Without PED would Evander Holyfield have been as successul in the heavyweight division as was?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by mark ant, Jan 28, 2019.



  1. Entaowed

    Entaowed Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,565
    280
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 16, 2012
    No, he admitted mucho sins, never anything like this. Show me why you think he did?
     
  2. Wass1985

    Wass1985 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,152
    1,455
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 18, 2012
    Shock horror athlete doesn't admit to PED usage.
     
  3. Entaowed

    Entaowed Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,565
    280
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 16, 2012
    But that does not imply he used. Any more than you not admitting to wife beating or being a swerial killer means you are guilty of either.
    You were wrong about his body fat levels & other small points Wass.
    You cannot prove a negative, & there is no way that, given Truth Serum, you would not admit that you want Tyson to be guilty.
    You also would admit that even if there was exonerating evidence, you would not accept it.

    You are hopelessly biased when it comes to Tyson.
    You literally hate him.
    Seemingly with the White Hot Passion of 100,000 Suns.
     
  4. thanosone

    thanosone I Am Eternal Full Member

    3,538
    114
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 23, 2007
    He should have been disqualified in at least 5 fights.
     
  5. Wass1985

    Wass1985 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,152
    1,455
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 18, 2012
    You are wrong about his body fat levels I assure you.
     
  6. Entaowed

    Entaowed Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,565
    280
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 16, 2012
    Wass-do you not know that merely asserting & repeating a premise absent either presenting evidence, or addressing evidence, is not rational?
    It is also a cardinal indication of bias.
    This is a trivial issue, but let's address it to be fair & logical.

    I & others said he was around 8-10% body fat in his 214-221 lb. prime.
    I said that this could at most be marginally off-though I am pretty confident, conceivably he could have averaged barely over rather than just under 10% BF.

    You were told about his abdominal & lower back definition as supporting evidence-you had no response.
    We can submit reams of photographic evidence where his musculature was very defined.
    And what men look like at various levels of BF.
    If he was anywhere around 15% BF-though this is not at all overweight-you would see it in the waist-& less definition.
    In addition, it has been described on this website how Tyson's face had a very lean, drawn look when he was at his lighter weights.
    When there is that kind of cavernous look to the face-& the camera puts on 10-15 lbs.-then you can be assured that the person is well below 10% BF.

    I will be more exacting & add that he could easily have had the AMOUNT of fat as someone his height who was ~ 15% BF levels.
    But can you understand that THIS hypothetical average bone structure & muscle mass person would weigh 140, maybe 145 if they/Tyson were 5' 11"-with zero body fat. That would be their "lean body mass".
    While Tyson's LBM was likely 195-200 lbs.
    That means the same quantity of BF would be a lower % of his total body mass.

    Now IF you still disagree, & want to show you are Fair & Rational....
    Tell us what BF you believe prime Tyson had.
    And say WHY.

    While addressing every point above. OK man?
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2019 at 10:44 PM
    GOAT Primo Carnera likes this.
  7. Wass1985

    Wass1985 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,152
    1,455
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 18, 2012
    If you claim such facts it's your duty to provide the evidence, please show me pics where Tyson looks to be at 8-10% body fat.
     
  8. Entaowed

    Entaowed Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,565
    280
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 16, 2012
    Wass, y0u disputed the claims of myself & others re: Tyson's body fat levels in his prime.
    Therefor logically it is YOU who has the burden of proof.
    While I already offered & am happy to provide photogaphic evidence, you osetntatiously avoided all of my reasoning & arguments.

    If you have no ability to any of it, please say that directly.
    I also just asked you what body fat level YOU believe he was in his prime.
    You should no that in any good faith debate, being willing to state your premises-or respond to a basic question about your position-is elementary to even be able to have your arguments taken seriously.

    Look, there are occasionally people-even here-who write something like "I used to be extreme/fanatical about X.":...
    Then they essentially say they grew up.
    It would be one thing if you just happened to have an outliar opinion-but your past constant name calling & personal attacks prove that you are wholly unable to be objective about someone who you seem to HATE.

    You must be at least dimly aware you project a great deal of personal animus-& likely issues-on someone you effectively taunt continually.
    Be that Rare Guy who stops being a Parody of a Hater.
    You still may rate him lower than average H2H-or may change that dramatically.
    But right now you must know that nobody here would say you would *ever* admit anything positive-or that you were wrong-about Mike Tyson.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Alright, here are some photos.
    This content is protected
    fir=x3SsTv1ZzKBbwM%253A%252CGoCTp2nRhLVlQM%252C_&usg=AI4_-kQKL4lwK9vptten9ZnWzWyUAWJ-zw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwihxafph7fgAhUDnFkKHSecA4YQ9QEwAHoECAAQBA#imgrc=j_IIpZUAH_EMpM:

    This content is protected
    :

    This content is protected
    :
    This content is protected
    :

    This content is protected


    This content is protected


    OK, you can see in the first 3 photos I avoided any very early photos when he was lighter& younger.
    Though you will recognize the one from the back re: a near ring melee well after his prime.

    The final two are submitted for logical contrast.
    He weighed in at 234 & 1/2 vs. Lewis.
    Nobody said he was training like a fiend or added muscle mass-despite gaing 15-20 lbs. compared to his prime, his measurements are virtually the same.
    His legs are actually listed as a bit smaller.
    He just added fat.
    But unlike say late career Frazier, he does not look soft...If he could add that many lbs. & still not look at all overweight, what does that suggest about his prime?

    To address that difrectly: you can see all the aforementioned front & back definition.
    And a noticeable LACK of any signbicant body fat.
    Clearly he is in the 8-10% body fat range.

    ANOTHER way to put it: competitive body builders will have a MAX of 4-5% BF.
    Often less, but very heavily muscled individuals tend to store a bit of fat in their muscles.
    So that means if I am correct, Tyson would have to cut his BF in half to begin to be competitive in the sport.
    That would be ~11 lbs.

    If he got down to 3% or just below like some, that would be a biyt overt 15 lbs.

    If you are correct, then Tyson would need to lose 20 lbs. or more of pure fat just to get into the top of the pro bodybuilder fat% range.


    Nah, check with folks who know the sport.
    The total amount of fat on his whole body in those first three pictures looks to be a max of around 20 lbs.
    Which with his overall lean body mass, is no more than 8-10%.


    Now please either admit you are wrong....
    Say you do not have the expertise to know...
    Or if you still think Tyson was "fatter"...

    ANSWER all my logic in this post & m last one.
    And finally say what body fat % YOU believe he had in his Prime.

    The Golden Rule.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019 at 1:19 PM
    mark ant likes this.
  9. Wass1985

    Wass1985 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,152
    1,455
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 18, 2012
    Tyson is not 8-10% body fat on any of these pictures, if you're going to make claims you better make sure they are true.

    This content is protected


    I can post more if need be?

    I'd say he's 11-13% body fat at his peak condition.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019 at 1:40 PM
  10. mark ant

    mark ant Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,738
    2,152
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    May 4, 2017
    Hard to say because his build was so different to the guy in the 11-12% pic and after Rooney left he had more body fat even in the 80`s, but I don`t know if that defends your arguement or argues against it.
     
  11. Wass1985

    Wass1985 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,152
    1,455
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 18, 2012
    Build doesn't change anything. Tyson clearly had more body fat than 8-10% on this chart and many others.
     
  12. mark ant

    mark ant Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,738
    2,152
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    May 4, 2017
    okay but what about his body having more fat after Rooney left? In the Bruno fight Dundee mentioned that Tyson`s body had lost it`s vim, how significant was that to this debate? This is really interesting to me.
     
  13. Entaowed

    Entaowed Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,565
    280
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 16, 2012

    1) You ignored addressing any of my reasoning. That is not persuasive; if someone takes the time to offer a lot of evidence & reasoning, you can disagree with all or some of it-but you should not just ignore everything.
    That is undermines your credibility & is not in accords with "The Golden Rule".

    2) I appreciate that you finally offered a response re: his body fat level.
    While I disagree, it should be pointed out that we only differ by 3% BF!
    That is not very much. Even if you are right on target-you acknowledge that Tyson was pretty lean.

    3) There is no way to say definitely from a chart, even if excellent, & the pictures available of someone, where they fall.

    4) I agree that IF you just look at the photos you present, absent the context I already presented, 11-13 % BF for Tyson sounds like about as good an answer as anything else!

    5) But someone else alluded to something I already described in significant detail. The BUILD of Tyson.
    When folks are low body fat, they are technically at least slightly smaller than those who are identical but heavier, though ironically appear to hold more muscle than those with the same build who have more fat.
    Because their muscles are carved & defined. This impression is increased in close up shots with no CONTEXT re: overall size, including height or bone mass.

    SO I am again saying that due to having much more overall lean body mass than the average person-& very likely more than those in your chart...

    Tyson could easily have the same amount of fat, but would be a few percentages lower in body fat PERCENTAGE.
    Did you see how I already had noted that he could have ~the same % as a regular dude near 15% BF, but be no more than 10% BF?

    So even if (as is fairly likely) the dudes in the charts have at least some more muscle than the average Joe...
    Tyson is likely to be ~ 8-10% BF while LOOKING 11-13% on your chart!
    If you fail to consider his overall lean body mass. Muscle & fat.

    Do you understand that this is because even (reasonably) assuming that they were likely ~ average height like Tyson...
    Tyson has a larger bone structure & more muscle mass?

    Those guys Are especially unlikely to have thighs & calves that measure 27" & 18" lean.
    You add in the butt, & 60% of body mass is BELOW the waist.

    Another way of putting it is that take all the guys below & above whatever fat ration you think Tyson has.
    Assuming they are average height (or near), they will still NOT weigh as much as Tyson.
    Because Tyson has a higher lean body mass-bone & especially muscle---> which makes one have a lower BF LEVEL.

    Those lean chart guys were not average height, & without bulked with food, & weighed nearly nude ~ 215-220 lbs.

    Like BMI itself, a visual chart varies in accuracy when the subject you compare them to has a higher or lower LBM.
     
  14. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    21,798
    1,604
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 31, 2009
    According to weight charts, Specifically the Male Weight to Height Table - Screening Table Weight used by the US army Tyson should have been no more than 185lb at the age 17-20, 189lb limit between the age 21-27years, 194lb limit up to the age of 38 and no more than 197lb after the age of 40 years. These weights, according to them, (The US military) result in 20%,22%,24% And 26% body fat for Mike Tyson’s height. Presumably the minimum requirements for a healthy ratio. So I don’t understand why 214lb can produce 8%-10% body fat if the US military considers 194lb 26% body fat for Tysons height? According to them 214lb is an unhealthy weight for Mike Tyson at any age.

    The US military would presumably consider mike Tyson to have over 26% BF at anything over 197lb.

    Interestingly before about 1960 most heavyweight champions, in shape, rarely went beyond the 24% BF for their height.

    without modern advances, it is more than probable that Mike Tyson never would have developed beyond 197lb under traditional methods.
     
  15. Entaowed

    Entaowed Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,565
    280
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 16, 2012
    Choklab this is a simple answer.
    The US Army charts are like BMI: they show where most, usually the vast majority, of folks will fall & be either at a given body fat % or not overweight or obese.

    That does not mean that even the US Military would not acknowledge that some individuals-including some who never used an PEDs-wil fall outside of the * generally* healthy range.
    And they could be fairly-super healthy, & anywhere from average BF to very lean.

    I recall an S.I. article when I was a teenager.
    Where an athlete tested OVER the military standard for what is healthy.
    He successfully argued it would be counter-productive to lose weight because he was already lean-& they let him be tested. He had a 6.5% BF level-I am sure lower than most of his "normal" peers-so they gavce him a special weight dispensation.

    Some folks ALWAYS were outliers due to the work they did, working out, & bone structure.
    Someone posted a thread about Primo Carnero where he was allegedly "cut" at 268 lbs.!!
    Steroids were only just invented during his pro career.

    It is not so that Tyson would never likely be beyond 197 (lean) using "traditional" methods.
    Even if you do not consider weight training "traditional"-though it is all natural & just a formalized system to get the muscle stimulation one would in traditonal hard farm or some industrial labor etc...

    It would be true that MOST Tyson's height would not get there.
    Just like MOST people never get much over 6' tall.
    Sam McVea & many others would be well beyond your general weight-height limits for health.
    **************************************************************************************************************************************************************

    You confuse two disparate concepts.
    Those weights & BF ratios define the level that would be healthy-& not overweight-for MOST.
    But if due to genetics-including a thtck bone structure-work &/or working out, one gets beyond or sometimes well beyond those levels...

    That in no way implies those individuals cannot be healthy.
    Some, especially many in professional sports, are extremely healthy & in better OVERALL shape than the vast, overwhelming majoprity of folks in the "normal" range.

    Though if you would argue PEDs tend to make you less healthy-to an unknown degree-that I would agree with.
     

Share This Page