Would Anthony Joshua beat Mike Tyson in he's prime?

Mike could have bobbed and weaved his way inside.

Or is a shot Povetkin on another level to what the best version of Mike was?

 

Joshua would be Mike's best win by a distance let's be honest. I'm trying to work out what Mike's best win actually is and I think it's 38 y/o Holmes. The stiffs he put away 85 to 89 were not anywhere near Joshua in size, athleticism, punch output and power.

 

I think he's both overrated and underrated. I think he's got a very good resume though, but he couldn't sustain his form due to his lifestyle.

His win over Holmes was impressive, as nobody else could replicate that, and Holmes had good performances afterwards.

His win over Spinks was also impressive. He proved in fights against Holmes and Cooney that he was a credible HW.

His wins over Tucker and Bruno were good.

There's not many fighters who have beaten ATG opponents in their prime.

I wouldn't say a fight against AJ would be 50-50.

 

How was it inefficient?

 

Boxing isn't as simple as that.

 

Luis Fernando is a very passionate Povetkin fan. He believes Povetkin was never convicted of the ostarine charge that he tested positive for in the lead up to his Stiverene clash which never took place because of that.

It does get tiresome reading his stuff let alone debating it. Just don't read it cos you maybe misinformed (e.g. Povetkin never got convicted for ostarine). Time is precious.

 

Tyson at his peak would have stopped AJ. He was a force. He took out a number of big guys just like AJ and they didn't know what hit them.

 

I'm a big Povetkin fan. But I don't see how he is/was better than the best versions of Mike. And it makes no sense to say that no version of Mike could have beaten AJ.

 

So am I. I think Povetkin is the best technical boxer of all the heavyweights bar Ortiz but thats easy to see. Its debating with posters like Luis Fernando that I find myself almost disliking Povetkin lol.

If you watch videos of prime Povetkin and then you watch prime Tyson, it looks like Tysons clips on fast forward but in actual fact - Mike just moved quick, not only with the fists but with the whole body. Tysons punch selection and combos were not like Povetkins typical shots. Tyson would do 2 punch combos with the right hand (e.g. right rip/right uppercut) so fast and both hurt. Tyson was known to have the ability to knock you out with either hand, Povetkin isnt known to have that ability, neither is Wilder who only has a right.

 

Great post.

I'm going back on the Classic soon, I'm tired of debating these guys.

 

No.

 

I never claimed Povetkin was 'shot' at age 39 because Mike Tyson also was shot at the same age. That's a straw man fallacy you've just committed. I claimed Povetkin was shot at age 39 because it's scientifically and historically proven, that athletes are no longer elite level by that age. And this isn't even debatable! This isn't just Mike Tyson. This involves all other past heavyweights like Holyfield, Muhammad Ali, Sonny Liston and etc. None of those guys came close to beating an opponent at the caliber of Anthony Joshua at that age. And if anything, they were either losing to far inferior opponents or they were retired (for a good reason, because that's the widely proven age when athletes aren't any longer at elite level).

Yes, Povetkin is ABSOLUTELY shot. A 39 year old, high pressure fighter who has taken over thousand more punches than any other top 10 heavyweight, and has competed in more rounds than any other top 10 heavyweight, and has the most taxing style because he is the smallest in size (height, weight and reach), is anything but not 'shot' by age 39, which equates to over 2 decades of boxing, getting hit in the head and exhausting the energy reserves his body contains. Only a deluded fool like you would pretend Povektin at age 39 isn't 'shot', when taking into consideration all these factors. His durability and stamina were ABSOLUTELY shot. This isn't even up for debate!

Best version of Mike Tyson got destroyed by Buster Douglas. No version of Povetkin (even the worst versions) ever lost to clowns and journeymen level opponents like Buster Douglas. Ergo, best version of Povetkin > best version of Mike Tyson.

There wasn't any other 'best' version of Mike Tyson that was better. Anyone claiming so, is spouting a myth.

And Mike Tyson's personal problems isn't only exclusive to himself. Many other boxers, including Povetkin himself, had similar personal problems. Povetkin's dad passed away. He was out of boxing for over a year, following his suspension. But none of that is an excuse to losing to TOTAL clowns and hilariously low level of opposition like Danny Williams and Kevin McBride. I don't care how 'shot' you are. Losing to such low level opponents isn't excusable.

Spinks and Larry Holmes aren't even comparable to Anthony Joshua. Be it in size, or in style. Ergo, they are totally irrelevant! Joshua ain't a past his best, Larry Holmes at an old age. Nor is he a blown up light heavyweight.

The much weaker Mike Tyson would have very little answers, if Joshua decides to impose his physical strength and size (especially weight) advantages upon Tyson.

Povetkin landed decent shots. But they didn't do much on Joshua, certainly didn't drop, let alone KO him.

I've seen Mike Tyson's punches being taken by far inferior heavyweights than Anthony Joshua. Even the MYTHICAL 'BEST' version of Mike Tyson had his punches absorbed and eaten by certain heavyweights. What makes you think for a second, Anthony Joshua also couldn't take a few odd punches here and there?

It's much more difficult to KO taller opponents, especially when having to punch upwards a long distance, because it robs the much shorter boxer off their full power. This is common sense and basic physics!

Even if we go by Mike Tyson's own record, he only stopped one opponent (Lou Savarese) that was taller than 6 foot 3 and a half inches in height, that also didn't have over 50% losses out of their career/win record, and / or had less than 15 bouts. All other such tall opponents, either went the distance with Tyson and lost. Or they beat him / knocked him out. This includes Tony Tucker, Mitch Green, Bonecrusher Smith and etc.

This comes as no surprise. As the taller the opponents get, the more difficult it is for Mike Tyson to land his DEVASTATING KO punches.

Keep in mind, that Anthony Joshua is literally on another level compared to all those tall guys I've just mentioned

 

Wrong. This quote here leads me to think that you never really followed Tyson. Anyone that followed his career knew that his best years was when he was younger. Like 20 years of age.

 

Mike Tyson was 24 years of age, when he lost to Buster Douglas. Age 24 is the physical prime of pretty much every athlete. So that was peak / best version of Mike Tyson, losing to Buster Douglas.

Claiming he wasn't at his best at age 24, is literally your fanatic, baseless opinion. One that I don't have to believe in. I have more reason to believe that Mike Tyson was in his prime at age 24, than he wasn't.