Liston v Holyfield

I admit, sometimes it's all about what lie you want to believe. Somewhere between the lies is the truth. Cooper's reach is 78" btw... at least that's what has usually been listed for him. I have an old program (one of those huge fold out ones) that has Holyfield's chest at 45/47 expanded, his arms at 17"... The 20" neck was a slight round up of a 1/2". Now, I admit I only saw these numbers once. It is true that his "usual" numbers are 43-45 on the chest and 16 on the arms. They also had his reach at 78" but it was usually listed at 77 1/2". Again, who gives a ****? The point is that Liston isn't gonna be the bigger man in the ring that night. Fvck measurements, I'm talking about who is gonna be able to deal with who. Holyfield ain't getting bullied, but Liston might. Liston didn't have to fight too many guys who were big and talented like Holyfield did. Those CWs Holyfield fought were bigger than most of the people Liston beat.

So, to be fair... If Liston is 6'1" I'm going with 6'2 1/2" for Holyfield. If Liston has an 84" reach, Holyfield's is 78". None of this really matters though. It all started because someone insisted that Liston would be the bigger and stronger man... like it was fact and not opinion.

 

Well, I'd have to agree that if Liston would have used some of that ****, the results may have been frightening.

 

Numbers do matter, if the truth matters, trying to get at it effects credibility of all arguments taken from premises & statistics. Now I have never seen those #s for Holyfield as you have acknowledged, & I await a link showing Cooper at 78"/a +9" "ape factor". Should be easy to find since you say that is what he is listed at. He did not have really long arms like that.

Words matter, to have understanding, trust, credibility, save time, not be talking at cross-purposes...Now you define "bigger man" in an entirely different, non-literal way, that is who is getting pushed/bulled around or not. Some of Holy's CWs are bigger than some of Liston's opponents. Still Liston was never remotely pushed around, so at least no reason to say that Holyfield, who is not overall larger, would do so. Possible it could go either way, but no cause to say it would.

More likely Holyfield, who you could make a great case for, would brawl to his detriment. This has been his pattern.

Big Ukranian, you again make LEGITIMATE points about there being many cheaters. But yet again you either connect them wrongly to your original point, or as recently bypass & ABANDON your argument. More intellectual rigor please.

That MANY athletes cheat, lie, use PEDS does not remotely establish that ALL do. Or the 95% you later claimed. OR the majority! Can you not see how you SAID this about all sports, then used a sport that does not test or care about it, bodybuilding as your main exhibit, & are not in any sense showing HOW prevalent PEDS are overall?

Again: there can be a huge crime problem & the vast majority can be law abiding. The news focuses on the worst cases & violations: we do not know who ELSE might be using, but also, all those who are clean.
The fact you know MANY liars & cheaters & conclude almost all do so is an emotional, NOT a rational response.

FoF, of course I know all about why folks cheat & the practical issues. I do not agree those who have morals here are fools, that is extreme justifying of stealing glory.money/dreams of honest folks, but am very sympathetic to the pressures involved.

But it is not so simple re: being a practical no-brainer even if there are no ethical quandries. How or whether you cheat is a question considering how likely one is to be exposed, humiliated, punished...

Some also will not use due to pride & not wanting to be a fraud, some might use & abandon it for many reasons including a bad physical effect or limited efficacy.

But if it is WRONG as an example to & encouraging youths to use, there is no good way to make it OK under professional supervision. There is no ethical & practical way to study what all doses & substances have what effects. And others will just use stronger stuff &/or much higher doses.

You gotta just try to deter & catch folks. Freezing samples & years-later exposure would help.

Sometimes sports are too censorious, like the NBA punishing just critiques of officials, chilling to 1st amendment rights, disturbing when most players are black & the power structure white.

But do not the leagues & people have a right to have records, results, championships, greatness defined by only natural abilities & effort?
To stop cheaters from making so many feel they need to cheat & maybe harm their body just to be competitive or make the Big Leagues?

 

The ONLY thing Liston had that could compete with Holy was his jab but even tht would be offset by Holys double jab.

Show me a better all round HW than Holyfield.
Great jab (outjabbed Lewis and Bowe at times which for his size was unreal)
Great left hook (ask Mercer)
Great straight right (Douglas)
Great uppercut (Alex Stewart 2)
Great over hand right (Addilson Rodregez)
Great body shots (Bert Cooper)
Great Mobilty (amazing movement in fact, danced around Valuev all night and was very light on his feet in his prime, very fluid)
Great Combos (probaly the best in HW history)
Defence (Great when he didn't CHOOSE to brawl)
GREAT counter puncher (Tyson said he was THE best counter puncher "Awsome counters")
EPIC chin.


No HW in hisotry had the all round skills that a prime Holyfield had.

 

Yes I'm sure all of it was a giant lie.

Cant trust those measuring tapes from the 50's and 60's :roll:

I bet Liston was really 5'4 with a 57 inch reach.

He never really knocked out anyone with his jab either, they were all acting, like the WWF.

 

Entaowed, I know that the only way too prove 95% or more athletes aren't clean is to test all of them every month. It's not possible. So we have to find alternative ways to prove.

Like an example.

John Grimek is one of the greatest natural bodybuilders of all time. He was the best bodybuilder in the world in 40's and won mr. Universe title.

Now, despite great genetics, his numbers weren't that high. He was 5'8,5'' and 195 lbs and never looked as ripped as some today's boxers or track and field athletes. It's far harder to get ripped naturally.

90's HW titleholders Frank Bruno and Bruce Seldon in their fights vs Tyson both looked definitely bigger and more ripped than one of the greatest natural bodybuilders of all time Grimek. How's that possible? Boxer can't reach better look than bodybuilder if their genetics are on the same level. Because boxer's main activity is boxing, not lifting weights.

So either Bruno and Seldon (and many others, like Shannon Briggs, who also was ''clean'' in 90's and early 2000's) have much better genetics than the best bodybuilder in the world from 40's:yep.

Or more realisticaly, they all use something that wasn't available for John Grimek and that's named PED's.

And yes, that's not today supplements. Supplements give no more than 5% what PED's can give you.

And yes, not all PED users look like Bruno, Seldon or Briggs. James Toney looks more like McDonald's visitor, but he was caught on PED's few times.

I tend to believe that if PEDs are so popular on amateur and high school levels (which I know for sure), they are definitely more popular on elite level. Greater titles, higher level, 1000 times more money.

Also, Ronnie Coleman, 8 times mr' Olympia, said he is clean. He was never caught using PED's. Is it enough to say he never used PED's?

 

Yes that is essentially correct. Though actually Liston was 11" tall tops, it was all done with special camera angles, standing on boxes, secert ingenious mobile platfomrs in the ring, + of course smoke & mirrors. Do not believe the photos where his hands hang about to his knees, that his broad chest & massive hands could possibly give him a 7' wingspan like the average NBA player.

In fact, this famous photo of really long fingers is just a prop.

[url]http://www.hotflick.net/pictures/009ALI_Sonny_Liston_001.html[/url]

 

Big Ukranian, you are good-natured, AND there is a lot of truth to what you claim.

Yet you need a review of basic logic. That is at least the portions dealing with constructing an argument from premises.

You keep using facts-usually correct-that in NO WAY establish your claim.

That many cheat does not remotely prove if MOST folks cheat in your selected sports, let alone all sports.

Can you not see that a motive to cheat & many individual examples does NOTHING to show if most do? It is like if I listed all the reasons, practical such as humilation & punishment & ethical, not to cheat, all those who never were caught or who were very unlikely to have used by history & build, & claimed it proved a tiny % cheated, & we have caught everyone (& a few who were innocent).

1) I do not know if all those you cited cheated. Grimek was a great lifter, but he did not have that large of a bone structure: many WOULD have more natural potential than him, at least for HYPERTROPHY. Bruno had a bigger frame, seem chiseled at 6' 3" & 247. Now a QUITE SMALL % of men can be lean at that weight after years of training. SO he either cheated, or is one of the genetically blessed. DO you know which?

They also were not valuing quite as ripped a physique then, I am not aware of the dehydrating extremes: in addition to much more & better drugs later.

The population was much smaller then, sure many today could have better genetics, at least for pure mass-Grimek set lifting records. All sports tend to advance, & yes many High School guys use, but no evidence it is near most, & you need SPECIFIC evidence for sweeping presumptions about the rate of pro drug abuse.

Yes PEDs are exponentially more effective than supplements.

Ronnie Coleman? I would be curious to see the quote where he said he was clean, at least throughout his career! But never caught? More like NEVER TESTED! Are you aware they tested one, 1990 Mr. Olympia, 40% were disqualified, & many came in smaller, like Lee Haney a dozen lbs. lighter that year, I recall he almost was unseated by Lee (Mass with Class) Labrada.

But ONE sport that values mass & definition more than anything & does not even test does NOT show the rate of PED use in actual performance based sports that test like the Olympics!

I am NOT arguing that it is not prevalent in some sports,

I am saying that does not establish most all use it in all or most all sports, not be a loooong shot.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". This is a basic princile of good science.

Not general feelings or showing MUCH crime or usage. Specific, testable propositions.
You do not have suggestive evidence for the SPECIFIC claims of anything like 95% PED use in sports, all or most.

That there are many cheaters is a COMPLETELY different story.

 

We don't have the chance to prove that say 95% athletes aren't clean or this number is far lesser.

My point is that I can't believe some current boxers are both bigger and more ripped than the best bodybuilders of 40's. Not if they are clean.

Bruno was never caught using PED's. Neither was Briggs, till 2009 or 2010. Had Briggs retired in 2007 we wouldn't have had the proof that he used PED's. But his look wasn't lying and it was quite obvious he's not clean.

Bruno has great genetics. Hovewer, if he was clean, at 6'3'' he would've been around 225 lbs, not 247. He doesn't look like natural athlete, and his numbers (weight to height) too.

I suppose all HW champions and beltholders of the last 30 years aren't lifetime-natural athletes. Even if they look fat and not as muscular as Bruno or Briggs. But I have no proof. And we hadn't any proof that Marion Jones used PED's till she said it in court.

My logic is that there are natural limits for any man, and if they were such in 40's why the hell there are so many boxers, track and field athletes, wrestlers, MMA fighters etc. who surpassed these limits? Why in 30's and 40's there were 1 000 times less genetic freaks?:-( Maybe the reason is HGH, insulin and PED's? Who knows

 

:roflI DOUBT SERIOUSLY THAT RONNIE SAID THAT

 

B.U. first for credibility & faiirness you must admit not only we do not havce proof re: 85% use PEDS across sports, but that your claim had no reasonable arguments behind it.

Due to EGO folks will often do anything to avoid the truth. You have thrown a lot of statements, many true, out there. None of them remotely suggest even MOST athletes across sports use-though it is possible-let alone ALL as you iniitially said or 95%.
Your cynicism & extreme conclusions across sports using examples like untested pro body-building just had absolutely no relevance to ESTABLISHING that point.

Now then. Maybe Bruno used, surely (if I may call you Shirley...;-)) some did.

But know that there are both many more folks today than earlier in the century. And more folks have ACCESS to sports. And access to good training. And the science of weight lifting & nutrition & supplements has much advanced.

Please stop thinking in rigid, linear either/or paradigms.

FOlks can & do get better do to cheating & more & better PEDS.

Also many do for the reasons I have stated.

Grimek was not big enough structurally (height, weight) not to have naturally large men be stronger & much more muscular with him. Just think of all the 6 1/2' football players & bigger NBA players, to name just twop sports. There are more naturally large folks today reaching their potential height AND approcahing it for bulk.

Also there are the cheaters on top of that.

Now then: JUSt like the 10:1 ratio gives leeway to variations from the mean up to 1 in 10,000, the much larger # of potential outliars today means you WILL have more natural genetic freaks.

The vast majority of folks do not naturally get bigger than the numbers you suggest.
Arnold would not have. Though he also did not max out his legs.

BUT in my years of reading, lifting at gyms, speaking to people...

A very small % of men can get to 6' 2" 250 lbs. ~ 10% body fat.
They tend to have monster bones which can attach more muscle, but SOME can get Jose Canseco size naturally.

And most who get this big USE. Buit there is OVERLAP between those who use & get big & those who use to just be a little muscular & have limited potential...

It is not so simple as only the big guys, or very defined guys, or both, use, & some otehrs like Toney & hardgainers.

Reality is more complex than that.

 

I like your replies, though we have different points of view.
As for 6'2'' to reach 250 naturally... Such guys won't be ripped, too much bodyfat.

I have never seen anyone to reach these numbers naturally while being ripped enough. Most guys I know that are 6'2'' and 245-250 are fat like hell:yep

But I suppose it's possible IF guy has extremely thick bones and naturally big legs, both calves and hips. David Tua-like legs, I mean. If he trains for many years and uses every possible natural testosteron booster. If he doesn't waste his energy on other activities etc. Than it may be possible.

But it's far easier to do it with the help of PED's

 

I think you are right about elite athletes being on PEDs; I don't know what the percentage would be but it is naive to think boxing hasn't been tainted.

I remember arguing years ago that Marion Jones was on steroids, and I was told "No, she's just a freak and a one off". As you say, juiced to the gills!

Look at the amount of 100m record holders that have been banned from competition; I dread to think how many sub 10 seconds times were achieved by using drugs.

I don't like to accuse someone of using, but you make an interesting point regarding Frank Bruno. Now Frank is a big, broad guy, but there was a point in his career that he got HUGE. He looked massive against McCall, completely different to when he fought Tyson first time. The wasp waist had gone and he looked like Abe Simon, shoulder wise!

Holyfield a similar transformation. He always had a great physique, but he turned into a Marvel character overnight! I think Tyson was dubious, too.

I am surprised that some on here think your comments are outlandish because I remember David Jenkins(an athlete from the 70s)saying more or less what you are saying about 20 years ago!