Everyone says Tyson got lazy in prison, but he was more shredded when he got out

One of the most genuine stories I've read on here. Enjoyed that

 

Eh Tyson's calves looked pretty proportionate.
Maybe his upper legs were so large they looked "a bit" small, but he was listed at 18" & 27" for those measurements, which is both very LARGE for a non-obese man-especially not tall-& 2/3 proportions are exactly what is usual/proportionate between lower & upper legs.
It is unlikely those measurements are far off in either direction.
His ankles were

This content is protected

.
Even if rounded up, they were listed as 11".
Going without socks may have obscured this.

 

Unless you can provide more than a vague statement that he looked weird-say why, & why this is likely linked with an explanation of PEDs-especially when as others say it is not hard to look shredded (although opposed to the idea broached here that he looked bloated)...

It is unfair & not reasonable to assume he was on any steroid or illegal substance.
Except maybe if he did a non-PED like marijuana...

 

Nandrolone, aka deca, and dianabol cause bloating / water retention. Whether or not Mike Tyson took these I don’t know.

 

A workmate took some deca recently & was badly bloated.

 

The ankles and calves look really small and out of proportion to the rest of him. Regardless of his listed measurements, in relation to the majority of his opponents, Tysons feet, ankles and calves were visibly smaller than the guy he was fighting. It stood out. However, Above the waist he always looked huge. Big head, neck, chest and shoulders.

 

I gotta mostly disagree with you Choky.
Feet I am sure must be true because he was shorter.
I do not see his ankles & calves as anything but pretty big. Show some photos where you think the opposite is true.
See his lower pins in the second photo on this link: [url]https://manofmany.com/lifestyle/fitness/mike-tysons-workout-diet-plan[/url]
Although 18" may be exaggerated.

Like most everyone who easily gets muscular/a natural mesomorph, he had a big bone structure, thus his ankles were thick.
He was no Ruby Red with no legs, let alone Wilder-who it is almost insane that a legit 6'7" modern HW is listed as having 18" thighs-that is more like a supermodel!

 

I say looks weird because seeing all Tyson fight.
in some fight Tyson = lean & defined quite.
In some fight Tyson= less lean & more 'smoothness " roundness of the bulk
but same Tyson with Tyson body/"physique' . some variate. but not unusual difference

but with MacNeeley : look shreds to much more extreme any of other fight. Ab much more 'define' & entire vein vessel along arm & in shoulder ... this has being notice by lot of fans . not just me & imagine it

 

Yes I know that, but his weight & bodyfat just do not vary dramatically between any fight up until then.
Some fighters naturally gain a lot of weight from there early years due to maturation, even before steroids were invented.

He did look more defined there, but you can see other photos, it is neither vary dramatic, nor is it good evidence for PEDs.
You do not need to use them to achieve such a look.
He may have, but not having gained much weight/muscle-& muscle memory means getting it back fairly quickly is not hard, especially for his genetics...Is not really suspicious.

 

I think any photo of Tysons ankles and calves show that they were much thinner than the top of his legs.

[url]https://economicconfidential.com/2013/12/how-mike-tyson-cheated-during-fights/[/url]

 

In a literal sense you are correct.
Because everyone with remotely normal, non-Popeye proportions has their calves significantly smaller than their thighs.
And unless you are starving, ankles significantly smaller than calves.

But in terms of the usual ratio of general or muscular size between these measurements, I think Tyson was around average.
If you have no socks not only do those add marginal size, but you see around the thinnest portion of the legs. Thus they look a bit leaner than they are.
The most I can say is perhaps because Tyson had so much upper leg muscle, his calves were a little smaller in proportion to that-not in absolute size.

Now we need a thread where everyone takes a gander at his gams & argues if the percentage difference in size between its components was near the Platonic ideal-which what he was listed at would suggest-& he had a large bone structure!