Would it have been ethical for Ken Norton to use PEDs?

I have no idea if he is.
He was more heavily muscled before, I recall him being up to a relatively lean 254 once.
But at 6' 6", this could be someone who lifted a lot & made a big effort to be be very strong, or using drugs.

There is a lot of hate for him, & also many folks unfairly assume people ar eusing absent any real evidence.
So anyone could be doing anything (even some not very big, or muscles covered with fat), & it is not uncommon, but it is wrong to say a giy is without at least suspicious things like rapid weight gain when already strong, certain side effects, evidence from real like like testimony & stuff like BALCO & Holyfield...

 

Was juice really a thing in the 70s .I know the eastern block sports people were forced into it but I'm not aware of it in the West apart from body building ? I did read about that guy who fought Forman and went on to lose his legs latter due to Roids. Would be interesting to find out about it.

 

Thank god, I've had 3 today and can't afford my jewels being any smaller.

 

Classic, just classic!!!
Not everyone who has a well built body are using peds. Especially during that era when a big muscled physic was shunned by most old school trainers. Norton was more than likely a genetic freak that was enhanced from hard work in the boxing gym.

 

YES the assumption that everyone who is well-built is dirty is...Insane.
And some guys who look ordinary or fat might use PEDs.

But Norton was naturally a mesomorph & worked out, although nothing so extreme as a "genetic freak". Even some non-athletes are his size or bigger naturally.
He was at least as tall as Frank Bruno, who weighed in at a cut 247 lbs..
Even that-assuming he was natural, I do not know-does not qualify as being a genetic freak, assuming he lifted weights assiduously.
And Bruno carried much more muscle than Norton.

 

IMO, particularly as perceived and appreciated in boxing, Cleveland Williams’ physique was that bit more impressive than Norton’s and, as far as I know and have seen, Big Cat wasn’t a user.

On film Liston said that Cleve even had muscles in his “eyes” - I don’t think I misheard - Sonny was probably exercising discretion by subbing in “eyes” for the more casually favoured term - a**. And Liston himself was no slouch in terms of musculature.

Both Cleve (even pre gun shot wound) and Ken also didn’t have the largest thighs and calves, so the more outstanding muscle mass was in the upper body.

Ali arguably had the best, most well muscled legs you’ll ever see on a fighter. Certainly, it seemed no one else compared in the ring in that dept., save for perhaps Liston.

I’ve noticed also that the physique and size of boxers is isolated and highlighted to best advantage in the ring, just in their trunks.

Dressed normally and outside the ring, sometimes it’s surprising how their overall size, while still relatively big, doesn’t appear quite as pronounced as you might expect as compared to some average Joes.

I saw Liston in a movie that was made in the late 60s or even 1970 and he strangely didn’t look as big as you might’ve expected next to the other actors.

 

Why? unless you are worry about not having kids, what else use is your balls to you?

 

What does this post have to do with this thread?

 

It probably started to take off in the 70s. Pumping Iron and Arnold and the bodybuilding culture was just starting to get mainstream around that time. I can imagine it slowly seeped into boxing. By the late 80s and 90s it was pretty endemic in all pro sports.

However athletes from the beginning of pro sports have always looked to get an edge. I just found about "greenies" which were popular in baseball for decades like from Ted Williams time on until relatedly recently. Which were essentially speed amphetamine pills players popped before games.

 

This is most all true, although definition & more upper body muscle adds an impression of more overall bulk.
Williams ha a heavily muscled upper body, but plenty of people, mainly later, had more muscle even in the upper body, let alone where 60% of muscle mass normally is-the legs.

"Well muscled" refers to mass &/or definition. Ali;'s legs were really functionally great in the 1960's but even then he was never at the top in actual muscle bulk or definition.
Frazier had bigger leg measurements, & Tysom + some SHWs somewhat larger than Joe.

[url]Here is a guy [/url]whose leg muscles & even definition-surprising due to not being very low body fat-rivaled the old fashioned pro bodybuilders.
I do not include those from most of the 1990's on, because starting around the time of Dorian Yates domination, guys had to have nearly as insane, steroid-fueled musulature as on their upper body.

 

I’m always a bit bemused by a certain contingent of boxing fans who ignore or give a pass to rule breaches.

The type of fans who might say “If you ain’t cheat’n’, you ain’t try’n’. They are also often the same people who say boxing isn’t so much a sport as it is a mirror of life’s struggles and the primary drive to do what you have to in order to survive.

That analogy might be fair to some extent - but if you want boxing to be respected as a sport with a high degree of regulation - don’t complain if it doesn’t garner same since you yourself give an almighty pass on a lot of negative aspects to the game.

Even on the score of PEDs it doesn’t make sense - while acknowledging a given fighter’s usage, the same fan will still afford absolute credit for that fighter’s achievements - clearly bypassing the obvious advantage factor - they are simply too enamoured with the resulting “product” even if via illicit means.

Short anecdote.

If I had time, years back, I’d drop into any eligible local to watch a big fight for free and have a few beers.

Invariably I’d strike up a conversation with someone I had just met. This one time (no, not at band camp) this guy was watching a boxing match with me, asking me who’s who, who’s the champ etc. I happily accommodated his questions. At some point during the fight, when his arbitrarily nominated “pick” was obviously losing, this guy abruptly turned his seat around, away from the screen showing boxing to watch WWF wrestling on the opposing screen.

I asked “What’s up?”. He replied he preferred the wrestling because boxing matches are often “fixed”. Damn near slid off my stool with laughter. He just said to me “What’s so funny?” I replied “Better the devil you’re certain of than the one you’re not quite sure about, eh?”

 

I know, crazy isn’t it?

Also, sometimes it’s the more highly profiled, favoured and better skilled fighters who get away with more foul stuff than their inferior opposition, the latter being the ones actually in greater “need” of foul tactics to keep themselves afloat.

Re Sharkey v Dempsey - if was often said that Sharkey forgot the golden rule - Protect Yourself At All Times.

So was Sharkey supposed to be mindful to protect the illegal target that was his nuts as well as all else and was it conveniently skipped that ONCE you’re hit square in the nuts, your hands reflexively drop to the acutely vulnerable and just damaged area?

No “golden rules” flashing in your head, the only thing on your mind being all consuming pain? There’s been some not so smart and highly inaccurate observations made in boxing over the years - despite same, some have strangely held over the long haul because they just sound like a nice and tidy summation even though they are far from the truth.