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

You never followed his career so you wouldnt know.

So youre saying every athlete is at their best at the age of 24 lol. Delusional. I wont embarass you by making a thread on it because you would be a laughing stock.

 

Prime Iron Mike was such a force of nature and a master of his fighting style, I give the edge to Tyson. Hard one to call actually, AJ would be huge in comparison and is a dangerous puncher himself. I rate both as top ten all-time h2h heavyweights.

 

Is Mike Tyson and the glorified Prime Tyson the same person or are they brothers or something like that ?

Never heard of someone with the name Prime.

However i would pick Prime to beat Anthony.

 

This content is protected

 

Too early to say.

Let's wait till AJ has finished his career.

Mike was a beast, but Buster and Evander were able to get the job done, so...

 

Age 24 is the PHYSICAL PRIME of athletes, so yes. Only Mike Tyson fanatics make excuses for Tyson being somehow past prime at age 24. Utterly hilarious! I've never seen such an excuse being made for any other athlete, never mind just boxer, where they are somehow past their prime at age 24.

I don't need to believe Mike Tyson was somehow not in his prime against Buster Douglas, just because you say so. That's literally your fanatic / fanboy opinion.

Go ahead and make a thread! You only embarrass yourself further, by exposing / revealing to everyone reading online, how obsessed you are about what another poster online thinks, to the point where you seemingly have fantasies / fetishes of that poster. Since only a mentally unwell individual would even care to make threads about another single poster because of their opinion.

Unfortunately for you, I don't care about my online reputation. You obviously seem like you do. Most likely because you have mental problems and have a bad quality of life, outside of the internet. So by all means, go for it and expose yourself.

 

Making a thread on you (again) was an empty threat of some sort to be quite frank. Plus another poster pointed out that its in bad taste. I'm not obsessed with you at all, I just disagree with you on some things.

The idea of Mike Tyson being in his prime at 20 years of age is the opinion of so many Tyson fans and boxing experts all over the world. This was based on what we saw from Mike in every fight he had. Everyone is unique, they don't all peak at a set age of 24.

You should do your homework on Mike Tyson and actually watch some documentaries because your not in a position to say this and that about someone you never really followed.

 

Francois Botha stated that of all his fights, it was Mike Tyson that punched a lot harder than the others and that nearly all his punches hurt. He said he woke up the next day after their fight and his whole upper body was sore. Botha had never had that before. I think this is the reason why guys like Nielsen and Golota quit.

 

Luis Fernando,

Two paragraphs of nonsense.

Once again: There is a world of difference between a fighter being past their best, and a fighter being shot.

A world of difference.

A fighter who is shot is no longer capable of winning at the highest level.

You cannot claim that it's a scientific fact that every fighter at 39 and above is shot.

Faded/past their prime, okay. Shot? No.

Are you going to tell me that Bernard Hopkins was SHOT when he beat Antonio Tarver and Kelly Pavlik?

Are you going to tell me that Larry Holmes was SHOT when he beat Ray Mercer and gave a prime version of Evander something to think about?

How can we have a proper debate, when you don't know the difference between a shot fighter and one who's past their best?

You do make me laugh.

You are so ignorant it's unbelievable.

Best??

Do me a favour.

How on earth was he at his best??

Look, if you want to trash Mike for his complete lack of unprofessionalism, then be my guest. Because he certainly deserves it. But don't come on here and claim that he was at his best that night in Tokyo.

The only reason that you are claiming that, is because of his young age at the time.

Forget his age.

King lined up Douglas for Mike, and Mike's ego was so big back then, he thought he just had to turn up and land something big.

He was overweight, he was unmotivated, he didn't watch any of Douglas' fights, he was sleeping around with women, he hardly did any roadwork, and Greg Page was dropping him in sparring.

Mike took Douglas lightly, he tired quickly, and he paid the ultimate price. Douglas deserves all the credit in the world. But he did not fight the sharp and motivated versions of Mike who'd beaten the likes of Spinks.

Okay genius, we'll play it your way.

You think that Mike was at his best in Tokyo.

You think that Douglas was a complete bum.

Fine.

Then please explain how on earth Mike was able to beat Holmes, Spinks, Bruno, Tucker and Ruddock etc?

If Douglas was a bum and was able to beat him, why couldn't they?

Or are you going to claim that those guys were even bigger bums than Douglas?

Are you a fan of James Toney's?

I guess he must have been at his best when he lost to Dave Tiberi, considering that he was only about 24 at the time?

Of course everyone has issues. Everyone's circumstances are different. Everyone deals with them in different ways.

Lots of former great fighters lost hard to lower level guys at the end of their careers.

There's a ton of examples to give.

My favourite fighter, Roy Jones, lost to Enzo Mac. It was sad, but it's not really relevant when analysing his career.

I wasn't comparing Spinks and Holmes to AJ. I was highlighting the fact that that was Mike at his best. He was switched on, fighting to his full capabilities.

It's a 2 way street. AJ could have tired. He would also have found it difficult to have timed Mike. It would have been a very difficult fight for him stylistically.

Nobody is saying otherwise. The point is, the best versions of Mike was faster and threw more combinations. So we know that he could have landed big and heavy shots on AJ. Or are you saying that a shot Povetkin was a more dangerous/better fighter than the best versions of Mike?

AJ could take his punches. I've never said otherwise. But I think that AJ's style where he'd have been willing to trade, could have been his undoing.

It's also very difficult to time a 5'10 guy who's bobbing and weaving in a crouched position at speed.

Mike was great at slipping inside and attacking the body.

Okay. But for fair analysis, you have to look at how many guys he fought above that height, who they were and the style that they had, and more importantly, where Mike was in his career at the time. Because losing to guys like Lewis and McBride don't mean anything when looking at a fantasy fight against AJ.

As above, it's not as simple as quoting statistics.

Of course AJ is on another level to most of those guys. But there's enough evidence to support a theory that this would have been a very difficult fight for both guys. You cannot quote stats, note that AJ was better than most of Mike's opponents, then proclaim it would have been an easy victory for AJ, or that Mike would have had absolutely no chance of winning.

 

Another clueless post.

Do you really, seriously believe that he had to have been at his best because he was only 23-24?

How on earth can you not be willing to take any other factors into consideration?

Just how ignorant can a person be?


Again, he wasn't motivated, he hardly trained, he was sleeping around, and he was getting dropped in sparring. So how on earth could he have been at his best?

Again, if that was Mike at his best and Douglas was a bum, how the hell did he manage to beat all of those other guys?


Again, I'll use James Toney as an example.

He was about 24 when he lost to Dave Tiberi. But if that was James at his best, how did he manage to beat McCallum, Johnson, Nunn and Barkley etc?


Did you follow the career of Chris Eubank?

He beat peak versions of Watson and Benn, but should have lost to Close and Schommer.


You don't know how to debate.

You can't claim that a fighter in his 20's has to be at his best in every fight, and that a fighter in his late 30's has to be shot in every fight.

It's not as simple as that.


Here's Mike in preparation for Douglas:

This content is protected

No timing, easy to hit.

He clearly didn't really want to be there.

Yet you want to claim that he was at his best, simply because he had to have been because he was only 23-24?

That was not Mike fighting to his full capabilities.

Anyone who deals purely in numbers/stats alone, is a very ignorant man.

 

Holmes wasn't shot when he fought those guys.

Again, the definition of a shot fighter is a fighter who is no longer capable of performing/winning at the top level.

What do you mean Mercer was awful at that stage? Mercer was a very capable HW. He fought Holmes straight after he'd just destroyed Morrison. Did you not see the Lewis fight 3-4 years later? To this day, there's many people who believe that Mercer beat Lewis.

Again, faded and shot are 2 completely different things.

Mike was faded against Evander, but was shot against Williams and McBride.

Roy Jones was faded against Tarver, but was shot against Calzaghe, Green and Lebedev etc.

Once you start making exceptions for guys like Hopkins and Floyd, then the theory has already been smashed.

Nobody can claim that a fighter simply has to be shot when they're in their late 30's.