would be a bit harsher in my assessment of his 1970's resume if these facts were to be verified.

 

I think most would be, really.

 

it has been proved that dempsey never loaded his gloves.

 

It's not the one about Joe Frazier and his bicycle, is it?

 

I'm not saying that taking steroids means nothing; that's manifestedly false, since they CAN give an advantage. However, I do object to the following points-

1) Steroids, in a context where they are a legal and widespread substance, are an "unfair advantage".

2) Keeping these things secret is necessarily objectionable.

Now, starting with 1), what is it about steroids which makes them any more unfair than any other advantage? Is it the fact that it takes no effort in of itself to take a steroid dose, at least relative to conventional training? If so, the same objections should be raised about all other edges earnt through anything other than hard graft, be they natural, financial or otherwise.

If one is to discount achievements based on steroid use in a legal context, then one should also discount, say, the wins of Lennox Lewis because he was taller and had a longer reach than his opponents; it took no more effort for him to be 6"5 with an "84 than it would take for someone to inject or consume steroids. In fact, it's much easier to grow to one's natural height than to take steroids.

Now, the most effective reasoned objection to steroid use is based on their availability, which is of course affected primarily by their legality or lack thereof. In all modern sports, steroid use is illegal and thus unavailable to most competitors; thus the successful use of them constitutes an unfair advantage. However, this objection is moot in the (possible) case of Ali, since in the USA in the 1970s steroid use WAS legal and WAS widespread, thus not constituting an unfair advantage. The non-use of steroids by any athlete would be based on moral, health or performance concerns rather than a lack of availability.

Now, with regard to 2), if having any secret substance use is objectionable, Ali is ALREADY in certain contempt. As I've already said in this thread, he used intravenous painkillers in his hands to deal with the hand problems he encountered on returning to boxing, which increased his ability to punch hard, compensated for some errors in punching technique and improved performance since he could concentrate on the match rather than the pain in his hands. These painkillers, at the time, were no more legal than steroids; in both cases, Dr. Pachecho chose not to talk about them.