Is the elephant in the room that Holyfield wouldn't have been able to make HW without the PEDs?

A) We have no idea when he started using them

B) He certainly was not a great heavyweight fighter without them

C) You clearly said that they might have worked against him, with is absurd.

 

If we have no idea when he started using them how would we know he certainly was not a great heavyweight fighter without them?

 

He certainly used them to gain the weight, which is what this thread is about.

SO I correct my statement: We have no idea how far back the use goes.

 

Absurd? You're right. It certainly helped him when he nearly had ****ing heart attack and almost had to retire. Give me a break. I guess you know more about boxing than Don Turner as well.

Let me ask you this. Was Fernando Vargas a better fighter before or after he tested positive for steroids? How about Shane Mosley? James Toney? Think about. Boxing is boxing. Strength isn't everything and you can clearly tell by looking at his body in the first Moorer fight that he was juicing. Look at that Holyfield and then the version that beat Douglas.

 

PEDs enhance more than strength. That is where you are going wrong. But certainly they help jump weight classes.

Yes, what you are contending is absurd. I can't emphasis this enough...PEDs are expensive, illegal, and dangerous. Athletes do them because they enhance performance. Good luck to you. I am not going to argue something that is definitionally true.

 

I know why athletes use them. I'm simply pointing out that they have just as many cons for athletes as pro's. The fighter's I mentioned above all took PEDS to gain an edge but ended up with worse results and injuries. I think we are both on the same page for the most part. PEDS are awful for everyone involved and people caught using like Holyfield deserve the stigma that comes with cheating.

 

From what you wrote I cannot tell that you know what anyone with any real familiarity with me here (over a decade) likely knows: I am vociferously against any PEDs.
More than anyone I frequently condemn their use, stealing money glory & titles using them, cheatin' lying & their ill effects...Plus I often critique the baseless assumptions that individuals use them-or most gboxers do or have-when we absolutely do not know in so many cases.
To Jacksilver-Holyfield had many signs beyond being muscular-how quickly he gained mass, the sudden onset baldness, the "heart problems"-& the BALCO investigation exposed how he "Evan Fields" was a steroid & HGH user.

Back to the Steak that won Awards (i'll take mine medium well, despite what the gourmets say...)
Turner has deep boxing knowledge-but so do many who believe the opposite.
We cannot just choose one man & abandon further investigation-if most everyone said the same thing, like about Shavers punching power-or Holyfield did not have a bunch of not dominant performances against those like the "Grandpas", that would be different.
Foreman has tremendous boxing wisdom, but everyone in the know sees he graciously overstates things, sometimes overly modest, gets basic facts wrong like Frazier's height...
Was Turner not the man who insists Marciano hit the hardest of anyone?
Wildly implausible claim.

We mostly AGREE about how good mid '90's Tyson was.
Both say he was among the best, about what he lost in power movement & combinations...
Although it is an overstatement to say he was a 3 round fighter-by then, a couple years later yes.

Mercer could be a truth machine, but he was especially inconsistent compared to other elite boxers.
But he may well have been able to weather the storm & finish off Tyson then-if on one of his excellent nights.

I really like Usyk as a boxer & as a man-for his integrity, toughess, work ethic, amateur career...
Also I want for a HW to be able to be great without needing to be the most big or freaky build, 1 punch power, etc.
But do the math on their respective heights, body fat & weights-Usyk is ~ the same overall muscularity as Holyfield.
Difference is Holyfield had more upper body muscle-especially where the PED androgen receptors are most densely packed, around neck, traps & shoulders...But relatively small legs.

In conclusion I was deeply against how Holyfield got there, we merely differ if it was better for him against the behemoths.
Even against Tyson, he needed the extra strength & grappling ability to neutralize him.

 

He likely would have been an even smaller heavyweight without them and with less strength and power. He had the talent and heart to make be a contender regardless but wouldn’t have likely been a champion

 

Holyfield always beats Tyson.

 

We don't know when he took them but ofc they helped him move up. They still did not give him heart n technique in the ring y'all make it seem like PEDs turn ppl Super Saiyan lmfao.


An unfair advantage for sure but if they were all that is to being a multi time champion then we would have a far more amount of them. More to it than PEDs but I'm not defending ppl takin em either its still wrong.

 

Evan Fields even in his wildest dreams wouldn't dream about beating Tyson without abusing PEDs. That wasn't enough he had to headbutt him to death as well

 

Right , Steroids make you bigger faster and stronger. They simply work which is why boxers take them

 

The elephant in the room has a name, and that name is Mike Tyson.

Evander kicked that elephant’s ass … twice.

 

No version of Holyfield beats 87-88 Tyson. Tyson would have beaten Holyfield in 91 as well had they met as planned

 

Just, no.

I'd bet you said that Holyfield didn't stand a chance in '96 too. And probably their rematch too.