Was Buster Douglas Really Stronger Than Evander Holyfield?

Here it's claimed that Holy benched 375 lbs for 12 reps, but I don't know what the basis for that claim is: https://sports.answers.com/Q/What_was_Evander_Holyfield's_top_bench_press

 

I'm agreeing w you actually. Despite being past prime n older he still was a solid champion w multiple defenses after Tyson. I don't use the "he was past prime" argument for either when they fought just that Holyfield was more disciplined n bigger once they did.

Also, styles. Holyfield did love a war but could fight off the backfoot too. Tyson was strictly a come forward fighter which tends not to grant longevity especially since his passion was gone n defense was declining. Not to discredit Holyfields wins, he showed up and did what he had to do.

Perhaps but I'm still skeptical it was just 5 pounds. He looked massive in 96 compared to 92 even bigger frame wise than Tyson when they fought imho. Even then I don't see any evidence of him outmuscling someone of Tysons stature or bigger in a clinch from 88-92. Correct me if I'm wrong. Not saying he couldn't have beaten Tyson in 91 when they originally were meant to fight, just saying those added pounds help is all.

 

Yes but that is not a performance enhancer.
Nor does it do anything for muscle, strength or speed.
If anything it may relax guys, but can demotivate & make you less sharp.
Cheating because you like often DE-enhancing drugs does not correlate to likely being on the juice.

 

It was in 1991, against Bert Cooper, that he was 210 lbs and, no, I don't think the scales was messed with on either occassion.

Typically there weren't that many clinches in prime Holy's fights, since he was more active and moved more, but he pushed 230 + lbs Bowe back on several occasions from memory. Bowe also mentioned him among strongest opponents.

Just as much as or as little as Tyson's added weight helped him I'd guess. Will help a bit with strength and power, but hurt a bit with mobility, speed and stamina. Nothing new there.

 

No, the only thing it tells us that he knew how to cheat on doping tests.

 

I like how these weight arguments can be used to "prove" what you want to believe on a subject any which way it suits you.

Good for Ali and Holy because of added strength. Bad for Frazier and Tyson because of decreased speed and stamina. In the same fights!

 

Not saying scales were messed with but its just my opinion that it was more than 5 pounds. Then again I could b wrong.

Holyfield was definitely a strong dude regardless I just have never seen him so clinch heavy prior to fighting Mike. Nor do I remember seeing him bully ppl like that.

I don't wanna get too carried away on what could've happened in 91 when its set in stone he still beat Mike twice.

 

BTW, I was a Tyson stan as a teen but I realized how Tyson took his talent for granted n couldn't stay disciplined. No fault of Douglas or Holyfield. I actually give him more credit for his performances against Stewart, Ruddock n Bruno 2 than most but outside of that nothing noteworthy. Him n his camp taking Holyfield lightly after Bowe 3 was a mistake but again, not Holyfields fault as he's the one who showed up.

As I've gotten older I tend to lean more towards the "blue collars" bcuz it isn't easy staying disciplined n facing all the challenges u can. All I could want in a fighter in their career really.

 

For what it's worth, I met Douglas and he did mitt work with me. The guy is absolutely massive with huge gorilla hands and a very robust frame. Im 6'1 (he's a legit 6'4 because I had to look up at him even when up close) and at the time weighed probably 220 throwing my heaviest bombs at the mitts and he didn't so much as flinch or take a single step back no matter how hard I punched. His hands were steady the whole time and I never managed to swat his hands away or make him loose his grip. Obviously punching and pushing are two different things, but I could tell the guy was as strong as an ox. Mind you, we're talking just 3-4 years ago meaning this is a 58 year old Douglas I'm training with.

What I'm basically saying is it's entirely possible prime Douglas was stronger than Hoylfield. He was a natural heavyweight and a very big guy while Hoylfield was a very skinny light heavyweight as an amateur who had to train his ass off lifting weights to get to 210-215 while Douglas was actually doing the opposite training down from about 260 like an old school heavyweight.

 

Did you get him to sign your Buster Douglas boxing game? Jk

 

No offense to Douglas, but that was a pretty bad game. Boxing games didn't really become decent until the fight night series.

 

I mean I'm not as harsh. Real Deal Boxing, Greatest Heavyweights n KOK series I would still play til this day. Albeit FN aged better gameplay wise(As it should its the most recent mainstream boxing series) and I'm usually a sucker for nostalgia.


Let's hope Undisputed is decent

 

Thats a good story thanks for sharing, to me Douglas sounds like one of them naturally big strong guys. I remember my uncle who never lifted weights, his mate who was 6'4 and built. Lifted him off the ground while he was standing on a manhole cover just naturally a very strong guy.

Holyfield as you said was naturally more skinny, and had to use steroids and weights to bulk up to Heavyweight that wasn't his natural size. Where as Douglas was naturally a unit and very strong. Not surprising to me that Douglas would be naturally stronger than Holyfield.

 

Sorry but it is not reasonable to assume that if he cheated on an effectively de-enhancing-due to addiction issues-that he must have or likely cheated on taking PEDs.
The fact that someone could have cheated-you & I could shoplift, mug, maybe get away with assaulting strangers or whatever-is not at all evidence that we did so.

Just like that some cheated successfully on PED tests does not tell us if someone even ever used recreational drugs.
Assuming guilt based on this broad illogic is the opposite of the logos behind any rational criminal justice system.
Or being fair in analyzing the facts.