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

Well fair point Alexander was on the tubby side and always has been
A modern fighter that uses the tools available in the UK has the weight lifting /strength and conditioning advice that was not around even ten years ago
A perfect example
An Ingle fighter . It would just Brendan doing the training now Dominic brings in outside experts
A Tibbs fighter the same difference between Jimmy and Mark .

I would love to see Frank Bruno with all the advanced training in the modern era I think it may have been a different story.

Some of you rubbish what I say about this but Britain is now the leading country in advanced training and you dont see the yanks winning Olympic medals any more !

 

Yes

 

Povetkin is 'shot', by virtue of:

1) being 39 years old.
- An age, when athletes are scientifically proven to decline.
- An age when athletes in sports like boxing, rarely, if ever, win gold medals, or any medals for that matter, in the Olympics.
- An age when athletes in pretty much no athletic sport like boxing, are any longer elite level athletes. No heavyweight boxer at age 39, beat an opponent at the caliber of Joshua with similar size and age disadvantages.

2) having hundreds of rounds of amateur boxing + pro boxing + kickboxing bouts, leading to mileage and therefore, decreased durability and stamina at age 39.

Povetkin's stamina & durability were 'shot' against Anthony Joshua at age 39, without any doubt. His boxing skills, intelligence, technical ability, tactical ability and heart weren't 'shot'. This is why for as long as his stamina was good and his durability wasn't breached, he was getting the better of Joshua and beating him using his skills, technical and tactical ability. Only when his stamina was drained (from old age and mileage) and his durability was breached, that's when Joshua managed to beat a 'shot' Povetkin.

And even when Povetkin was down, he showed the mental fortitude and heart to get back up each time. As he did throughout his entire career.

You can pretend Povetkin at age 39 wasn't 'shot'. I will also pretend Mike Tyson wasn't shot when he was losing to Danny Williams and Kevin McBride (to two inferior opponents than Joshua and at a younger age than when povetkin lost to Joshua).

It's utter speculation and a baseless opinion that somehow Mike Tyson in his late 30's was shot but Povetkin wasn't. You can't prove Mike Tyson was any more 'shot' than Povetkin was in his late 30's. What we do KNOW as a matter of FACT, is that when both were in their late 30's, Povetkin was performing significantly better than Tyson. And that based on historical evidence in sports and scientific evidence, athletes are understood to be past their peak / shot, after reaching their late 30's. And unlike you, I apply this standard for every boxer. Meaning, any boxer that is in their late 30's or older, are past-prime to me. On the other hand, you pick and choose who you want to apply this standard to because you aren't objective, but seemingly a hypocrite. Assuming you consider Povetkin in his late 30's, not 'shot' but consider Tyson at similar ages to be 'shot'.

Mike Tyson at his 'best', is totally subjective. In his athletic prime, I've seen him lost to a TOTAL journeyman that is Buster Douglas, who never accomplished anything else, other than beating Mike Tyson.

Povetkin at his best, has no such losses to such hilariously low level of opposition. Therefore, Povetkin at his best, is also better than Tyson at his best. Just like how Povetkin at his worst (when shot), is better than Tyson at his worst (when also shot).

As for Michaels Spinks? Please! Povetkin would've destroyed Spinks, the same way he destroyed Mike Perez. Don't act like that win means anything, or that Mike Tyson's performance against Michael Spinks somehow proves he is better than peak Povetkin. Utter nonsense!

As I already stated, Mike Tyson only has the speed, explosiveness and athleticism advantages. Outside of those, Povetkin is undoubtedly the far superior boxer skill-wise, in terms of technical and tactical ability. Proof is in the pudding! When Mike Tyson lost his main trainer and lost his speed at an old age, he started losing to bums and was no longer a top level fighter.

Meanwhile, when Povetkin changed trainers multiple times and lost his speed after becoming old, he was still a top level fighter. Simply because, his skills made up for his lack of speed. Whilst Tyson's skill wasn't there to make up for his lack for speed.

OVERALL, there's not much in it between Povetkin and Tyson. What separates the two, is Povetkin holds 0 losses to hilariously low level of opposition as Mike Tyson does. And Povetkin has been a top level heavyweight for longer with more consistency than Mike Tyson has. Which is why, Povetkin > Tyson!

Peak Tyson has as much chances of beating Joshua as peak Povetkin does.

 

SO it means, If we're going to make a comparison, we're going to have to do a like for like comparison. Such as how both were at the same age. And at the same age, when both were in the late 30's, Povetkin blows Mike Tyson away. This is not even a contest!

 

Honestly, I wouldn't even know where to start with this monstrosity of a post.

I can only assume that you're trolling.

Povetkin has to be shot, simply because Mike was at the same stage, and we can't have it both ways?

After reading that, I can't be bothered to put in the effort to reply to the rest.

 

READ the thread title you joker.

If you want to debate how Mike would have done against AJ at the same age as Povetkin, start a thread on it.

If you want to debate how Povetkin would have fared against Mike, start a thread on it.

Yes, I agree that at 39, Mike wouldn't have had a chance of beating ANY top HW of his era or of today's era. But the question was:

Does AJ beat a PRIME version of Mike?

You are looking at Mike from 1988, not the versions who fought in 2004/5.

Does AJ beat the versions of Mike who crushed Spinks and Holmes?

Not in my opinion. Because I think he'd have gotten inside AJ's reach and taken him out. I've always thought that, and the Povetkin fight only makes me believe it more.

 

A 39 year old boxer, who is smaller in height, weight and reach than every other heavyweight in the top 10, who relies on a high intensity pressure fighting style, who has had over hundreds of rounds of amateur boxing + kickboxing + boxing bouts, and has taken hundreds, if not thousands of more punches than any other top 10 heavyweight today, by very definition, has to be considered 'shot'.

The only 'troll' here is you, if you somehow pretend that Povetkin isn't currently 'shot', despite all the evidence I've provided.

Just find me one 39 year old high intensity pressure fighter who was smaller than all other top 10 heavyweights in the past, who has taken hundreds / thousands of more punches than all other top 10 heavyweights during his time, beating an opponent at the caliber of Joshua with similar age / size disadvantages.

I challenge you!

 

This is utterly ridiculous.

If you're not trolling, I'd have to question how long you've been watching the sport and how much knowledge you have.

All fighters age differently depending on their circumstances. Everybody should know that.

Age and ring age are 2 very different things.

Yes, at 39 years of age, a fighter can't still be in his prime. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that he's shot.

Being past your best and being shot are 2 completely different things.

A faded fighter is still capable of performing at the highest level.

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

If you want to say that Povetkin was faded, be my guest. But he's not shot. And we know that. A shot version of Povetkin who had nothing left wouldn't have been able to have troubled AJ and taken him past the mid way point.

The version of Mike who fought Kevin McBride is the very definition of a fighter being shot. Without being disrespectful, McBride was a C/D class fighter. Mike only fought him because he had to.

Look at Roy Jones and Bernard Hopkins. At 36, Roy was no longer able to win at the highest level, whilst Bernard was beating Felix Trinidad in one of the best performances of his career.

Look at Roy Jones vs Joe Calzaghe. Roy was shot, but Joe was still a P4P fighter even though he was past his best at 36. Roy could no longer win at the highest level, whereas Joe could. A shot fighter vs a faded fighter.

Your whole argument is laughable.

Not once have you stayed on topic.

Go and analyse the best versions of Mike we've ever seen, and then come back and give your opinion.

Saying that no version of Mike could have beaten AJ is beyond stupid.

It's very simple:

Povetkin has just caused AJ lots of issues.

The very best versions of Mike Tyson were better and far more dangerous than Povetkin was on Saturday.

Do you understand?

Can you comprehend what I'm saying?

After seeing the shots that Povetkin was able to land on Saturday night, then the best version of Mike would have had a huge chance of beating AJ. To deny/dispute that would be the height of ignorance.

Now either debate in a sensible manner or find someone else to indulge you.

 

Most of today's top 20 guys aren't in the best shape possible.

Fury
Ortiz
Whyte
Povetkin
Stiverne
Pulev
Parker

Ultimately, a fighters ability is by far the most important thing.

Frank Bruno had a great physique. Sure, you could give him today's PEDS etc, but it wouldn't change his ability and his vulnerabilities.

 

Thanks for sharing your great wisdom.

 

even a 39 year old povetkin whos a good fighter not a great one got to joshua in the first few rounds. ive never rated joshua that highly i think tyson kos him bad with 5 rounds.

 

oh dear.

 

Problem is older generation fighters are always overrated due to nostalgia. It's easy to say this person destroys this person today. You can argue that we haven't even seen Joshua's prime yet, he is improving fight by fight. The size difference between the two is huge with Joshua weighing more than 25 lbs. Joshua hits extremely hard with the right hand from short to long range. He could knockout Tyson with it just as Tyson could knock Joshua out with a leaping hook. It's a lot closer fight that many in this thread think. I'm sure in 20-30 years if Joshua goes on to have a very successful career we will be saying the same about the next generation.

Let's not forget Tyson couldn't knock out Tillis, Green and Smith. People tend to remember the devastating highlight reel knock-outs and not the fights they didn't look great in. In the future people won't be remembering the Parker fight with Joshua, they'll remember the Whyte, Wlad and Povetkin knockouts.

 

Most ppl here are obviously saying Tyson would beat him easily. Personally I think it's hard to judge as heavyweights nowadays are so much bigger and sports science is much further forward. It's no accident that heavyweight champs keep getting bigger in height and weight. AJ would be a massive 7 or 8 inches taller and 2 stone heavier. It's not easy to say with certainty that Mike Tyson copes with size bearing in mind most heavyweights in the late 80s were about 6ft2 or 3. Guys nowadays are averaging 6ft6.