Let's suppose the same fighter, having had a nice cycle of PEDs, faces HIMSELF, with a well constructed illegal wrap (the kind that can evade detection and isn't impractically heavy)? Which wins? Wraps or PEDs?
agreed. but then the question is, is there a style, approach or capability (like defense) that better lends itself to illegal wraps?
what does this mean? are we supposed to have cataloged in our minds the limitations of biological advantages?
Boxers train hard anyway. PEDs allow you to train harder..sure...but as you know boxing is more than just your conditioning...it's also about hitting and not getting hit. It's about the ability to take punches and it's about adaptibility, determination and other intangibles. Illegal wraps..makes every punch landed feel twice as heavy. That's a far more telling advantage over the course of a fight...than someone simply being in slightly better physical condition than usual. Bottomline PEDs haven't proven to be as effective as illegal wrap have.
this is the most sophomoric argument i think i've ever read on this forum. first of all, you say wraps make each punch twice as heavy? you sure it's not three times as heavy? or eight times? maybe it's 1.2 times as heavy. oh wait. you said it's twice as heavy. okay. that's settled. second, your conception about how PEDs work is simplistic to the point of being ridiculous. you don't think PEDs can help fighters hit and not get hit? or to improve durability? third, where's the proof about how effective illegal wraps are? what proof are you referring to?
typical conclusion from some random internet guy, if that's not bullet proof evidence I don't know what is. He even measured the difference in punching power between a wrapped fist and ann illegally wrapped one. What more can you ask ??? As for the debate, it depends on what's in the illegal wrap. If it's bolt and other metal parts as Dempsey is suspected of having in the WIllard fight, then I'd think it's far more effective than PED. If it's plaster of paris as Margarito did, then I'd say PED is more of an advantage. I've seen guy's take roids, and the difference in strenght they have is huge, much more of an advantage than some hardening plaster imo. Plus, had that many PED increase stamina as well and you have one hell of an Ace in your sleeve if you combine them.
I'm gonna go with the Roids. I think a heavy juice cycle will give you the slight edge. Especially if you are a defensive minded fighter, and can avoid shots as long as you're legs are still fresh, then Roids will win. Remember also that close fights generally go the distance, and since you're fighting yourself, we can assume it will be a close fight, and those Roids should give you the championship rounds.
I wouldn't put it so bluntly, but I would agree the more immediate danger is from loaded gloves. Why? Because they can have an immediate impact from the outset of the fight. Every punch can make the difference. Endurance-enhancers, for instance, would only be factors late in the fight (though they could contribute to significant damage, definitely). They are not, unlike loaded gloves, a risk to the opponent at any moment in time.
Dempsey was accused at different times of both metal instrument, & plaster-of-paris use. I can't say I believe either, but he came under unproven fire for utilising one or the other, from differing quarters.
Or the fact that properly loaded gloves can make the shittiest of fighters live against anyone. Let's look at historical examples of both. Antonio Margarito vs Miguel Cotto(speculative) Cotto seemed to completely outbox Margarito for the first 8 rounds, however it appeared that finally began to slow down. Suddenly a late surge by Cheato battered Cotto into submission, turning his face into a horror movie, suddenly and quickly, in the span of 2 rounds at best, Cotto went from the look of a fighter who was in control, to a fighter who looked like he survived being bludgeoned with a hammer.(he looked worse than he did when he took a 12 round beating from Pacquiao) Months later, after Margarito's wraps were found and he was exposed, he suffered a laughable beating to a washed up Mosely. Cotto was deemed ruined after that fight. Mosely who had admitted to using PEDs, took a fight against Oscar and won a disputed decision. This is Shane Mosely, someone, who had worse is deemed an equal to Oscar. And with PEDs he only managed a disputed decision? Same deal with Toney, and Holyfield. Neither fighter showed any impressive dominance or ability to inflict damage on the opponent with PED use. Not to mention it is more than likely that MOST world-class boxers use PEDs. Enter Luis Resto vs Billy Collins. Billy Collins, a tough undefeated, heavily favored prospect, facing a feather-fisted journeyman. Collins used the infamous Plaster of Paris, and instead of a feather-fisted journeyman, he punished the heavily favored Collins and permanently damaged his eyes, nearly blinding him and forcing him into retirement. Illegal wraps >>>>> PEDs
If Shane Mosely would've ditched the PEDs, and used the Resto-wraps. ODLH would look like Ali right now.
Yes he did. He admitted to it. Which is the only way a feather fist is going to permanently damage another fighter in the ring, a fight not accomplished by even the biggest of punchers.
indeed, just read that he admitted that on top of removing the padding from his gloves, he had plaster in his wraps. Talk about a raw deal for Collins
It was in the "Assault in the Ring" special. Seriously, this question is like asking Barry Bonds if he'd rather take steroids or use a metal bat. Shit, they were testing college kids and they were hitting the ball 380(average), they took a performance metal bat and were cranking 420. That and no amount of steroids can help you hit better(unless there's some crazy hand eye steroid), while he metal bat has a wider sweet spot and is much easier to hit inside pitches. Almost no contest, Bonds probably wouldve hit 90 with a metal bat.
