Was Buster Douglas Really Stronger Than Evander Holyfield?

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.

 

All that said, a cautionary note on all those alleged feats of strength that boxers and their teams claim. This goes for Holyfield's bench press, Jeffries's athletic prowess, Ali claiming to train underwater, and, of course, Foreman's cow lift.

From Foreman's book, Knockout Entrepreneur, describing one such conjuring trick:

The photo of Foreman with a cow is sometimes brought up as if Foreman was regularly squatting with cows on a farm. In reality, six guys placed a cow on his shoulders once, in a staged picture for the cameras. Just like Ali was photographed by a gullible reporter "training" underwater.

It's still very impressive that George could keep the cow on his shoulders once they placed it there, but Foreman wasn't lifting cows. In fact, he was shocked to learn he could keep it on his shoulders to take the picture.

Notice also that they were originally planning to fake the picture. They wanted to edit out the other guys holding the cow. Even in the 70s, boxers were willing and able to create fake photos of training feats for publicity.

 

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.

 

What "great" assumptions am I making about Evander's strength? Can you please quote my post where I make unreasonable claims about Evander's strength?

Are you saying that you think it's likely that taking PEDs and training to improve strength for years had no effect on how strong Holyfield was?

I ask because I don't see any reason to emphasize how PEDs and weight lifting are "meant" to increase strength unless you think that they failed to do so.

What do you mean by "open to discredit"?

I don't see how Hatfield failing to list the weights Holyfield lifted in each session "discredits" his account of how he trained Holyfield.

You're theorizing that Hatfield lied and fabricated his account of how he trained Holyfield? What's your evidence for this? That you consider the regimen complicated?

What do you think Hatfield actually had Holyfield doing, then? Or are you concluding that Holyfield never hired Hatfield at all, and they both lied about Hatfield training Holyfield?

A conspiracy angle doesn't really seem to explain anything. It would just add an unnecessary complication. Such a theory just seems like arbitrary skepticism aimed at trying to avoid the conclusion that Holyfield lifted weights partly to increase his strength.

Again, show me in one of my posts where I unreasonably extrapolate Holyfield's strength.

 

If you're implying that I'm trying to discredit Foreman and make Holyfield sound "Herculean," I would make two points:

1) Please show me in this thread where I'm "waxing lyrical" about Holyfield's "Herculean efforts" or how strong Holyfield was. Where is my breathless raving about Holyfield's strength?

2) I literally dismissed actual testimony about Holyfield's bench press numbers twice in this thread. Once in the same post you're quoting. And unlike Foreman, Holyfield's feat actually has weight and reps recorded. Maybe you should be complaining about how unfair I'm being to Holyfield instead of to poor George Foreman and his cattle curls.

 

@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 make your main mistake when you falsely assume that my questions were "rhetorical." They were not. When I ask questions, it's almost always to get information. That's the point of discussion on a boxing forum.

You've spent a lot more time attacking my motives and accusing me of being a sneaky rhetorician than actually arguing the point. Unfortunately, you distort my posts in the process. For example, you claim I didn't dismiss Holy's bench press:

I classed Foreman's cow lift and Holyfield's bench press numbers in the same category. Literally the same category. Read my posts. Good grief. Here they are again:

You fixated on the last bit, claiming that it somehow credited Holyfield's lifts as credible. I have no idea how you could come to this conclusion if you read my post in context. I was replying to @Journeyman92, who was asking me about the lift and what it meant for Holyfield's strength. I replied that (1) I didn't think we could trust the bench press numbers, but (2) if they were real, they would make Holyfield stronger than either Foreman.

(By the way: If you're going to get technical, hey, maybe Holyfield's bench press is more legitimate. Since Foreman admitted in his own book to the stuff about the cow lift being an attempted trick. But I classed them in the same category.)

You've dedicated a LOT of your post to portraying me as attacking Foreman, being rhetorically sneaky, and the like. Frankly, I see this as cherrypicking my statements out of context, distorting them, and then using them to ascribe bias or nefarious motives to me. You may disagree. Alternatively, you may think I really AM being sneaky and biased, and think you need to call me out. Well, OK. You're free to do this, but since it takes a lot more time for me to look back and see what I actually said than it does for you to make the accusations, I don't see that as a valuable use of my time in boxing discussion.

Now, are you going to accept my statement that I dismissed Holyfield's bench press, or not?

I'm not going to go sequentially through every time you're accusing me of bias, but since you make it so central to your accusation, let's talk about the cow lift.

I brought up the cow lift because it's commonly cited online as an example of Foreman's strength. This isn't some big mystery. People use it. I've seen people using it on this forum. On this thread? Maybe not, but so what? It's a good example of the way that we can't trust anecdotes and boxing fan legends about athletic performance, and that's why I cited it. Like Jeffries's athletic feats. (Notice how nobody in this thread mentioned Jeffries either; they don't need to. It's an example.) Or like Holyfield's bench press.

Finally, as to the "cow curling" phrase, that was your phrase. I got it from you. I didn't throw it out there.


...Now, I see most of this segue as a diversion from the main issue. That issue is whether we have good evidence for either guy's strength at their best, and what counts as good evidence. The issue is not "How rhetorically underhanded and biased is @cross_trainer?"

Shall we get back to the issue of who was stronger? If so, I'll respond to the rest of what you've written. Or is this going to be a discussion where I'm expected to constantly double back to previous posts to explain my motives for everything I say?

 

I admit that I've become more skeptical about Foreman over the last few years. But I don't go around trying to trick people into thinking badly of Foreman. If I post something, it's generally because I think it's relevant to the discussion.

All that aside, though, I think I spelled out my stance pretty early. Almost my first post in the thread! I think Old Foreman was probably stronger than the strongest Holyfield, but that Old Foreman might have had more trouble shoving the heavier Holyfield from Tyson I-II around. Hardly a crazy anti-Foreman position.

...In fact, I think I was disagreeing with you at the beginning of the thread, and haven't changed on our point of difference.

EDIT: Though I appreciate the vote of confidence!

 

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.