Would Ali be too small for today's heavyweight division?

Would Povetkin win a fight between the two, though?

 

No, unless later in 70s. Wlad might though.

 

I find era comparisons incredibly difficult, but what I was getting at is stylistic considerations as well as sheer size come into play, and people will discount Frazier as too small, dismissing his attributes, but give Ali leeway for a size differential because of his.

 

He had better length than Frazier and a style that works better against bigger fighters though. Frazier would be ducking down and getting leaned on against Wlad. Ali not as much.

 

True. I'd like to see how Ali would have fought Vlad; he usually came up with something!

 

but are they ALL naturally bigger?
Height has everything to do with reach. If Two guys encumbered with unnatural weight the guy with the Longest arms has an advantage. He dosnt have to move so much. Ever tried overcoming a longer reach when you are tired? The extra pace required to overcome reach severely depletes the spurt fighting style of built up guys. They are tired first.

it does nothing for technique once you ration out the work rate and stamina.

a less skilled fighter can overcome skill with effective use of a weight advantage. A skilled fighter carrying extra weight won't have to rely just on skill if he can effectively use weight. But he will have to ration his pace. Two guys matched evenly with excess mass, pace and skill rely on fighting tall with their long arms and height.

For thirty years largely the same sized guys carry thirty extra pounds than they would have 30 years ago.

 

Alright I ppreciate you Good Will & Maturity O.I. It is a sign of security to not get triggered & upset when there are disagreements. This is the opposite of Ego's offended & "Pathologies on Parade" too often evident on the interwebs! :think

I would just ask you to exercise more precision & intellectual rigor in some matters. Something may be POSSIBLE but not at all likely. And when there is no evidence-& good reason to believe a result was likely natural-it is only fair to assume innocense.
This is related to me saying we COULD be murderers or beat kids...But it is both statitsically unlikely & there is no evidence for it.

Also youoften make good points about there being much corruptn-but then to easily diagnose a likely problem in specific instances. Then there is the DETAILS of how common what kind of cheating is in various sports.
I suggest you consider these specifics:

1) You would be RIGHT about Dempsey maybe cheating-if it was not well established on many forums including here that Willard's injuries were EXAGGERATED. He did not absorb nearly the damage reported by SOME. And it became urban legend over the years.

2) Ther ARE many cheaters.
But there is specific GREAT circumstantial evidence about Holyfield, aka "Evan Fields", let alone how much mass he added quickly when already lean & over 200 lbs.-& adding it most all on the upper body.
This is TOTALLY distinct from Ali fighting as a LHW when a teenager & filling out-but never becomeing bulky.
No he NEVER had big bodybuilding muscles-he was a big (skeleton/height) strong guy, but his actual measurements were never indicative of dispropotionate hypertrophy-or even maxing out his NATURAl genetic potential.

3) Modern science/training let some do better older even WITHOUT PEDs, which also can expand an athlete's life span.
But we must be careful to distinguish genetic outliars & very hard workers from cheaters. B-Hop MAy cheat, but also the science of training is best at delaying the detioration of aging.

4) There was no PED regulation years ago: BUt it was also rarely used in boxing then! Show me WHAT boxer used PEDs in the early '60's when Ali gained very natural weight.

5) By the way, though 32 lbs. of muscle starting off as a skinny kid IS plausible...
He gained a bit of height too. And we do not know that it was all muscle: it almost certainly was NOT, since he was trying to make weight at a spoecific time for the LHW limit!
I stiull await the proof that Ali was even 210 in earlly '64, but considering all these factors there is NOTHINgGat alkl suspicious about his weight & muscle gain. Nothing at all.

6) You are too selective about choosing examples related to a sport, & extrapolating across the board.
The Tour de France is maybe THE most corrupt event around.
Both how folks CAn avoid testing...And the massive advantage to cheating in such a grueling endurance race.
It is much less of a direct & huge benefit in boxing.
AND folks were not even lifting, overwhelmingly, until around the '80's. With a few exceptions.

7) I know all about baseball. Canseco proved to be ZRIGHT about a few things. But there is also no evidence that his 80% or so of users-which anyway covered the worst of the steroid era AND dabblers-is correct.
COULD be. Could be 20-25% too.

We MUST be fair & scientific & realize the MASSIVE difference between the vast majority cheating, & a big minority at most.
We still do not KNOW the rate in baseball during the steroid era.

8) I am not ABSOLTELy sure, but pretty sure they did not have things to merely add strength in Beamon's time. The burden of proof is on an accuser. Feel free to research this.

9) MOST boys-to-Men at least fill out in their late teens & early 20's.
It will be more so if they are athletes & eat well.

10) It is always unlikely someone will take steroids & not even lift. Or do heavy weight bearing exercises to maximize muscle & strength.

11) Let us be SPECFIC. Please do not ignore the SPECIFICS. god, or truth, is in the details.

Beamon jumped almost 1' 10" over the world record. No need to round it up to "almost 2'".
Also you ignored that SOME of that was due to altitude & the maximum allowable tailwind.

12) There is also a chart about how records are broken by LESS over time. In general.
So of course after a monster record the next one likely will not be a big record. And given the altitude in Mexico City AND that steroids were not so widespread yet in track & field...It is understandale that a clean man COULD shatter the record like that.

13) And that nobody jumped realy well that day? Beamon's record likely had a psychological impace on the competitors.

14) So lloking ofr a graph of world records WITHOUT the particulars is not a fair & accurate way to determine likely guilt.
Not at all.

15) Owen's & Powell now hold the record LONGER than Beamon.
this is meaningful too.

16) Your comment about how records dip AFTER crackdowns is perfectly valid.
But your point about broad jumping today is a bit off.

Now the winner's of world class meets tend to be over, from a bit to significantly, more than Jesse Owens huge benchmark about 80 years ago.

The distinction between the very best at the time & top jumpers routinely jumping something MORE than that is still large.

I will address your other post now. But please think carefully about these details.
Mr. Galt is just mistaken that objections must come from "Ali Worshippers". I am severely critical of some of his conduct & racism.

And many like me have lifted for years & understand WHAT is suspicious & why much better than him.

Serious lifters would scoff at someone like Ali likely using PEDs.
if they look at his AGE, before & after body, if he lifted....
Let alone WHEN this was & if folks used in the sport!

 

OK now for your next posting part deux.

1) I showed at length how there is no decent indication Beamon used. Based on build, what was available then, the CONDITIONS of altitude & wind that helped at least some %...It does NOT take a naive person to say that it is not LIKELY he cheated.
And the record for that specific event was held longer both before & just afterwards!
Also the recreational & endurance drugs you mentioned would NOT help set a long jump record.
Your cheater alarm needs some recalibration.

2) MAYBE the Jamaican team tended to be guilty. But if you look at how much faster they were than those others who ran in "slow motion"...you will still not find a large, like 9%, time difference.
There is evidence that West Africans have more outliars in genetic capacity for explosive power. And it is a national priority in Jamaica.
They COULD be cheating too...But if so, more than other nations? Unknown.

3) As for what you wrote below:

"As for your question, if everyone cheated then how come these guys are winning by enormous lengths? The answer is that they cheated better with superior drugs, cheated more by taking still other advantages, or that they were naturally superior athletes and when everyone cheats then the playing field is leveled. My thinking is that the champions are frequently better trained, naturally better conditioned, and their superior competitive spirit drives them to cheat more and be better at it. Sort of like, if you aren't cheating then you don't want it bad enough. Whatever your opponent is willing to do, you have to be willing to go farther".

This is pretty discerning & valid.
With the exception that it still does note stablish WHICH guys are winning by chating, & how much it is training, natural talent, motivation, technological advances, etc.

4) Ali was no saint but there is no evidence he cheated in his sport.
Liston...I think this is still unclear.
He MAy have dived. It is also perhaps more likely that absurdly quick punch when he was moving forward had more impact than we suspected, he went down...And due to mob pressures & his own psychological problems refused to get up.

Ali did not know que pasa then. His later responses were marketing/Tall Tales. He told Liston "Get up you bum, bobody will believe this".

Sometimes things are in between. Likely Liston was caught unaware when moving forward compounded the force, & just refused to absorb the beating he almost certainly would have taken. After the 2nd bout was postponed due to Ali's hernia I believe Liston who was peaking was depressed & started drinking heavily. So in the fight he had no good chance. He gave up.

We can entertain an idea like Ali used PEDs...
Then when we investigate & it poves highly UNLIKELY, we should spcify this & call him innocent.
Even though he COULD have done anything.
We COULD both be serious criminals in numerous ways.

But he & we are very likely INNOCENT.

 

Let me step in for a minute:

ALI USED PEDS. It's already documented. I am not accusing him of using them to gain muscle. I don't know how he did that. But he did use PEDS so let's not put a halo on him.

Before the Holmes fight, he was using Benzedrine and Thyrolar.. The former is an amphetamine which causes bronchodilation. Thyrolar basically increases metabolism by mimicking thyroid hormone. If used in the right combination, these drugs can definitely act as PEDs. Ali used them in the absence of a credible diagnosis.

With that said, Ali probably screwed up his performance by using too much of them. He also may have stupidly been using them to cut weight. Regardless, it's a really suspicious situation.

Google search it and the scene has a nice article if you don't believe me.

 

Ali used painkillers in his hands as well. But PEDs in the sense of steroids to gain muscle, no.

 

OK Ali used drugs that were a DE-enhancement for performance.

All that was discussed related to whether he used steroids. With the exception of a slight sidelight mentioning amphetamines & uppers.

So when completely washed up & with significant symptoms of Parkinson's syndrome for several years, he took very dubious substance.s to cut weight that basically froze his already limited mobility. Even in his last fight in December of 1981 he was significantly better without the voodoo drugs.

Nothing wrong with the painkillers for his hands. Though i do not know if he used them in the '60's or much, that has NOTHING to do with PEDs. It is treating a medical condition.

Neither was worth even considering since they have absolutely nothing to do with the topic discussed: whether Ali used steroids/muscle building drugs-which he almost certainly did not...

Or whether the weight & muscle he gained over 4 years starting from 18 years old was at all suspicious or unusual.

Which it was not. At all.
And the odds that he would have ACCESS to anything to maximize strength & clearly not bulk-or used it when WHAT other boxers did then, & he did not DO anything like lifting weights specifically to build muscle....

Are very to vanishingly small.

Can we finally all agree that Ali almost certainly did NOT use any steroids or muscle building drugs?

This should not be at all difficult.

 

Entaowed, you make a number of good points. You are right. There is some evidence that Ali did some other stuff but no real evidence that he did steroids. If he did stuff, it probably wasn't steroids, just like you say. Since I was looking around for what other performance enhancing drugs would have been available in the 60s, I actually found us having this very same conversation just over a year ago. I figure I could just quote what I said then since it has all the links and sources:

I.

I found that article about weight lifting I mentioned earlier. It was from 2001.
http://www.dynamic-eleiko.com/sportivny/library/farticles006.html

I'll have to summarize some parts since it says not to reproduce any part of the article.

1.A doctor Medvedyev did a study on the rate of improvement in weight lifting records and found the most improvement occurred in the late sixties to early seventies and early to late eighties.

2.Since most modern training methods and changes in technique had been established prior to these periods doping was the only significant change and possible reason for the rapid improvement.

3.The article says that total volume of lifts was up 40% in the 80s.

4.The records improved by about 21% between the mid-sixties and the late 80s, compared to other sports where improvement was maxed at 9%.

5. Drugs in the 60s: Dianabol; Nerabol, Durabolin, Winstrol, Stanazolol, Nerabolin
Drugs in the 80s: Testoterone, Testosterone - Proprionate, Growth Hormone

6.Testing goes up, winning records goes down.

II.

Amphetamines.

Found an interesting article about the history of sports doping. Some of these notes are quite interesting.

#1

#2

#3

http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org/view.timeline.php?timelineID=000017

III.

Here's an article from the New York Times about how rapidly Olympic records are broken, and how they are broken at different rates depending on which sport you are talking about.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/sunday-review/why-olympic-records-are-broken-or-not.html

The article also mentions some of the tech swimmers have now like deeper pools, which means the waves from their competitors don't slow them down as much or something.

This other guy over at the dailybeast, who I think wrote Mathletics, says that we shouldn't look suspiciously at people until they break the record more than 2%.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ly-are-but-there-s-a-formula-to-find-out.html

But what he doesn't take into consideration is that the previous record was likely set by someone on drugs, and you'd need a better batch of drugs to beat it.

IV.

 

This is a half falsehood.

He was prescribed Thyrolar by his doctor. And Thyrolar contains the substance Benzendrine, also found in Amphetamine.

But he was prescribed it by his doctor for a perceived condition.

 

Lets play a new game. Take a Heavyweight fighter generally accepted to be either the best ever - or a very close second - and do our best to besmirch the guy by talking complete bollox with regard to drugs, and quoting even bigger idiots than ourselves.

The only opinions worth listening to on the effects of drugs are those of pharmacologists, everyone else's is worth less than dog sh it.

 

I couldn't agree more:good
BTW I had a Spanish Pale Ale in my local Wetherspoon's yesterday think it was called Star? 5% refreshing ,but a bit strong for a session beer.