Was Buster Douglas Really Stronger Than Evander Holyfield?

I’m the early 80s Bill Kazamier (spelling?) was competing Foreman would be a shrimp in the line up. “Bulk up” do you mean hop on juice? Because he’s not competing any other way.

 

But given 8 weeks! Did you not see how far he pushed George Chuvalo across the ring?

 

5 seconds earlier may have been enough, Swag. He'd have been a sitting duck.

Bruno was actually really difficult to KD. Iirc the only time he was off his feet was after a c.20-punch barrage vs James Smith.

He was probably as difficult to hurt as the next HW, too. His problem was that when he was hurt, he didn't drop to the floor, didn't cover up, didn't attempt to hold, didn't punch back, didn't move his feet or head, he just froze on the spot, like a statue, arms flopping by his side.

 

Well, Kaz was 6'3" and 320 lbs.
Geoff Capes was 6'6", not sure what he weighed. But a lot.
Jon-Pall was around 6'4" and around 300 lbs. (IIRC)
Those were the top guys from 1980 to about 1988.
Yes, George would have had to have juiced... that's a given.
But he was naturally athletic, naturally strong and given time and prep, he may just have developed into a good Strongman. Outside of the top-tier guys like the abovementioned, I think he would have done well.

 

But CT, Holyfield himself didn’t train or ingest PEDs to compete in conventional weight lifting competitions or strongman events.

In the real world - what are, if any, the official stats for Holyfield’s lifts? - it’s been asked before but none have been forthcoming. In that regard, Holyfield’s assumed strength resides in its own imaginary world.

When taking the strength of boxers, if there’s nothing else to rely on, we only have their demonstrated strength IN the ring - even IF it’s not the ideal gauge, it can be reasonably interpreted to a degree - just as Holyfield interpreted it when nominating Foreman as the strongest fighter he faced.

 

Kaz was listed at 320-3560, may have been 6'2", when 2 heights are listed, bet on the shorter one-at least barefoot.

 

If that punch landed earlier in the round it's very possible Bruno would've been out in the 1st round.

 

Almost a certainty, DP.

 

That was clearly my point Cross, that we obviously don’t know what either man could lift.

You’re making greater assumptions about Evander’s alleged strength than the assumptions you’re suggesting are being made re Foreman.

We all know that weight lifting and PEDs are meant to increase strength.

There are no weight numbers cited on Evander’s alleged, specialised training regimen and certainly no mention of supplementary PEDs - which most of us believe Holyfield did take - so the whole regimen can open to discredit.

Meaning, even without modifications or at least extreme modifications to his prior training conduct, Evander could’ve still made some fair gains anyway, just by adding/including PEDs among his “nutritional” dietary needs.

One way to look at it - suddenly bulked as Evander was, if you’re not going to admit to using PEDs or their contribution to your size gains, then you might reach for an overstated, conventional, elaborate training regime to explain yourself and your gains.

Claims of Evander’s weight training and alleged lifts haven’t been dismissed, rather, they have been reasoned with.

What actually has been taken too far is the extrapolation and completely unverified strength capacity of Holyfield based on his alleged weight training regime and highly suspected (but, strictly speaking, unproven PED usage) - whilst Foreman’s demonstrated strength is being unreasonably dismissed, apparently residing in The Land of Make Believe - a land in which Evander Holyfield himself is counted amongst the population.

 

I don’t know that anyone has tried to run with Foreman’s “cow lift” to any serious extent, if at all. Certainly, I don’t think anyone was under the illusion that George was curling moo cows All Day and All of the Night. That would be downright Kinky.

As you said, still impressive that Foreman could even hold it on his shoulders - there are obviously added logistical issues involved in lifting/holding a live, moving animal as opposed to a static weight. Anybody care to hazard an estimate as to the cow’s weight?

Seems to be a one way effort to discredit any indications of Foreman’s strength while waxing lyrical about Evander’s assumed yet wholly unsubstantiated Herculean efforts. Hmm.

 

@cross_trainer


For starters Cross, you inserted my exact words in the form of a quote but then just below that you still managed to misquote me.

I didn't say "Great" I said 'Greater" assumptions (as compared to those being afforded to Foreman) re Holyfield's strength. Big difference.

No, I didn't say or imply that it was likely that weightlifting and/or taking PEDs had no effect on how strong Holyfield might've been. Rubber stamp that as a strawman argument.

Are weightlifting and PEDs NOT meant to increase strength and do the benefits NOT vary from one individual to another? Sorry man, due respect but that's another straw clutch.

I noted that there were NO numbers provided - so no numerical basis for Holyfield's assumed strength. Rather important, don't you think? No problems there. Why did you leave out the other portion of my sentence - NO mention of supplementary PEDs - someone details that a guy did this, that and the other to "conventionally" bulk up and increase his strength but doesn't include PED use? I don't have to break it down as to WHY the regime could obviously be open to discredit.

Let's NOTE that you employed sequential rhetorical questions to build to your own, crescendo-like, self-narrated "conspiracy theory" in an attempt to dismiss my original and reasonable assertion re the purported training schedule. That's another strawman you've inserted into the discussion.

You believe, despite Evander's denials, that Holyfield took PEDs, right? Yet you speak AS IF neither "Evan" or Hatfield would dare falsify or modify any details of the training regime - a training regime that was advertised as having bulked Holy up and increased his strength in its own right? Let's use some common sense here.

I addressed the cow lifting point. You didn't "return" to that. I don't believe anyone in this thread has brought up cow lifting to support their opinions re Foreman's strength. Why would you bring it up? Correct: To discredit Foreman only. And again, in your last post, you brought up George's "cow curling" - you appear to be the only one fixated on same.

Did you dismiss all of Holyfield's alleged bench presses. It didn't appear so - rather, you said we don't know, and you certainly didn't refer to them as "imaginary" or necessarily being examples of "hyperbole". In fact, I think you said IF the bench presses were true, that Evander would indeed have been stronger than Foreman.

Notably, earlier in the thread you stated that in terms of strength, Foreman "attracts" hyperbole - yet you're the only pushing it.

I think you also gave Foreman semi credit for Chuvalo having rated Foreman the strongest (psst, just quietly AGAIN, Evander rated Foreman thusly also) but you also but tried to counterbalance that by stating that the 70s wasn't awash with massive steroid guys. So, it can be reasonable to assume that steroids really "do it" for you - and that anyone on same are so much stronger than anyone else.

Btw, several accounts indicate that Chuvalo (a Non-Bovine, though built along similar lines) lifted from a young age and continued to do so throughout his career (and post) - and a very young Foreman handled him with ease in the strength department - an area that Chuvalo himself was well known for as demonstrated in the ring. That is definitely something to Moo about, among other examples.

 

You know I'm interested & comment often on things related to the realities & science of strength, weight training & PEDs.
So first lemmee say that while lifting generally well-measures strength-especially a compound movement like the Bench Press re: overall pushing power...It may vary from some real life functional abilities.
Like shovin' against someone, or pushing them back/around-where extra weight helps more.
Although even when Foreman & Holyfield were around the same weight likely the former was better at this-& the latter at lifting.

But not necessarily all pulling motions-including & especially using your whole body to pull a truck!
Not only did Foreman do this & you adopt to what you train for-his build & natural capacities seemed well-adopted to this, so it's a bit of a "chicken or the egg" conundrum.

Holyfield absolutely needed PEDs to get as strong as he did-Foreman is naturally bigger, stronger, a more robust bone structure to layer bulk upon...
Also without compelling evidence honesty & motivation should not be questioned.
And

This content is protected

have a Sterling record of being both calm, relentlessly rational, more than civil...
Someone could argue that a Straw Man may well be accidental, but besides the odds against you having even accidentally done this...
If context does not exculpate & show a mere error being attributed to you, the qualifier that no intended deceptiobn was present should always be deployed.

Oh it is ironic that seemingly a basic test of strength like Olympic Lifting serves poorly in this capacity.
Even though it uses the whole body well, so much better for real power than a specialized isolation movement...
Because it takes so much practice & a complex technique TO efficiently throw & catch the weight, including coordination & with hands flexible enough to bend way back while jumping & catching, then an overhead toss & squat before a split-stance catch & rise...

That it also tests largely skill & efficiency in a very specific way, so only well-measures how effective special technique is-or rather say so much practice is required that there is too much noise to identify raw strength effectively.

 

Of course, I’ve argued the point at hand…and very well I will add. False narratives don't cut the mustard.

That you don’t acknowledge those points, rather, that you only attempt to frame questions in reply (including rhetorical) doesn’t alter the fact of those points being well made.

They were rhetorical questions, several, one atop another - as I described in irreducible terms - to build your own straw man conspiracy theory.

Along similar lines - the cow lift. Still separately pushing discussion of same. No one, read: no one, incorporated that into their argument for Foreman’s strength. But here you are again, pushing that agenda. Apparently, you see that as a valuable use of your time. It isn't.

So, what if it’s been mentioned elsewhere? - it hasn’t been mentioned here. It’s a straw man in so far as its obvious lack of relevance to this discussion and any evidence proffered in support of Foreman's strength in THIS thread.

I don’t expect you to double back - I don’t actually care. I'm certainly not going to double back to any level of inconvenience, if at all.

You can highlight superficial offerings of impartiality - previously embedded to point back to - but then, for the greater part, you contradict those sentiments - as I’ve highlighted, among other things, terms such as "Imaginary" and "Hyperbole" being primarily reserved for Foreman, not Holyfield.

NO, Jeffries wasn't mentioned, no brainer as to why you introduced his name. There were many claims made re Jeff that were wholly unbelievable - his sprint speed, carrying a deer on his shoulders for X number of miles, downing a case of whiskey to cure pneumonia, etc. etc. Very telling that you would attempt to put Foreman in the same category as Jeffries as it pertains to "Tall Tales". At least we can applaud Foreman for his honesty, not so Evander, eh? Or, employing your own device, should I say, "Let me answer your question with a question: You don't think Evander or those around him ever told porky pies?" Hmmm.

Not sure why you expect anyone to answer your questions and/or address your points (which has been done anyway) when there are many that you don't answer and/or address yourself.

I know the "cow curling" was my phrase - you said "cattle curling", same difference. I didn't address the phrasing; I addressed your return to the subject - laced with the false suggestion that you had been "going easy" on Foreman relative to Evander. Lol. Okay. Though I will note, that since I described you as being "fixated", lo and behold, I am apparently also "fixated". Lol.

Your lack of even handedness has simply been duly highlighted. No need to employ emotive language and waste your valuable time in describing fair and objective analysis as your being "attacked".

No point going to and fro any further, my points are solid and remain. Let's see if any new evidence for either man comes to light.