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

That guy is unbelievable.

He's so ignorant.

Mike had to have been at his best against Douglas because he was only 23-24?

Unbelievable.

 

PHYSICAL prime?

What about his mental state?

His mindset?

 

Yep he really is unbelievable in that he chooses to talk about fighters he clearly knows little about.

He obviously has a thing for Usyk and Povetkin and thats fine because theyre great fighters but he just goes over the top.

 

Thats your opinion but I don't think Usyk would've knocked out Povetkin like AJ did. Povetkin would have been the more powerful puncher out of him and Usyk

 

You always have to downplay everything.

So what if Lennox was still improving under Manny? He was still an elite HW. It was 1996. He was still one of the top 3 HW's in the world. If Mercer was awful in 1992, how could he have caused Lennox that much trouble 4 years later?

Sure, Tommy wasn't great. But he was a top 10 HW at the time and he was very dangerous.

It's also not relevant how poor of a fight you thought Holmes/Evander was.

Give credit where it's due.

If Larry had been shot with nothing left, like in the way that Mike was against a Euro level HW in McBride, he would never have been able to have competed with the likes Evander and Mercer etc? He'd have just been a bag with nothing left to give. Yet that was clearly not the case.

Again, shot and faded are 2 very different things.

You know that Luis Fernando has claimed that every fighter at 39 and above has to be shot. Yet you've already given me 2 examples yourself that prove otherwise.

 

Good post.

 

In my book, Iron Mike will always will be the BADDEST MAN ON THE PLANET.

 

mark ant feels that Usyk would beat Povetkin more convincingly than AJ so I tried to visualise that. When the best fight the best at cruiserweight, there isn't many knockouts. So that makes it hard to see Usyk knocking out Povetkin quicker than AJ did. We also got to factor in that Povetkin is battle hardened and use to the heavy punches that come with the division. This is why I said that I dont think Usyk would KO Povetkin.

Obviously Usyk could win convincingly if he outboxed Povetkin for 12 rounds but that wouldn't be more convincing than AJs win. Anyway Im not convinced Usyk could make it through 12 rounds without at least wearing one hard shot from Povetkin and one shot is all it takes in this division. Povetkin has dropped far more heavier and bigger giants than Usyk has.

 

Lol, AJ himself has said he would have gladly taken the paycheque

 

What about it? If an athlete steps into the ring, then we must assume they are ready to fight. If his mindset was so bad, he wouldn't have stepped into the ring. I don't deal with such subjective speculations.

There's ABSOLUTELY no justifiable excuses for Mike Tyson, losing to such a low level heavyweight like Buster Douglas in the manner that he did. I would forgive him if he lost via a random punch, or lost via gassing in the late rounds after winning every round.

However, for Mike Tyson to lose every round, and then for him to get knocked out by a TOTAL journeyman like Buster Douglas with a 50% knockout record (a feather fisted record), is a testament to Mike Tyson never being as good as some of you fanatics claim he is.

I don't care about excuses such as lacking motivation, lacking training and etc.

You do realize that those very same excuses can be directed at Alexander Povetkin too when he fought the likes of Marco Huck and Ruslan Chagaev, right? His father passed away. He lost his trainers and had to change trainers as a result. He barely trained properly and was out of shape. But guess what? Unlike Mike Tyson, Povetkin still found a way to avoid losing and to win against far superior opponents I might add. A unprepared Povetkin still managed to beat opponents like Ruslan Chagaev and Marco Huck. Whilst an unprepared Mike Tyson lost to a far inferior opponent / journeyman in Buster Douglas. That should really just tell you that Povetkin is just SUPERIOR to Mike Tyson as a boxer.

How did Mike Tyson beat all the other guys before? Well, because those other guys consisted of scared journeyman who weren't aware of the blueprint required to beat Mike Tyson at the time.

Or, they were blown up light heavyweights like Michael Spinks who had ABSOLUTELY no business fighting against a power puncher at heavyweight.

Or, they were a washed up great like Larry Holmes, who barely even had a full training camp before he fought Mike Tyson. A prime Larry Holmes with a full training camp may have been able to execute the blueprint that Buster Douglas used to beat Mike Tyson, but he was too old and had too short a training camp.

Your excuses for Mike Tyson are pathetic. Buster Douglas literally lost his mum, and was sobbing. If anybody was under-prepared, it was Buster Douglas. No excuses you make for Mike Tyson's lack of preparation, can be more significant than Buster Douglas's emotional / mental state going into the fight against Mike Tyson, due to his mother recently passing away. So at worst case scenario for Mike Tyson, an under-prepared Mike Tyson lost to an under-prepared Buster Douglas.

 

Luis Fernando,

Yes, he was ready to fight. We're not talking about him stepping into the ring you fool.

I'm talking about your insistence that Buster must have fought the BEST version of Mike, simply because Mike was only 23-24.

How ignorant can a person be?

You can't claim that he had to have been at his best because of his age.

He wasn't at his best. And we know that. Because he took Buster lightly. Again, he hardly trained, he slept around, and he was getting bashed up by Greg Page in sparring.

He just went through the motions. He was arrogant and unmotivated. He just saw Buster as another pay check. He didn't even study any film of him.

Again, if you want to crucify him for being unprofessional, fine. But don't come on here and say that he simply had to have been at his best because he was in his physical prime.

Your physical prime and your mental state are 2 completely different things.

Again, you haven't addressed my example of James Toney.

James Toney was only about 24 when he lost to Dave Tiberi.

Are you going to tell me that James was at his best there, simply because he had to have been at such a young age?

You are one of the most ignorant posters I've ever debated.

Do you happen to be a fan of Billy Joe Saunders? I'm a big fan of his. Despite his silly behaviour outside of the ring, he's one of my favourite fighters. Did you see him fight a guy called Artur Akavov a few years ago? He looked absolutely awful, with many people believing that he'd lost the fight. Now what if I claimed that he simply had to have been at his best that night, as he was just coming into his prime at about 27??

You can't debate based upon a fighter's age. You have to evaluate all of the circumstances.

Mike Tyson was simply not at his best when he fought Buster.

If you think that the version of Mike who fought Buster was the same versions who fought Spinks etc, then you are absolutely DELUDED.

Again, he was underprepared and unmotivated. He tired quickly because he wasn't in the best shape that he could have been in.

Also, Buster wasn't the bum that you claim he was. He was actually a fighter with ability. His main problem was that he was so inconsistent due to his lack of dedication. If he was such a worthless bum, he wouldn't have beaten the likes of Page and McCall, who themselves were decent HW's.

So again, you're not willing to take into account that he had awful preparation and was unmotivated? To you, it had no bearing on his performance? To you, he simply had to have been at his best because of his age?

I'm not a fanatic. You just think I am because I don't agree with your deluded points.

They're not excuses you fool. They're factors.

I've already acknowledged that everyone's circumstances are different and they affect people in different ways.

Anybody who suffers the loss of someone close to them is hurt deeply. It's truly an awful situation to be in. We've all lost people along the way. I have, and I'm sure that you have too. But people deal with things differently. Buster used the passing of his mother in a positive way. It gave him a will of iron in Tokyo, where he was fit and fired up. He used all of his anger and frustration and channelled it into his performance. He had zero fear of Mike. He wasn't at all intimidated. And that was the best, most switched on version of Buster that we ever saw. If he'd have fought like he did in Tokyo against everyone he faced, he'd have had a much more successful career.

Who were these scared journeyman?

He wasn't a blown up LHW. He'd proven himself to be a credible HW, or did you miss those close fights with Holmes?

A washed up great who nobody else ever knocked out in 75 fights.

A washed up great who went onto beat Mercer in his 40's, a guy who gave Lennox Lewis hell.

No. This has already been covered.

Buster was asked if he wanted to postpone/cancel the fight. And after giving it some thought he said no. And then he trained like a demon full of anger and hate, which culminated in him giving the performance of a lifetime. He used the tragedy as fuel. It spurred him on.

Now before I even contemplate debating further with you, can you please answer the following questions:

1. Was James Toney at his best when he lost to Dave Tiberi at 24?

2. Was Billy Joe Saunders at his best when he scraped by Artur Akavov at 27?

 

^ It's literally just your opinion, not a fact that Mike Tyson wasn't at his best. It's just your opinion, that Buster Douglas was somehow at his best, but Mike Tyson wasn't. I have just as much rights as you to claim that Buster Douglas was equally under-prepared, but still managed to beat Mike Tyson. Meaning, those excuses don't stand for Mike Tyson!

My point still stands. Being under trained and under-prepared, is never going to be a valid excuse to literally lose every round, and then to get knocked out by a total journeyman in Buster Douglas the way Tyson did. You'd have a point if Mike Tyson just got caught cold by a random punch early on, or late on after winning every round, or lost via gassing. But to lose the way Mike Tyson did, where from start to finish, lost practically every round, and then got knocked out cold by a journeyman with a feather fisted record like Buster Douglas, is simply inexcusable.

I've seen under-trained and under-prepared boxers. But at least they have some success at some point. But they lose due to stamina problems or lose via a random punch. That wasn't the case with Mike Tyson.

If Mike Tyson was as skilled you fanatics claim he was, he wouldn't be losing the way he lost to Buster Douglas, the manner that he did. True skills don't suddenly disappear. He would've still had success if he was truly skilled, but may have been caught by a random KO punch or gassed and lost via exhaustion. It's not the fact that Mike Tyson lost to Buster Douglas, but the way he lost, which raises serious alarm bells in regards to his actual boxing skills (technical and tactical abilities and not just pure athleticism).

Either way, all of this is academic and irrelevant. Since, Buster Douglas can be said to have been equally under-prepared but still managed to beat Mike Tyson. Meaning, he would've beaten Tyson either way.

James Toney and Billy Joe Saunders aren't in anyway comparable to Mike Tyson. Billy Joe Saunders showed conditioning and stamina problems against Akakov, but he wasn't shutout and knocked out the way Mike Tyson was against Buster Douglas in such decisive fashion. Same applies to James Toney.

Michael Spinks was literally -210 pounds. Larry Holmes wasn't a knockout artist, but he still in my books, beat Spinks in the rematch. Any heavyweight knockout artist, or anyone with above average power at heavyweight, would have blasted Michael Spinks out of the ring. Povetkin would've done the same. So would Anthony Joshua, Wladimir Klitschko, Deontay Wilder and etc. In other words, he had no business being in the same ring as power punchers at heavyweight.

And if Tyson whilst under-prepared, performs worse than how other boxers perform whilst they're also under-prepared like Alexander Povetkin, then it simply means that Tyson is inferior. Reading this might hurt your feelings, but this is just the HARSH reality.

I called you a 'fanatic' because you're using all these excuses to justify Mike Tyson's poor performances, when the same can be applied to other boxers. Yet, when those other boxers perform better than Mike Tyson whilst they're also EQUALLY under-prepared, you're not willing to consider such boxers to be superior to Mike Tyson. Why is that? The only explanation would be because you are a fanatic of Mike Tyson, deluded into believing his mythical skills

 

Size is a big factor when discussing Tyson. But I don't know. I just see Joshua taking wayyyy too many shots before landing a fight-ender himself.