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

Luis Fernando,

Well of course you're leaning towards that factor. There's no surprise there. Why don't you watch some early fight footage and clips of him training etc. You can see the difference.

We all know that styles make fights. It's an old adage and one of the truest things that's ever been said about the sport. We know that there's technical fighters, fast fighters, durable fighters, and all with different game plans. Some spoil, some look to just survive etc.

The reason I've looked specifically at Larry Holmes, is because of the similarities that he shared with James Douglas:

They were both the same height.

They were both the same weight.

They both had the same reach.

They both weren't power punchers.

They both had great jabs.

They both had lots of ability when motivated.


According to you, Douglas was nothing more than a journeyman.

According to you, Larry was a faded great.


Surely, despite the fact that Larry was faded, he must have been better than James Douglas in your opinion. Because even a great who's faded, has to be better than a journeyman.


Now whenever I've told you that Mike wasn't at his best for Douglas because of his training camp etc, you have scoffed at the notion, before labelling me as a fanatic. Yet, when I ask you why Holmes couldn't replicate what Douglas did, you say the exact thing that I've said about Mike, in that he too had a bad camp etc.

How can you be taken seriously?

According to you, I'm making excuses, whereas you're noting factors. Which is why you've tied yourself up. You can't tell me that I'm making excuses about Mike's camp and preparation, before then saying "It was Holmes' camp that cost him that fight"

You've got nowhere to go.

Now why don't you do yourself a favour and look at things logically:

Look at Mike's early style.

Look at the training footage.

Look at his fights.

Read up on his mindset, where he used to spend hours in the attic watching old reels of the greats of the past.

Look into his lifestyle and things that happened behind the scenes.

Read first hand accounts from people who were close to him.


Now although styles make fights, you simply have to ask yourself the following question:

If he couldn't beat a journeyman whilst at his best, then HOW could he have beaten all of those other guys?

You have to logically question that.

Again, a fighter who wasn't capable of beating a journeyman in Douglas, would not have been able to have beaten: Holmes, Berbick, Spinks, Tucker, Bruno x 2 and Ruddock x 2 etc.

It wouldn't have been possible.

Remember, by your own admission, you have noted that Mike didn't win a single round from that journeyman, before getting knocked out.

Now Douglas was no better than those guys listed above. And as well as that, Mike beat 3 guys who BEAT Douglas.

You really don't need to hire Columbo to figure all of this out.

We know about Mike's lifestyle.

We know who Mike beat.

We know how he beat them.

We know who they beat.

When you add everything up and look at all of the evidence from an objective standpoint, it's very clear what happened in Tokyo:

Douglas fought the fight of his life, against an unmotivated and underprepared version of Mike.

It was the best version of Douglas vs the worst version of Mike.

There's simply no other way to see it. Again, Mike beat better fighters than Douglas, as well as guys who beat Douglas.

If it was purely and simply down to ability, then Mike would not have been capable of beating the fighters who he did, in the manner he did.

I advise you to take on board what I've said.

No. I've just explained above in-depth.

Again, there were lots of similarities between Holmes and Douglas: Same height, weight and reach, with similar styles.

The difference is:

They both fought different versions of Mike, in the same way that Tiberi and McCallum both fought very different versions of Toney.

Now if you had any knowledge regarding Mike's career, you would KNOW that Mike wasn't at his best in Tokyo. You would know that after reading up on his preparation, including looking at the Page sparring footage, which you have continuously IGNORED.

There's no semantics. It just makes me question your knowledge on the subject.

 

Part 2:

I agree with most of the above, but again, Mike's skills didn't erode overnight. There were little signs that he was slipping beforehand. Again, his defence wasn't as good, and his style had altered.

Not only was Mike underprepared in Tokyo, he mentally didn't really want to be there. He's said that numerous times. He just went through the motions.

Everything was lacking for him that night.

Everything goes hand in hand. If he'd have had more stamina, he may have gone in with more confidence and a different gameplan etc. I think he shut down mentally very early on, despite showing great heart.

I can only keep repeating what I've said earlier:

If it was just purely down to a lack of ability and a clash of styles, and NOTHING else, then Mike would not have been able to have beaten the guys who he did, which again, included guys who'd actually BEATEN Douglas.

A guy who isn't able to beat a journeyman whilst at his best, would simply be incapable of beating a large number of world class fighters. Because they too would also have been able to have exposed and beaten him. And that never happened, which again, shows you that it must have been a one off. And you don't have to just analyse Mike's career to realise that, because you can reach the same conclusion by also analysing Douglas' career.

There's no reason why a fully focused version of Mike, fighting to his full capabilities couldn't have beaten Douglas.

You'll have to remind me what this was in reference to please.

Once again, everyone's circumstances are different.

It doesn't matter to me that Povetkin never lost to guys like Danny Williams etc.

It doesn't mean that he was better than Mike was when he was at his best.

Roy Jones got knocked out by journeyman.

Joe Calzaghe retired undefeated.

Joe Calzaghe beat Roy Jones.

Who was the better fighter when at their best?

Who ranks higher?

If you want to analyse Povetkin's skills along with Mike's, before reaching the conclusion that Povetkin was better, then that's cool. And you may be right. But that doesn't mean that he's more effective. Because ability goes hand in hand with other attributes.

Even if I agreed with you that Povetkin was better skilled than Mike, it doesn't alter my opinion on how I think fights against Wlad and AJ may have played out. Because I honestly believe that the best version of Mike would have knocked out Wlad, and I'd also have made him the favourite over AJ.

Regarding a fight with Wlad, my reasoning is based on Wlad's cautiousness, and Mike's ability to slip inside at speed.

Now maybe Mike could have beaten Wlad and AJ, whilst he lost to Povetkin, who couldn't beat those guys. I don't know. That's why the sport is so fascinating. But at their absolute best, I would class Mike as a better, more formidable HW.

Let me give you some friendly advice:

Don't type the word - 'doe'

It makes you look like a small child.

Again, Mike losing to journeymen whilst shot, doesn't mean that he wasn't better than Povetkin, on the grounds that Povetkin hasn't lost to guys of that calibre.

How many examples do you want where former greats lost at the end of their careers to low level opponents?

I'd be here all night if I listed them.

Povetkin is clearly better than what Mike was at advanced his age. But again, that doesn't mean that he's a better overall fighter. That's highly debatable.

You can compare statistics, but we don't know what would have happened if they'd had swapped eras and timelines. It's too hard to predict.

 

Joshua will end like Bruno.

 

@Loudon


Fair and respectable points overall! I agree with a lot of things, and we may have to agree to disagree on the other things that we disagree on. Since we could be going back and forth forever.

There are just a few points I'd like to address though.

One fundamental flaw with your argument when you claimed Mike Tyson should've lost to Larry Holmes (a better boxer), if his loss against Buster Douglas wasn't a one off (an inferior boxer to Larry Holmes), is that it sometimes takes a specific amount of time for a boxer's style to be figured out. It's not a case of one boxer having to be better than the other boxer.

I'll give you an example: An average scientist today has more overall knowledge of science than Albert Einstein did. Now does that NECESSARILY mean that this average scientist today is a better scientist than Albert Einstein? ABSOLUTELY not!

It's the same with your argument! Larry Holmes being better than Buster Douglas has nothing to do with it. Buster Douglas had more time in his hands to tactically figure out Mike Tyson's style and game plan. And he also had the required skill-set to pull off the type of fight required to beat Mike Tyson.

You could also argue that James Tillis was also similar to Larry Holmes in terms of style and size. Maybe an inch or two shorter, but that's about it! James Tillis, like Larry Holmes, also used a jab and lateral movement regularly in his style. But Tillis performed much better against Mike Tyson than Larry Holmes did by winning more rounds and lasting the distance. So what does that mean and what does that prove? Nothing much really!

I personally believe Buster Douglas just had Mike Tyson's number and simply knew how to beat him. That doesn't make Mike Tyson a bad boxer at all. But simply not as great as some people claim he is.

You could argue that Mike Tyson's skills were eroded when he fought Buster Douglas. But even during their first round, I saw some decent head movement from Mike Tyson and decent footwork, things that he is usually known for. But Buster Douglas simply had all the answers to everything Mike Tyson was known for. So for me, it's more down to Buster Douglas simply not allowing Mike Tyson to be effective, rather than Mike Tyson's declination in his skills that prevented him from being effective.

I would make the Buster Douglas in 1990 to be favorite over any version of Mike Tyson.

Having stated all of that, I still believe Mike Tyson is a top 3 greatest heavyweight ever if we rank him pound for pound. However, in the heavyweight division, there comes a point where size becomes a factor where the bigger guy doesn't have to be more skilled to win. And that's Mike Tyson's (and Povetkin's) downfall in my opinion.

The reason why I'm comparing both Mike Tyson and Povetkin at an old age is because how a boxer performs at an old age when their athletic attributes have declined, especially against other elite opponents who are a lot younger, shows how much REAL boxing skills they have in terms of technical and tactical ability.

Mike Tyson is arguably the most athletic heavyweight ever. However, it's all to obvious for everyone to see how much he suffered when he lost his speed, explosiveness, reflexes and etc.

Mike Tyson at his best was undoubtedly more athletic than Povetkin. He was faster, he was more explosive, he had faster twitched muscles and quicker movement overall.

However, Povetkin, despite being far inferior athletically compared to Mike Tyson, still had a career where he was consistently a top boxer and performed much better against an elite opponent in Anthony Joshua when he was way past his best at age 39, than Tyson did at a younger age against Danny Williams and Kevin McBride when he was past his best. That's because Povetkin was the more skilled boxer, technically and tactically. This part is not even in doubt for me! Just like how it's not in doubt that Mike Tyson was the more athletic heavyweight.

If a boxer performs well, even if for a few rounds at an old age when their athletic attributes have diminished against an elite opponent that is much younger, whilst having success and being effective as Povetkin was against Joshua, then it proves they are extremely skilled, technically and tactically, that is independent of pure athleticism. This can't be said of Mike Tyson however!

This is where I base my conclusion on Povetkin being more skilled than Mike Tyson. Povetkin also had changed trainers multiple times, but still remained a top heavyweight for over a decade and never lost against anybody that wasn't the absolute number 1 heavyweight at the time. Whilst Mike Tyson, after he lost Cus' Dumato and his team, was no longer the boxer he was and started fading. that shows, that Povetkin can stand on his own two feet better and has better tactical abilities of his own. Whilst Mike Tyson lacked that level of tactical ability and required his first corner-men to do that job for him.