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

I "liked" your post. I do.

However, the same exact thing applies to you in many contexts. So don't act like you are above.

 

Joshua too big and too strong for Mike.

 

Luis Fernando,

No, it's not literally just my opinion. It's also the opinions of the people who watched Mike at the time, as well as the people in the know, including the guys who were with him in camp, such as one of his sparring partners, Greg Page.

The warning signs were there in the first Bruno fight. His defensive style had changed. There was a noticeable difference in his performances. He was getting caught easier and more often. His training was different, his mindset was different, and his personal life was a mess. Instead of dedicating himself fully to training and studying fight footage like he'd done previously, he went into the ring trying to head hunt, where he hoped to take people out with just one big shot. His skills were diminishing.

He massively understimated Douglas. Again, Douglas was just someone who King had lined up for him to knock over for a pay check. Mike had a huge ego and he was very unprofessional. I showed you the footage with Greg Page last week. Mike was easy to hit and his timing was off. And considering that you think that Douglas was a bum, you must also think that Page was one too, seeing as though Douglas had beaten him.

So: Mike was getting handled by a bum in sparring, but to you, he was at his best simply due to his age?

Regarding Douglas, he has stated numerous times that the sad passing of his mother drove him on to give his all.

All of the above is common knowledge to people who are knowledgeable of both fighters.

I don't need to find any excuses.

Do some research.

He wasn't knocked cold.

What are you talking about?

Non of your points stand.

Mike was underprepared and he tired quickly. He then had swollen eyes that his inept cornermen couldn't deal with. He then went out just desperately looking for one big shot because his tank was empty.

You've got to be an absolute fool to seriously believe that that was the best version of Mike Tyson.

Again, if Douglas was a bum who fought the best version of Mike, then why couldn't Spinks, Holmes, Bruno, Tucker or Ruddock etc also beat Mike?

This is where you tie yourself up.

Douglas wasn't on another level to those guys. You've said yourself that he was a bum.

Again, Tucker beat Douglas. So then why couldn't he beat Mike?

Why couldn't big punching Bruno beat Mike?

Why could Holmes and Spinks only last 4 rounds between them?

Why couldn't Ruddock beat Mike?

How could a feather fisted journeyman bum beat him with absolute ease, whilst those other 5 fighters couldn't?

Those other guys weren't feather fisted.

They weren't journeymen.

They weren't bums.

What happened?

Were they 5 of the unluckiest fighters ever, or are there other factors to consider?

Explain.

Have you even watched the fight?

You say that you have seen guys have stamina issues. Okay. Well didnt Mike have stamina issues? Wasn't he tired? We have first hand accounts that he'd been sleeping around and had done no proper roadwork and training.

Fanatic? You debate like a small child. I'm no fanatic. Just because I've called you out on your ridiculous logic, it doesn't mean that I'm a fanatic. I'm not a blinded Mike fanboy. He wasn't a mythical monster. I'm objective. Check my previous posts. I think Ali would have beaten him. I think Evander and Lennox could also have beaten any version of him. I'm not a guy who thinks that a prime Mike Tyson destroys any HW in history. No. He had flaws. He certainly wasn't perfect. But, I know that you can't just assume that he was at his best vs Douglas, just because he was in his physical prime at 23. Because that level of thinking is absolutely moronic.

Again, if a feather fisted, journeyman bum exposed him with absolute ease, then why couldn't those other guys who Mike faced have replicated it?

You simply have no real answer to offer, which completely deficates on your theory.

How was Douglas underprepared? The sad loss of his mother gave him a will of iron and huge motivation. Again, he's said that himself.

They are very comparable, Einstein.

James Toney was 23/24, and he'd just given his all against Mike McCallum. He was then scheduled to fight Dave Tiberi, and Tiberi was just another opponent to him. Toney didn't show him any respect. It was just simply another fight. Toney went through the motions, and he wasn't physically or mentally at 100%.

Billy Joe Saunders was 27 when he fought Artur Akavov. He'd been out of the ring, he'd been overweight, and Akavov was just meant to be an easy, Euro level opponent, in order for him to shake off the rust before going on and having bigger fights. Billy thought that he could just show up and win without being in top gear.

Both of those guys got a very rude awakening.

Yes, both of them had stamina and conditioning problems. Just like Mike, who once again: had done no roadwork and had been sleeping around etc.

The difference is, Douglas was a world ranked HW, whereas Akavov was a Euro level MW. And many people believe that Akavov won that fight.

So: You've given Toney and Saunders a pass for losing in their 20's by making allowances for their conditioning and stamina, yet you won't make the same allowances for Mike?

So: Toney and Saunders weren't at their best, but Mike had to have been, despite the fact that Mike was the exact same age as what Toney was for the Tiberi fight?

Ha!

Brilliant.

 

Part 2:

I don't care what Michael weighed. Again, he proved in 3 fights that he was a credible HW. There's so evidence to support a theory that Povetkin would also have blasted him out. Nor is there any evidence to support a theory that Wilder would have done. Wilder has struggled with B and C class guys. Sure, he has the power. But unless he'd have had the opportunity to have landed flush, it wouldn't have been a given.

Let us review your thoughts, as well as factual things that happened:

Larry Holmes was a great fighter who was faded. (your words)

James Douglas was a feather fisted, journeyman bum who beat the best version of Mike. (your words)

In the early 90's, Holmes pushed a peak version of Evander hard. (a fact)

In the early 90's, Holmes beat Mercer, who'd beaten Morrison, before going on to give Lewis a nightmare in 1996. (those are facts)

In 75 fights, Larry Holmes was only stopped once, by Mike Tyson. (that's a fact)

To Summarise:

Mike was knocked out by a feather fisted, journeyman bum whilst at his peak.

Larry beat Morrison and Mercer whilst in his 40's.

So: If Mike couldn't beat a feather fisted, journeyman bum and Larry was still capable of beating top 10 ranked HW's in his 40's, then why couldn't he beat Mike in his 30's?

If at his best, Mike wasn't capable of beating a feather fisted, journeyman bum in Douglas, then how on earth did he even get to Tokyo with an unbeaten record intact??

Explain.

You haven't got the intelligence to hurt my feelings. The best versions of Mike Tyson will be remembered as a better HW than the best versions of Alexander Povetkin.

No. You called me a fanatic because that's the label that you throw around to people who don't agree with you. It's a defence mechanism. When you've got video evidence of a bum (your opinion) HW dropping Mike in sparring, as well as other first hand accounts of how he'd slept around and didn't train etc, then those aren't excuses. They are factors.

You've already exposed yourself by agreeing that Toney and Saunders weren't at their best because of certain factors. And that just highlights how biased you are. Again, you are willing to accept their circumstances of why they underperformed, yet when I provide video evidence etc to prove that Mike also wasn't at his best, you ignorantly dismiss it, before you label me as a fanatic who's making excuses for him.

So: It's one rule for them, but a different one for Mike.

Your quote below is honestly one of the most ignorant statements that I've ever seen in the 6 years that I've been a member here:

"Mike Tyson was at his best when he lost to Douglas, as he was in his physical prime"

Oh dear.

I could run with that for days on end, saying things such as:

"Wladimir Klitschko was at his best when he lost to Ross Purrity and Corrie Sanders, as he was in his physical prime"

I despair.

You are a very poor poster.

 

^^ Schools in session kids!! ^^

 

Madness..First bit is right. Joshua cant afford to take way too many shots off Tyson to finally land a big punch that isn't going to finish Tyson anyway. Tyson slays him

 

I guess the wording of my post makes it sound like I'm favoring Joshua.

I definitely mean that Tyson knocks him out well before the opposite would happen.

 

Joshua would have to land some huge shots early. But i’m pretty sure it would take him a while to get him out of there. A past it Tyson wasn’t exactly just blasted away by a similar sized Lewis.

I think Tyson would get inside Joshua’s long arms, put some combinations together on the inside and possibly stop Joshua. It depends how much chin and heart Joshua has, if he has enough to take it 12 rounds, I think he could win as weathers the storm and that weight starts piling up on Mike.

 

Loudon,

Excuses after excuses excuses. Pretty pathetic! Only Mike Tyson and his fans / fanatics make as many excuses for his poor performances. If a boxer needs that many excuses, then maybe he simply wasn't that good to begin with?

I never claimed Buster Douglas was a 'bum' per se, but a journyeman. A true bum would be someone like Danny Williams, a guy with 50% losses out of his career record. And Kevin McBride, a guy with 10 losses out of just 30 odd fights.

However, Buster Douglas was the first boxer to set the full blue print on how to beat Mike Tyson. Nobody previously had known / was able to apply that blueprint. And boxers like like Razor Ruddock couldn't apply that blueprint even if they knew what it was, simply because they lacked the required skill-set. Seeing as Ruddock had a near non-existent jab and a horrible ability to control range / distance.

So no, I don't tie myself up. Mike Tyson was lucky to even beat Francois Botha. Who was literally shutting out Mike Tyson until he got caught by a random punch. Mike Tyson's entire strategy was exposed in a nutshell. And he wouldn't have been able to beat Buster Douglas at any point in his career, if he fought the Buster Douglas that was there in 1990.

I'm repeating myself here. My problem isn't with Mike Tyson merely losing to Buster Douglas, but in the manner that he lost in.

Yes, I believe James Toney was at his best against Tiberi. And I also believe Billy Joe Saunders was at his best against Akakov. And I also believe Lennox Lewis at his best against Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman. I also believe Wladimir Klitschko was at his best against Corrie Sanders and Ross Purity. At least in terms of age / peak years.

However, the difference between Mike Tyson and those guys, is that even though they may have been equally under-prepared as Mike Tyson was against Buster Douglas, but the manner in which they lost is not comparable.

Mike Tyson literally got shut out, lost almost every round decisively and got knocked out CLEANLY. That was AFTER getting out-boxed.

Meanwhile, James Toney showed conditioning issues against Tiberi but wasn't shutout the way Mike Tyson was against Douglas, nor knocked out. The same applies to Billy Joe Saunders. Who still showed very good skills against Akakov whilst being under-prepared, and wasn't totally shutout like Mike Tyson was. Instead, was merely in a more competitive bout than he should've been in.

Lennox Lewis got knocked out by Hasim Rahman and Oliver Mccall. However, unlike Mike Tyson against Buster Douglas, Lewis wasn't losing every round and getting shutout before getting caught by random knockout punches from Oliver Mccall and Hasim Rahman. Lewis was in control of both bouts and was winning, before he got caught by huge punches.

The same applies with Wladimir Klitschko against Corrie Sanders and Ross Purity. Against both guys, he was in total control and was winning both fights, until he got caught / ran out of stamina. Against Sanders, he got caught by a huge punch early on and didn't recover. Whilst against Purity, he was winning every round until he ran out of stamina and lost because of that reason.

That's not how Mike Tyson lost. Mike Tyson was NEVER in control of his fight against Buster Douglas. And he was NEVER ahead in the scorecards. He was practically shutout and got knocked out after getting shutout.

This is what makes me question Mike Tyson. Getting BADLY out-boxed over a period of rounds shows your real lack of quality as a boxer. If Mike Tyson got knocked out by a random punch whilst winning the fight prior to getting caught, or ran out of stamina in the late rounds whilst he was ahead in the scorecards, or lost a close fight in the scorecards after dominating the early rounds, then I could forgive him. But that wasn't the case!

None of those guys you've mentioned in Billy Joe Saunders, James Toney, Wladimir Klitschko and even Lennox Lewis lost the way Mike Tyson lost against Buster Douglas.

Stamina wasn't an issue in the first round or the first few rounds. Yet, even during those periods, Mike Tyson was still getting out-boxed / outclassed by Buster Douglas. Why? Because Douglas had Tyson's number and had the prefect blueprint to beat Tyson.

Michael Spinks never fought any other top heavyweight who was also a puncher. Thus, until then, we have to infer that Spinks couldn't handle elite heavyweight power.

There have been many other guys, who took Mike Tyson's punches far better and for far longer than Spinks managed. Those same guys were blasted out in far quicker time than Mike Tyson. For example, cruiser weight Herbie Hide stopped Tony Tucker in 2 rounds whilst Tyson went the distance with him. Tyson needed the highest number of rounds (10) to stop Jose Ribalta. Who was stopped in far quicker time by Chris Byrd and Vitali Klitschko.

So we have to seriously question Michael Spink's durability at heavyweight against elite power punchers, rather than attributing his knockout loss to Mike Tyson's otherwordly or insane punching power.

Larry Holmes lack of a FULL training camp hurt him the most against Mike Tyson.

And Povetkin's record is FACTUALLY far better than Mike Tyson's. Therefore, he would objectively be regarded the better heavyweight. Mike Tyson's peak was no more impressive than Povetkin's. Tyson's lack of consistency hurts him the most when being compared to a far more consistent operator in Povetkin.

 

"Could" Joshua beat Tyson?

Yes.

"Would" Joshua beat Tyson?

That's a harder question and difficult to answer. He looked hittable against Povetkin and that's not good against Tyson. On the other hand Joshua has fantastic conditioning and he looks to be the sort of guy that might be able to take big shots and keep on chugging.

At this point I'd favour a prime Tyson over him but I'd say that Joshua could still win.

 

Troll.

Tyson fought Tucker in 1987. Hide fought him in 1997.

Mike Tyson fought a prime Jose Ribalta in 1986. Vitali and Byrd fought washed up version in 1998 and 1999.

Questioning Tyson's power on that basis is like questing Holyfield's chin because he was stopped by non-punching James Toney.
You have no standards in these debates and can only lie and manipulate reality in order to make an argument.

 

noun
irony
the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

• a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result.
  
  
• a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions is clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.

and

hypocrite
noun

hyp·o·crite | \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit \
Definition of hypocrite
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite



Dino ...

 

Luis Fernando,

The only thing that's pathetic, is you. And the more posts that you make, the more convinced I am that you never actually saw Mike's career unfold.

Again, there's noticeable differences in his performances. The head movement, the combinations etc. Again, the warning signs were there against Bruno in 1989.

Again, I've shown you the sparring footage with Page, where he had no timing and he was easy to hit.

Again, we KNOW that he took Douglas lightly and that he tired quickly because he hadn't trained properly.

How are they excuses?

It's a fact that Mike wasn't physically or mentally at 100% for Douglas.

I've provided actual evidence to support that claim.

Ha!

So Mike went through world class opponents, non of whom could lay out the blueprint, but up popped a journeyman to show them the way?

Wasn't Holmes better than journeyman Douglas?

Wasn't Tucker?

Oh, I forgot, Holmes lost because he didn't have a full camp, right? Sounds like an excuse to me, and you don't like excuses do you?

You have repeatedly tied yourself up.

Mike ran through Spinks, Holmes and Bruno. Guys who were better than journeyman Douglas. And he only needed 7 rounds to beat them all. 7 rounds! Think about that.

He also beat Tucker, a guy who beat journeyman Douglas.

You are an absolute joker.

You don't even know how he lost, considering that you told me yesterday that Douglas knocked him cold.

Ha!

Hilarious.

Look at how desperate you are, trying to backtrack.

Nobody thinks that James Toney was at his best against Dave Tiberi.

You also believe that Saunders was at his best against Akavov?

Ha!

Please!

You don't believe that. Stop being pathetic.

Why would you even write something as stupid?

The whole boxing world knows that Saunders wasn't at his best against Akavov. If he had've been, he'd be a Euro level fighter. A Euro level fighter who wouldn't have been capable of beating Eubank, Ryder, Lee and Lemiuex etc. And if Toney had been at his best against Tiberi, he'd never have been able to have beaten Nunn and McCallum etc.

How can they have been at their best if they were under prepared with stamina issues?

Cleanly or cold? You seem to be confused.

But they were at their best, right?

And?

Really?

Are those factors or are they excuses?

That's right. And?

You're saying that that was the best version of Mike in there, despite the fact that he looked a completely different fighter to the one he'd looked like a few years earlier, and we have footage of his camp, as well as first hand accounts of how he didn't train properly etc?

The evidence is staring you in the face.

Look at his older fights and note the difference in his movements.

Read accounts of how he took Douglas lightly and didn't train.

Look at the sparring footage I posted.

Take into account that he beat BETTER fighters than feather fisted, journeyman Douglas.

You've already said this numerous times. Yet you'll focus all of your attention on this, without taking a single second to acknowledge what I've just written above.

So what?

Because he had no head movement and he was easy to hit. Why didn't Holmes out box him? He was a better boxer than journeyman Douglas. He had a big reach. He had one of the best HW jabs of all time.

Sure, but that's if he'd have gotten hit flush by a guy with serious power. But that doesn't mean you can just randomly pick a guy with power and then automatically assume they'd have landed. Very few HW's had Mike's speed.

Those things happen in boxing all of the time, due to a number of different factors, such as:

The stylistic match ups, a fighter's gameplan, where they are in their careers at the time.

Mike knocked out 3 fighters in a quicker time than what Lewis knocked out one.

We have more than enough evidence of Mike's speed and power.

Really??

That's funny, because when I've said the same thing regarding Mike's camp for Douglas, you said that I was making PATHETIC EXCUSES.

So: You're not willing to acknowledge my thoughts, but at the same time, you'd like me to acknowledge yours?

Do you realise how silly you look?

Factually?

Start a thread.

 

Yes, a 6 foot 5, 240+ pound natural SUPER HEAVYWEIGHT Tony Tucker was age 38 when he fought a 27 year old, blown up cruiser weight with a glass chin in Herbie Hide.

Remind us how old Povetkin was when he fought Anthony Joshua? 39 years old. Whilst Joshua was 29 years old. That = an 11 year age disadvantage for Povetkin.

Also remind us how much bigger Anthony Joshua was compared to Povetkin? 24 pound weight advantage, 4 inch minimum height advantage and 7 inch reach advantage.

So despite Anthony Joshua not only having a SIGNIFICANT age advantage over Povetkin where Povetkin was 39 and shot and whilst Joshua was in his prime, but unlike Herbie Hide against Tony Tucker, Joshua also had a SIGNIFICANT size advantage in height, weight and reach compared to Povetkin. Yet, you were the one all along, giving the impression that Povetkin was a CREDIBLE and QUALITY opponent for Joshua and Joshua beating Povetkin would somehow mean something that is impressive?

But when Herbie Hide beats a much bigger Tony Tucker in size, who was 1 year younger than what Povetkin was when he lost to Anthony Joshua. We are somehow supposed to disregard that loss for Tony Tucker because of age (even though he still had the huge size advantage)? But Povetkin who had a SIGNIFICANT SIZE + AGE disadvantage against Joshua when he lost, is somehow supposed to be regarded as a credible win for Anthony Joshua?

And you're trying to preach to me about double standards / lack of standards and lying?

You've been exposed as a first grade hypocrite just then and there!

 

^ Loudon,

Maybe it wasn't Mike Tyson's lack of head movement? Rather, it may have been his opponent's abilities to slowly figure him out and being able to attack him more accurately as he progressed in his career? Have you considered that possibility? The warning signs may have not been down to him declining. Rather, it may have been down to his opponent's figuring him out. I'm leaning more towards that factor, rather than Tyson declining that early in his career.

Wasn't Larry Holmes better than Jose Ribalta? So why did Ribalta last 10 rounds whilst Larry Holmes got blasted out in 4?

Wasn't Larry Holmes better than James Tillis? So why did James Tillis perform better against Mike Tyson than Larry Holmes by winning more rounds and lasting the distance?

Do you get the drift here?

See how your silly your question now is?

Buster Douglas set and laid the blueprint on how to beat Mike Tyson and that's that. Asking why better boxers like Larry Holmes couldn't lay that blueprint earlier, is akin to asking why Larry Holmes, despite being a better boxer, performed worse against Mike Tyson than inferior boxers like James Tillis did.

You're playing around with semantics here! Knocked cold or knocked out clean. Who cares? Why does it matter? Fact is, Mike Tyson was TOTALLY incapacitated (Incapacitated being the key word here) by Buster Douglas, to the point where he failed to beat the 10 count, didn't know where he was and was looking for his gum-shield, when he should have been trying to get back up to his feet. That to me, is the very definition of getting knocked out cold / clean. They mean the same thing to me. Maybe not to you, but that's fine.

Someone can be at their best in terms of abilities, but be under-prepared physically in terms of conditioning, fitness, stamina and etc.

Being under-prepared means, not having the stamina / conditioning / fitness as one would have, if they had trained properly.

Whereas pure boxing abilities remain intact and are permanent (until disabilities kick in). One doesn't randomly lose their boxing abilities overnight.

Mike Tyson's boxing abilities were what was exposed to be lacking and almost non-existent before his stamina problems even kicked in. He had almost no success in the entire fight against Buster Douglas. The same can't be said of Billy Joe Saunders against Akakov or of James Toney against Tiberi. Who had lots of success and were effective with their skills, even if their conditioning and stamina wasn't up to the highest level it could've been.

Mike Tyson could've had the best stamina he ever showed, and would've still lost to Buster Douglas that night because even from the very first round (when stamina wasn't even a factor), Mike Tyson was still neutralized by Buster Douglas where he couldn't be effective at all offensively, whilst Douglas was able to effectively implement his own offensive game-plan in a successful manner.

Okay! By that logic, Mike Tyson isn't likely to KO Mike Perez in 1 round either (Like Povetkin did). Since, Mike Tyson never faced or beat a SINGLE (let that sink in for a moment) southpaw in his entire career.

Otherwise, I can't see Michael Spinks doing any better against Povetkin, than Mike Perez did against Povetkin.

Povetkin has 0 losses to anybody as hilariously as bad as Danny Williams, Kevin McBride and Buster Douglas. And he's only ever lost to two of the best heavyweights at the time who were also much bigger than him in size. And against one of them (Anthony Joshua), he was WAY past his prime and totally shot.

That alone makes Povetkin a better boxer. Along with the fact that he had remained a top 5 heavyweight for far longer than Tyson. Whilst Tyson was figured out, exposed and became practically irrelevant in the heavyweight division after having a 3 or 4 glorious years at the top.

In before excuses about Mike Tyson's age doe or him being past his prime doe. A past-prime or similarly old Povetkin never lost to anybody as bad as Danny Williams or Kevin McBride. So what excuses are there for Mike Tyson losing to such low level opposition, if not for him being an inferior boxer?