Who am I describing?

Love your posts man, but Tua was heavily muscled.
Muscular does not literally mean how defined one is.
Although when not overweight (for an average fit person), up to the mid 220's he had more visible muscle.
I believe like many Samoans, the distribution of subcutaneous fat does not lend itself to definition even at the same body fat level...

But anyone who can be average height & mid 220's

This content is protected

is quite muscular. His legs maybe even more so.
He was 226 vs. Ike, remove 10 lbs. of blubber & the marginally shorter Tua has about the same body fat & muscle mass as prime Tyson, if not quite the definition.

 

I don’t think we disagree — I noted he was strong, which comes from having muscles — and perhaps we quibble over terms, but I don’t think he had even at his leanest what most describe as a “muscular physique” which is the term used in our clues.

Big George Foreman V2 was strong as an ox and obviously had muscle mass but I wouldn’t say he had a muscular physique.

Put together a lineup with Mike Weaver, Ken Norton, Evander Holyfield, David Tua, George Foreman (at 45 or first prime) and Joe Frazier and ask 100 people to pick three guys out who fit the description “muscular physique” and we all know which three would get picked — probably 100 times out of 100.

That doesn’t mean the others don’ t have muscles. But they don’t have the physique.

 

Ike Ibeabuchi or Frank Bruno?

 

lol cooney had a dad bod

 

It seems that...You may be correct & I am wrong!
The key is the term "muscular physique". What most people believe is only relevant if they are correct about the definition. Parenthetically I have always been peeved that if the majority are using a term incorrectly, the official definition may shift.
I described what "muscular" literally means.
But you are correct that the reference was to a "muscular physique".
Which a primary definition of is...
"If a person or their body is muscular, they are very fit and strong, and have firm muscles which are not covered".
with a lot of fat".

Although they may not be fit, could be in terrible cardio shape or damaged by PEDs, but that is another matter.

So while Tua had more muscle per square inch than ALL of those figures you named, his lack of definition means you are correct.

 

Mike Weaver is the very 1st name to pop in my head. Tua also when in shape.
But was Weaver a underachiever or did he overachieve??
Think about this a moment, Weaver was never seen as championship material, his 1st 10 fights he was a very underwhelming 5-5. Nothing that would suggest he'd eventually win The Heavyweight Championship of the World , or a fighter capable of giving ATG Larry Holmes the hell he gave him in their 1st fight.
Weaver always appeared in excellent condition, even well past his prime.
So in my opinion, Weaver OVERACHIEVED. ..

 

Well we have to read intent into it as applied to the OP in giving us hints/clues as to who he’s talking about. So I’m picturing someone with closer to a bodybuilder’s musculature than hidden muscles that aren’t defined.

As for your shifting of definitions, I did a post/thread sometime long ago trying to figure out when catchweights began to mean exactly the opposite of its original use. Never got a response that helped explain it IIRC.

Originally, two guys meeting at catchweights meant ‘you come in at whatever weight you want, I’ll come in at whatever weight I want.’ Think Jake LaMotta at 164 against a welterweight coming in at 149, or some of Greb’s fights, etc., where the smaller man may not have sweated to make his normal weight class but didn’t pack on any pounds either and just fought the bigger guy at whatever weight the big man arrived at.

Somewhere along the way, in more recent times, catchweights came to mean ‘we’ll meet in the middle at a specific weight the bigger man has to make’ — i.e. a light heavyweight coming down to a contracted 169 to meet a middleweight coming up. It means the opposite of ‘weight whatever you want’ and instead stipulates a specific weight that must be met.

 

Great point! I had forgotten the original definition of catchweight.