You are mostly correct. But all the lifting & PEDs did not get Holyfield much bigger than Ali. Nothing like you describe. Prime Ali was very lean & between 210-215. Bulked up Evander was ~ 217. And Ali gained upper body strength in the 70's. Sure EH had more upper body muscle. But he had small legs, even compared to an Ali. The measurements are not even close. And since ~ 60% of all body mass is lower body/legs hips & butt... Holyfield was not dramatically larger, just more of what we notice & is exposed, the torso.
sorry but alis legs were pretty chubby,by today standards of course. i looked for the pics with his ripptest legs and could find this https://www.google.de/search?q=muha...AQ&biw=375&bih=635&dpr=3#imgrc=hnQ0GiegkPoENM Looks good but not very muscular. I couldnt find a pic were yyou could see holys legs as he likes to wear long trunks maybe cause of his legs. But in terms of upper body i find holyfield to be really massive.
Ali's legs chubby?! Unless you mean a bit chubby in the times after I was talking about, in some fights later in his career... By *no* definition that is rational can you find what I actually referred to, Ali in his prime, as having legs that were remotely "chubby". His body fat was very low. And what do you mean by today's standards? While guys on average have more muscle, more often use PEDs...So many rightly note that HWs tend to carry more fat today. I did not say Ali's legs were "very muscular". But as per his measurements, they were bigger than Holyfield's, easily...And logically since they were close to the same height & body fat level, & Holyfield had significantly more upper body muscle...That is why their weights were close. Oh, also definition is imperfectly correlated with body fat. Some people & ethnic groups look more ripped-at the same body fat level. I worked out with a guy who was recently out of the same college I went to. He was LOW BF. Very lean, a wrestler. He had little definition. Including in his abs. Just fairly smooth. I on the other hand had much more body fat. I was quite strong, but weighed up to 242 nude in the morning at 6'. Now more like 210. But even when i had no less than a 42" waist....I had at least a faint, asymmetrical 4 pack. Maybe in part because in school when thin I was a sit up champ & did tons of them... But maybe more just my genetic propensity that has to do with distribution of subcutaneous vs. visceral fat. ALSO: Holyfield is big in his upper body. But not really by the HW standards of his day-his definition made him look bigger. In his measurements, except for his neck, he was average. This is *very similar to "Hercules", Mike Weaver. If you look at his height & weight, even compensating for less BF, he was typical of HWs then-who were bigger by the 80's. But being so lean & with a small waist exaggerated his muscle mass. You gotta look with a more discerning & critical eye to be accurate about these things man. Otherwise you can be mislead by superficial matters of optical illusions or superficial impressions.
