Joe Joyce vs Mike Tyson 1988 version

If way weaker boxers than Parker can go longer than 3, obviously Parker wouldn't last "a maximum" of 3 rounds

 

yes, it seems pretty obvious, right? but there are people who cant see the obvious.

 

Quite right.

Again, there was also less than a year between James Toney beating an elite, P4P fighter in Michael Nunn, to him losing to a C class fighter in Dave Tiberi. (He should have lost, and he admits that himself)


Fighters aren’t robots.

They’re people who have flaws. And due to various circumstances, an awful lot can happen to someone in a year or two.

We all know what happened to Roy Jones just 18 months after he’d beaten John Ruiz.


Now if you think that Douglas would always have beaten Mike, then that’s your opinion. But it’s no secret that Mike wasn’t fully focused mentally, or fully fit physically for the fight in Tokyo.

He was gassed in the 9th round, where he’d been lethargic with little head movement.

It wasn’t the guy who’d fought Spinks, Holmes and Tucker etc.

He’d actually performed poorly in the Bruno fight in 1989.

 

You have to add in the fear factor Tyson had in 88. There's not been a hw like that since who could sap nervous energy from an opponent before they even got in the ring.

 

Mike’s not my idol. But I lived through the era.

If you don’t think that that was a very different version of Mike to the versions of him that we’d seen before, then you have zero knowledge of this subject.


Once again, how did Roy Jones go from beating John Ruiz, to losing to Glen Johnson, who was a guy who’d split 3 fights with Clinton Woods?

How did James Toney go from beating Reggie Johnson and Michael Nunn, to getting a gift win over a C level James Tiberi?

Please answer the questions.


Look at your last line:

“If Buster could kick Tyson’s ass, then Joyce could too”


Yet boxing has shown us that things aren’t ever that straight forward.

I have given you examples of James Toney and Roy Jones for your consideration.


It would be completely ignorant to just think of a fighter better than James Douglas, before then assuming that if he could have beaten Mike, then they could have done too.

Again, it’s never that simple.


Your logic is flawed.

You have labelled James Douglas as a journeyman.

Not me, but YOU.


So let’s use your logic and ask the following question:


If Mike Tyson couldn’t beat a journeyman in James Douglas, then kindly tell me how he was able to beat Tony Tucker, Frank Bruno, Michael Spinks and Larry Holmes etc??


Stop being ignorant and think about an actual breakdown.

Look at the stylistic match up.


Take into account the following:


Douglas and Joyce have very different styles.

Joyce and Douglas have/had very different attributes.

Just like 2003-2004 versions of Roy Jones and 1991 versions of James Toney, there was a noticeable difference between the versions of Mike from 1988-1990.


An 1988 version of Tyson vs today’s Joyce would have played out very differently to the 1990 Tokyo fight.

Again, a different version of Mike, vs a completely different challenger, in a completely different stylistic match up.

None of this should need to be explained to you.

 

We don’t know,

Again, better fighters, or fighters on the same level didn’t last as long.

It would depend on a number of factors.

The point is:

You can’t just make the assumptions that you did.

 

"Tops"

Your claim what that it's impossible for Parker to go beyond on 3 when several journeymen made it longer than 3.

 

Because the sport isn’t as simple as that.

How do you not know this?


Frank Bruno only lasted 3 rounds in 1995.

Larry Holmes only lasted 4 rounds in 1988.

Michael Spinks only lasted a round in 1988.


Yet Mike Jameson lasted until the 5th round.

Was Jameson better than the above fighters?


Parker may have been blasted in a round.

He may have survived the full 12 rounds.

It would depend on a number of things.


However, it’s not a silly prediction/opinion to think that Mike could have beaten him in 3 rounds, just on the grounds that Mike Jameson lasted longer.

It’s boxing.

Again, different versions of Mike, different stylistic match ups etc.

 

OK so is this a match up against 88 Tyson? Or against the one in 1990 who famously spent most of his time sleeping with Japanese women and looking like **** in training? Because you seem awfully confused yourself.

 

the distance between 1988 and february 1990 is 1 year and 2 months. You talk as if it were 100 years. Ridiculous. Not to talk about that joyce is way, way better than douglas has ever been.

 

I haven’t said that at all.

I’m saying that if you’ve been watching the sport for a long time and you possess a good knowledge of it, then you’d know for sure that it’s not as simple as what you’re claiming.


Yes, Parker could have lasted beyond 3 rounds.

He may have lasted 12 rounds.

Alternatively, he may only have lasted 1-2 rounds.


Mike Jameson has nothing to do with it.

Why?

Because there’s many variables.

Many different things to consider.


Again, Mike Jameson lasted longer than Spinks, Holmes and Bruno.

Yet they were world class fighters, whereas he was a journeyman.

Those guys were levels above him as a fighter.


The point is:

Mike Jameson can’t be used as evidence of why Mike couldn’t have beaten Parker in 3 rounds.

 

Yeah well if that were 1992 Mike Jameson he would have KOd Tyson in 2, tops

 

He didn`t do much v AJ though.

 

Joyce is a far more consistent, two fisted body puncher than Bruno was and Tyson was awful v Bruno.

 

Jokes aside, I would get it if Tyson was old or at least shot looking/out of shape, but he was in his prime and still looked good. I don't see a Klitschkoesque transformation in his fighting style or anything, I just see a guy who had a bad training camp and got beat.