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

Actually, Frazier’s thigh measurement was little more than Ali’s - depending on the source - only 1/2” to 1” adv. to Joe. The big difference was the calf muscle - Again, subject to source, Ali had 2” to 3” and even 4” on Joe in that dept. I see Lewis’ thigh was little different though he did have 18” calves just 1/2” to 1” bigger than Ali’s own calves.

Tyson’s 17” calf measurement surprises me but 26” to 26 1/2” thighs not so much. It seems Mike’s calf muscle was like a tight, short ball of muscle - not full volume or as long as some - but I guess they could’ve measured 17” at their biggest circumference point. Anyway, there appeared to be an appreciable size advantage (calf size) to Lewis when he faced Mike.

 

You could say the same for modern boxers too. But people assume they are juicing discretely.

Big George doesn't bad mouth anybody these days.

 

PEDs were not banned until the 90s. Testing did not happen in the 70s so ofc you won't find proof.
You won't find things unless you look for them.

 

No, with Sharkey's fairly low weight even for his pretty diminutive size, he would have to be built like a T-Rex, all lower half, to approach the level I am talking about.
Just Google David Tua, Legs.

 

You are right about Frazier-although tale of the tape is often inaccurate, you can see his calves listed at 13" too, which is obviously wrong.
I saw Tyson listed at 27" & 18" for his legs before-mat have been rounded up at least, but if not those measurements *lean* are very large, especially for a non-SHW sized man.

Which Lewis was. It is possible that Lewis either had his calves overstated-likely at least rounded up-or certainly since they were so long compared to Tyson, they will not look as big.
Especially since Tyson had those swollen balls of muscle bellies you describe!

 

Yes Sir, but still very unfair & irrational, since we do no even know if most juice-& how much those that do indulge on average...
And nothing about Norton showed he needed to juice to look like he did. Health, proportions, total size, when or how fast he gained muscle, skin etc.

 

Where is the historical evidence that PEDs were widespread in boxing during the 90s? Not many tested positive.

 

Yes that is at best poor circumstantial evidence.
Some of the things are not even very unusual. In his last great fight he was not yet 35 vs. Holmes.
Moore retired earlier & was 49-4 through his 40's, losing only to the very best, most victories KO's, last fight at 49.
Others were as competitive or more at a later age-think of Jersey Joe Walcott vs. Marciano at 38, Liston at 743 years old-well really at least in his final fights older than Norton by the time he fought Holmes. ;-)

Being a boxer-type & staying very fit makes this entirely plausible for Norton.
He was more muscular than usual, but someone like Sam McVey carried more muscle per square inch well before steroids were even invented! There are other outliers, maybe Primo Carnera the most prominent one.

DId Hollywood actors even often use PED's in the mid '70's?

I want to add that if you include the year when he was 39 until he retired at 49, Moore was 59-4. The man had 15 fights just when he was 39, winning them all! Then won the next couple in less than 3 months. He got better with age, his competition did not get weaker. Most had good records. https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/8995
Fought professionally from 1935-1963.
After starting at lower weights. Clearly was very unlikely to have taken PEDs.
Moving up in weight naturally but not even at all large for a HW for his time-& although he was cheated of a title shot for a while, the longest reigning LHW EVER at 9 & a 1/2 years.

He basically had NO decline, ever.
It is...Insane. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_Moore

 

..... Fair enough

 

There's nothing in Norton's physique to suggest steroids, more than his peers.
He's roughly the same mass as the other top heavyweights of his era.
His physique is an outlier then, and now. But not due to amount of muscle development. Due to his particular genetics, the sheer attractiveness of his physique. That's all it is. Bone structures and muscle insertions, etc. The way his body is naturally put together.
The guy was about 6'3 and 212 pounds. Not a mass monster.

That's not to say Norton couldn't have been on steroids. Maybe he was, and everyone else. But there's nothing to suggest steroids in terms of his physique.
It's just ignorance when people see a nice looking physique to think steroids.

All boxers use some resistance training.

There have been lots of impressive physiques going back forever.
Some people are just blessed with good genetics.
Not that it helps with boxing at all.

 

Moore was a wonder who as far as i know retained all his faculties until his passing at age 84. Highly intelligent and extremely articulate. Physique wise, some of his stats were more than solid, even as compared to HWs of the era. His arms were like tree trunks.

Good question re Hollywood actors and PEDs. Two that come to mind as possibilities - only as per their physiques and long term maintenance of same ( I’ve never read/heard accusations of their using PEDs otherwise ) - are William Smith (body builder come actor) and Charles Bronson.