View Single Post
Old 01-31-2013, 09:32 PM   #41
ESB Full Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 477
vCash: 500
Default Re: Liston v Holyfield

Originally Posted by Manassa View Post
Weight is a component of mass. I don't believe height is on its own, not without width or breadth, which would give you volume, which without density is only mass potential. I think this means they were both the same size but Holyfield was slightly skinnier. Personally, if forced to choose, I would say Liston was bigger for the size of his skeleton; his hands, wrists, ankles and such - areas almost unaffected by muscle growth - were larger than Holyfield's.

Holyfield was big; so was Liston, but without a specified regimen to make him so:
That's an old Holyfield in the above picture... not sure about Liston but I've seen him look a little more fit than the above picture. Anyway, these pictures don't mean ****! Both were bulky guys... Holyfield still is. Holyfield's neck is almost 20" (19 3/4") and Liston's was 18 1/2". Biceps and Chest measured almost identical but Holyfield's were more defined. Waist, wrists, fists... sure Liston's were just a little bigger... so what? The most important measurement here is the neck... Holyfield's was bigger and he was the more durable of the two IMO. Even in the above pics, you can see that Holyfield has the neck and t****zoids... which help in absorbing punches.

Liston is pretty small compared to many of the good fighters Holyfield faced BTW. Holyfield is pretty huge compared to many of the good fighters Liston faced. Like I said, Holyfield proved his worth vs. bigger and better fighters.
FlyingFrenchman is offline  Top
Reply With Quote