Could a 19th century fighter realistically have beaten prime Tyson or Anthony Joshua

depends on the rules of the fight.

 

The best 19th century fighter was Sam Langford or james jeffries, id favor either over carnera but I think Anthony is a little too technical and big for either of them, not a a.j. fan by any means and I'd be rooting for them but wouldn't expect them to win. And against a prime Tyson they would die

 

If we are talking of 19th century fighters then we are talking for most of that era of bare knuckle/skin tight glove fights, so if fighting within the rules of that era, things may not be as clear, as fighters of that era had a mastery of their bare knuckle art.

Put those bare knucklers in mufflers with 20/21st century rules then no they will lose.

 

It was shot down because people are close minded and dont want to accept the possibility that their era can even be challenged because we are so superior today to the neanderthals of 100 years ago. lol

 

They couldn't beat Tor Hamer FFS, bc they be stretched before he could quit before the 5th.

FFS....wild swinging, beer guzzling, no defense, no discipline fighters of yesterday.....

180 lb barback vs a 250 lb beast who's been training since before his first short and curly grew in.

 

I'd favor AJ over ANY HW before 1970s.
I think All would outclassed him, George could KO him, Holmes outjab him, Tyson catch him, Lewis, Wlad and Vitali all likely beat him

 

Modern training / nutrition makes the new boys sharper and faster but on an even keel the older boys might have an edge because they had it harder

 

I personally think Dempsey was probably the first heavyweight who could potentially give modern heavyweights some problems....although his size would still be an issue, as he usually fought in the mid 180s I believe. Also, guys that were big punchers, such as John L Sullivan and Joe Choynski, would always have a puncher’s chance to land something big that could change the fight. Plus, you know all those old timers were tough and would give it all they had, so I bet some would fare better than you’d think.

That being said, I still wouldn’t actually favor any of the top 19th century guys over current top 50 heavyweights. But I bet if you took the top 50 from 1890 and had them fight the current top 50 (#1 from 1890 vs current #1, #2 from 1890 vs current #2, etc.), there would be a few fights where the guy from 1890 lands a big shot and wins.

 

Nobody beats a prime Mike Tyson, it's as simple as that. Mike Tyson is the only man who could defeat himself.

 

Check out Nat Fleischer’s top 10 heavyweight list from 1971:

1. Jack Johnson
2. Jim Jeffries
3. Bob Fitzsimmons
4. Jack Dempsey
5. James J. Corbett
6. Joe Louis
7. Sam Langford
8. Gene Tunney
9. Max Schmeling
10. Rocky Marciano

Pretty crazy considering this list was put out after Ali v. Frazier I (Fight of the Century). I mean just look at all the names that aren’t there.

 

A lot of it was fear factor though. When Douglas burst that fear bubble he wasn't nearly as effective, Ruddock showed that twice.

 

Obviously no active fighters were included which is fair enough.