If You Rank Holyfield a Top-10 ATG...

Ringsidereport.com has an interview with Tommy Morrison which to me illustrates the problem with steroids. Expressing the typical view of juiced athletes, Morrison basically says it’s no one’s damn business what an athlete does to better himself (juicing up) because it puts butts in seats in that it makes for superior entertainment. The record book and setting an example for children? Let them be damned because, one, who knows what the Babe was on to do what he did and, two, by the time a kid is 20, he will have “grown a brain” and put everything in perspective.

What sad crap.

The record book shows how difficult it is to hit 755 home runs over a career or how difficult it is for a former champion to come back and win the title. In this era, time-honored feats are being reduced to the mundane by bulked-up, huge-headed freaks. Empirical evidence is enough to win the day in our courts and, by golly, to me it is enough to open my eyes and see that all this cartoonish buffoonery going on in the form of superhuman “feats” is a result of stampeding steroid use.

And, for Morrison’s information, kids are born with a brain and, may not always do what you say but will never fail to do what you do.

I have deleted Holy from my top-ten all-time heavy list because to me it is obvious enough that the accomplishments that once put him there were aided by steroids. The man grew better as he got older!??? At 35 he was a way better physical specimen than at 25?!!!

Since Holy was the only ‘90s boxer on my list, I just added Liston and no problem.

 

There is no excuse for taking an illegal drug, and Toney has failed two tests for steroid abuse. Once against Ruiz, and again against Batchelder, he should be thrown out the sport IMO.

 

I think you're too skewed from your hate of steroids. Can't really blame you for refusing to consider what Holy would be like without the taint. Holyfield's best traits were not particularly sensitive to steroids IMO but I don't know a whole lot about steroids.

(1) He was a very smart boxer who used excellent strategy. Most desireable trait in a boxer IMO. He was second to none in this department.

(2) His heart was as big as any.
(3) Great chin.
(4) Excellent BOXING SKILLS and ring savvy
(5) Excellent handspeed

You can argue that steroids enhanced his ability to handle attrition - the Bowe fight would be a great example. Steroids would help against a guy like Rocky Marciano or Joe Frazier where they are just wearing you down and testing your limits and that little bit of help lets you get through. I'm a big Mike Tyson fan - maybe one could make a weak argument and say that if Holy wasn't juiced - he would not have been able to survive Tyson's brutal punches, make them look like nothing, and the dish back his own. Remember that beating Tyson and then Bowea are probably his most regarded achievments - the traits that Holy used to beat Tyson (1,2,3,4) were irrelevant to steroids IMO. He'd have won in similar fashion with or without.

As for Tommy and steroids - you can't win this one. Eventually it'll catch up to you and cause serious problems. There is no free lunch. The commission must enforce these rules for the sake of the athletes.

i'd have rated liston above him anyway but that's another story for another thread

 

..use of steroids will not increase your punch resistance........and i was unaware that toney had failed two tests......some medication contains steroids that are legal to prescribe but on the banned list for various sports....just to clarify that....after the ruiz fight, the jt camp claimed he had been taking medication and was prescribed these drugs and was unaware they were banned..thats what i recall from reading in boxing monthly at the time, as ever, i may be wrong on this one too!!!....im not saying 'vander doesnt take gear, how do i know that....but i do know that he is one of the sports most consciencous trainers and the training methods and protein supplelements/legal chemical enhancments available to athlestes nowdays can actually have much more prominent and longer lasting affects than any steroid.....im thinking creatine, whey protein etc....etc....with the training techniques and gyms now available and the over the counter training products you can legally buy, its no wonder so many athletes nowdays appear almost superhuman compared to days gone by....

 

What about if you built your neck muscles up to a level they would not have reached without roids? The bigger stronger neck = less rattling of the brain = better punch resistance, no?

 

Dr margaret goodman publicly stated that when holyfield had his heart problems she was suspicious because that was a tell tale sign of steroid or hgh use.

 

...to a degree, having a big thick neck acts as a shockabsorber for punches.....however, i am of the school who believes that you cant put muscles on your chin....oliver mcall doesnt look like a big juicer with a 20 in plus neck......you could hit him with a bat all day and not ko the crazy sob....holyfield has always had a good chin...yes he could be hurt...see his fight with smokin bert....but he had above average whiskers.....i suppose the constant use of steroids can make a fighter more aggressive and more able to continually go to the well in the face of adversity....some traits 'vander has displayed in the past.......but i think you would all agree that heavily muscled fighters who look like juicers, generally arent the best fighters in any division....tyson dispalyed a more natural physique than bruno for instance.....big lennox had that big bloated round faced look associated with water retention from steroid use.....but i think thats just his genetics...take a look at his mum....haha........the bottom line is until real evidence is displayed either way, you can assume all athletes are clean...or assume they are all dirty.....your call....

 

....jst to clarify...im NOT suggestin either ll or bruno were juicers.....just giving examples for the sake of argument....

 

As far as I remember Tyson avoided a steroids test back in 1991. Paid a fine to forego the test. That's all I'm saying.

You are right, I should not have mentioned recreational drugs, I did so in a effort to defend Tyson's reputation or at least highlight that I am not insisting that he is a steroid user.

Hopefully I've been clear now in all my posts.

I will add (again) : There is no hard evidence that Holyfield or Tyson have used steroids. But I think they probably have.

 

"an unfair advantage over other fighters" depends upon whether or not the other fighters are using steroids too.

If, at any given time, approx. 9 out of 10 of the world's best heavyweights are using (or have used) performance-enhancing drugs, then the bulk of the field of fair play is undisturbed by the use of drugs. Only against the small minority of lifelong "clean" fighters is the issue of cheating relevant.

Since we all agree that drug tests can only prove who IS using and not who is NOT using then we cannot ever be sure if anyone is not using. And we cannot be sure which individuals are being cheated against, or if any are at all.

 

I see you're being sarcastic. It's not good to discredit a fighter for no reason. We've kept Holy and Tyson in different boats for good reason (and with Tyson rightfully getting the short end of the stick). However, in this case, don't throw Tyson into this mess just because Holy tangled in it. There are plenty of logical indicators that Holyfield did steroids and that is what started this thread. Fine good for him - if anything I defended him about his status in ATG.

I doubt that Tyson consiously avoided the random drug tests for fear of growth hormones or steroids. He probably wanted to avoid drug tests in GENERAL (or rather this managers) because it was clear he did all sorts of recreational drugs. He isn't attentive enough to single out specifically steroids but probably drugs in general (perhaps one test could indicate something funny (as your body is an integated system) and then they do official tests for other stuff like recreational drugs and then Tyson gets in trouble). It is well known that Tyson was naturally a heavyweight. The same cannot be said of Holyfield.

Tyson made a lot of mistakes, messed up a lot in boxing, but steroids I doubt was one of them. Speak of it only if there is concrete proof - else it is slander. You wouldn't want someone to start speculating that you have explosives in your house w/o any basis, would you? It could get you into a lot of trouble. There is no evidence that Mike Tyson ever used performance enhancing drugs. He has displayed the same physical attributes i.e. punching power, speed, etc. since he was a teenager.

 

That's just wonderful. To make it "OK" for one guy to do drugs, we're going to say everyone else does it too. Fairly misleading. What other fighters do is irrelevant to the choices a single fighter makes for himself. Just because subpar heavweights today don't feel like training but rather rely on enhancing drugs, just because Tommy Morrison or Holyfield made wrong decisions with steroids, does not equate that Muhammad Ali did the same. It is an individual matter. Top tier heavyweights like Muhammad Ali or George Foreman or Mike Tyson who trained like spartans (it takes a LOT of determination and will to train like the way these guys did AT some point in careers (Tyson not so much after Holy 2) and so one should be considerate about it) and probably did not rely on drugs.

 

No, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm being 100% straight.

I haven't discredited anyone.

I dont know what you mean.
My first post in this thread actually asks why Holyfield has been singled out.
I throw up names of fighters who have more evidence against them that they used steroids (eg. Klitschko, Toney who failed tests. Morrison, who 100% admitted to it) and the name of Tyson, whose avoidance of a test (if I'm not mistaken) would be seen as "damning evidence" if it were Holyfield who had done so.

The "logical indicators" usually spouted here are the fact that he put on some muscle.
I dont find that line of argument convincing. The facts show his muscle gain was rather modest compared to the possibilities drugs would provide, and that he has stayed at 215-220 pounds at a height of almost 6'3 for many years now. He's hardly using the steroids to pile on the size.

The most convincing "logical indicator" that he used drugs for strength and power are the fact that he is an ELITE HEAVYWEIGHT BOXER.
In a sport where - and at a level where - an opponent having "an edge" over you might result in you being decapitated by his punches then it makes sense to use these drugs that provide an extra degree of the necessary stuff (speed, power, aggression, strength) - however tiny - and aid training, recovery, and injury prevention.
Like taking vitamin C or getting 9 hours sleep instead of 6, an elite champion will be look to drugs to aid him in his preparation. I dont see why not.
The "moral crusade" against steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs doesn't tend to extend to the lives of professional athletes themselves, nor really to anyone who actually has a clue about what these drugs are. Professional users in sports like boxing are rarely the stereotypical abusers of the tabloid mind.

Isn't this exactly what I was alluding to, and you asked me why I mentioned it ?
On my re-iterating these sentiments, you thought I was being sarcastic.

I'm not stating his probable motives either way here, since I believe he was possibly taking both recreational drugs and steroids. Or maybe he was clean and just couldn't be fussed to **** in a bottle for Razor ruddock. I dont know.

Holyfield bulked up with weight training. With or without steroids I KNOW his weight increase is possible either way, certainly for a man of blessed athletic genetics.
People who think 20 or 30 pounds of muscle on a man of that size frame is a SURE INDICATOR of steroid abuse are very much under-estimating the possibilities of steroids as well as under-estimating the possibilities of "natural" bodybuilding methods.

I think most elite heavyweights use steroids.
I dont think steroid use is a crime akin to possessing explosives. I think steroid use is part of the job.

Tyson's attributes are certainly not the result of steroid use. But I see no reason why he would balk at using a drug that would aid him in training recovery and maintain or boost that god-given power, esp. after the loss to Douglas spelled out the fact that he was not out of reach from his peers.

I dont mean to slur Tyson. I am not anti-steroids. I think steroids are a FACT in pro sports, esp. at the elite levels. Therefore I dont think my stating my belief that Tyson used is out of line. I might be wrong. It makes little difference to me.

Interestingly enough, Tyson is one of the few people I would be inclined to believe if he said he never used steroids. He strikes me as very honest and has no goody image to uphold and has laid bare fair more personal insights in his time. If Lennox or Holyfield said they never used steroids I'd have heard nothing, but Tyson I'd perhaps believe.

 

Of course they didn't "rely" on drugs.
Drugs are just a very small part of preparation. And not everyone does drugs.

What exactly is your problem ?
You state that Evander Holyfield used steroids ("wrong decisions" ) but then you object to me pointing out that drugs tests cannot prove fighters do NOT use drugs.

Evander Holyfield has passed drugs tests for 20 years or so. He's never failed a drugs test. Who in the heavyweight division today has passed more drugs tests over as many years without failure ?

But you and I both say (or strongly suspect) that Holyfield used steroids. So how can you argue with my point about tests ?