Anthony Joshua Reveals How A Fight With Mike Tyson Would Go

[bluepete]

No that was the other poster ,why would i do that when i picked Tyson to win this ?Again get a clue !

You were using them as part of the statistics that showed Tyson did worse as far as knockouts among heavier opponents. We all know those fights every expert in boxing knew and said he was shot. So you used them as part of the stats to give a misleading picture . You're the guys saying 92 Ruddock was shot. And Brewster Wlad was green!

[bluepete]

So if i used Purrity of 250 defeating Wlad of 225 that proves weight matters right ? Of course by your logic?

Bowe lost when Holyfield weighed his heaviest ,Bowe won when he had greater weight gap and one when Holyfield was his lightest,im sorry this is difficult for you .

Again im done here this is officially D level trolling ,maybe i'll chime in if thers do ........

Nope, I'm not trying to prove weight matters, I'm telling you extra weight is no advantage. Your trying to tell me it's an advantage. Bowe lost with excess weight on he's body. Holyfield is only an example of how good a sub 225lbder is yet again. Bowe being too heavy is the issue. Just like Whyte having excess weight, which I've seen up close, it does no good. You can't seem to understand this. Wlad was stopped by Purity. Purity was no top class heavy. So he bulks up. What happened? Did he get better? No he got flattened by two guys who were smaller.So the bulk did nothing. Several light guys extended Wlad, Haye, Byrd, Chambers. Wlad was a better fighter than them, but did they fall like bowling balls in three rounds before him? Nope. He's a good example. Hed have beat them exactly the same had he never bulked. Maybe better because he would be quicker. Anyway, I know you said your going but we all know your not. Haha.

[Boxing Goat]

Juggernaut only started using paragraphs himself after i kept owning him in debate.

I actually agree with him with this one though.

Fair play.......

[Mr Objecitivity]

Well you would still have to use when a fighter is relevant ,using one to prove weight wouldn't work as using Tyson as a measuring stick when we ALL know his style (and even CUS DAMOTO said this ) is better at closer to 215 ,his REAL ideal weight was around 218 . Tyson moreso than any fighter relied on SPECIFIC training ,to use him without Rooney isnt practical in ANY way .

Its not about knock outs its the delivery of the punches and he lost that ,though he looked sharp against Williams and Bruno after ,he slowly started declining skill wise this is not refutable if you know what yoyu are taking about ..


On the weight at HW ,anyone who is in superior shape and PROPERLY trained who stands 6'3 plus will almost always benefit from being heavier , Lewis (weighed nearly or over 250 for McCall 2 , M.Tyson and closer to 260 than 250 for V.Klitchko ,this was no accident ), W. Klitchko (weighed in the 220's starting off ) , Foreman (credited his size to why Holyfield didnt knock him out in the HBO interview ), Holyfield ( defeated Bowe when he weighed his heaviest out of the 3 fights )V.Klitchko average fight weight about 245 (does any sane fan think he would be better at 225 ? .lol ),

Ruddock also put on the pounds in Tyson rematch and lasted longer (NOT to PRIME Tyson who would have k.o'd Ruddock in about 4) Golota outsized Bowe in SHAPE the 2nd fight and still out fought him without the low blows ...etc ,etc are just a FEW examples . One has to be oblivious to not see that weight is an advantage or can be used as one .



Petes straw man logic....Davaryl Williams DOE (off balance Wlad ) ...Frank Bruno DOE (even though HIS best days were long gone gy the mid 90's )giving a fresher less mileage Tyson even more advantage in 1996 even when Bruno said Tyson did not look as technical as he did in the 80's ? !

I agree with everything you wrote about the advantages weight brings to a boxer for punch resistance and knockout power.

However, the best way to analyse this is by looking at the knockout percentage of multiple heavyweight boxers against lighter opponents and then heavier opponents. Those rare examples of fights aren't conclusive. It's the entirety of a boxer's career that is conclusive. So it's not a matter of whether a boxer knocked out a heavier opponent that he usually struggles against, but what's his KO percentage against such heavier opponents compared to his KO percentage against lighter opponents. I can guarantee you that nearly every time, a heavyweight boxer's knockout percentage will be higher against lighter opponents than against heavier opponents.

We can discuss about Mike Tyson vs Anthony Joshua after this initial topic has been completed.

[Mr Objecitivity]

We do disagree on this subject. But more than that, if you can't see the relevance of stage of career on the stats you gave about Tyson career you don't want to see the logic. The fact is punching power in explosive guys like Tyson, especially those who punch in combination, decreases when they are older and slower. He lacked the head movement and the torque of he's early career against guys like McBride.I think the downside of extra weight is often greater than the upside. There are real life examples of smaller power punching heavies denting bigger men. Including Tyson himself. You can pretend him stopping Bruno and Golota is irrelevant, despite their weight. Despite the fact that both took good punched quite well in their fights with super heavies Lewis and Bowe. We can pretend that men like Botha,said Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis had equal power. This is equal power to a 245lb Lewis. You can pretend that 220lb punchers at heavy, the same as Tyson knock out men as heavy as Joshua and the weight affords them no protection. The fact that you think a man with the head movement, handspeed power and chin of Tyson would be outmatched by the far slower, lead left hook throwing slow one two Joshua, who laboured to put away a finished Wlad in the fifth, the same Wlad who's been put away quicker before, could outmatch a far more battle tested, clearly much better boxer tells me what I need to know.I like Joshua too, but I'm not a blind fan. Wlad, though the best of he's era, didn't have much to set him apart from the best fighters of the eighties. If Purity and Brewster beat him within the distance,if Samuel Peter, who achieved nothing else, bounced him off the floor repeatedly, you think guys like Thomas, Tucker, Ruddock couldn't have done it too? Do you know Davarryl Williams at 205 floored Wlad and gave him fits? You ever seen Cooney against Spinks? Size didn't help yet again. You know Spinks and Holmes fought close, too great fighters that Tyson crushed? Do you know Holmes was still good enough to beat Mercer with ease more than 4 years later? Who were Wlad's biggest wins? Haye? Povetkin? Tyson fought better fighters than Wlad. Heavyweights have no advantage over 225.Its nothing to do with weight.

We do disagree on this subject.

Why are you responding to a comment of mine that wasn't directed towards you? That particular comment was directed towards Juggernaut66.

But more than that, if you can't see the relevance of stage of career on the stats you gave about Tyson career you don't want to see the logic.

Mike Tyson is only one out of many example of boxers who had their knockout percentage decreased as they fought heftier opposition.

Furthermore, stage of career is relevant only if boxing skills are a factor. They where a factor when he fought Lennox Lewis (because he was unable to even land his KO punches in the first place, thus an indication of poor offensive skills instead of lack of power). Offensive skills deteriorate as boxers become older. However, power is rarely, if ever decreased by someone's late 30's (the age Mike Tyson boxed up to). Thus, I have no reason to believe a 30 year old Mike Tyson's power was any different to a young Mike Tyson's.

The fact is punching power in explosive guys like Tyson, especially those who punch in combination, decreases when they are older and slower.

Power is usually one of the last attributes to deteriorate from a boxer. You're not going to convince me that a boxer's punching power by his late 30's would've deteriorated that much, like you're claiming for Mike Tyson.

He lacked the head movement and the torque of he's early career against guys like McBride.

Head movement wasn't necessary against Mcbride because he was a journeyman who wasn't throwing any skilled / special punches to Mike Tyson for Tyson to evade.

Again, I don't buy the idea that Mike Tyson's raw punching power was any different at that stage of his career.

There are real life examples of smaller power punching heavies denting bigger men.

Of course there is. That wasn't my point. I've already acknowledged smaller sized boxers can KO heavier opponents. However, my original argument was that heavier opponents ARE MORE DIFFICULT TO KNOCKOUT than lighter opponents. This can be seen by looking at the knockout percentage of boxers against lighter opponents and then against heavier opponents. Against heavier opponents, the knockout percentage of boxers is almost always lower.

You can pretend him stopping Bruno and Golota is irrelevant, despite their weight.

The Gololota fight was irrelevant because that was a no contest.

As for the Bruno fight, he is one of the only few non-bummy opponents Mike Tyson knocked out who was weighing 250 pounds or more.

We can pretend that men like Botha,said Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis had equal power.

Boxer's statements don't matter to me as much as actual facts and statistics. Boxers could lie and have agendas. It's unreliable!

You can pretend that 220lb punchers at heavy, the same as Tyson knock out men as heavy as Joshua and the weight affords them no protection.

You're attacking a straw man argument (which is a logical fallacy). I haven't claimed that a 220 pounder can't KO heavier opponents like Joshua. My argument was that it's more difficult to KO heavier opponents than it is to KO lighter opponents, with everything else being equal.

The fact that you think a man with the head movement, handspeed power and chin of Tyson would be outmatched by the far slower, lead left hook throwing slow one two Joshua, who laboured to put away a finished Wlad in the fifth, the same Wlad who's been put away quicker before, could outmatch a far more battle tested, clearly much better boxer tells me what I need to know.

The topic we were originally discussing about was whether weight of opposition affects knockout percentage. Let's complete this first, before we move on to another topic.

Wlad, though the best of he's era, didn't have much to set him apart from the best fighters of the eighties. If Purity and Brewster beat him within the distance,if Samuel Peter, who achieved nothing else, bounced him off the floor repeatedly, you think guys like Thomas, Tucker, Ruddock couldn't have done it too? Do you know Davarryl Williams at 205 floored Wlad and gave him fits? You ever seen Cooney against Spinks? Size didn't help yet again. You know Spinks and Holmes fought close, too great fighters that Tyson crushed? Do you know Holmes was still good enough to beat Mercer with ease more than 4 years later? Who were Wlad's biggest wins? Haye? Povetkin? Tyson fought better fighters than Wlad. Heavyweights have no advantage over 225.Its nothing to do with weight.

We can discuss about Wladimir Klitschko and how impressive his heavyweight record is relative to past generation heavyweight boxers on another thread. In the meantime, let's stick to the original topic we were discussing about, which is the affects of weight on knockout percentage.

Do you know that Roy Jones fought Ruiz when he weighed 193 to Ruiz 226? But hold on, I thought the rules of boxing prove a man below 200 can't compete with, let alone beat a heavyweight.

Yes, I do know this and that was a rare exception, not the rule. Find me one modern boxer below 200 pounds who has been a top 10 heavyweight in the last decade.


Why are there weight divisions if weight didn't matter? Why is there a cruiserweight division if boxers below 200 pounds could fight heavyweights? Why hasn't there been any boxer below 200 pounds in the modern era who has been a top 10 heavyweight?

The general rule is, for one to be a heavyweight boxer, they have to weigh 200 pounds or above.

The Roy Jones Jr vs John Ruiz bout was I believe a catchweight with unofficial weights where Roy Jones Jr looked like he rehydrated above 200 pounds on fight night.

Toney, a highly skilled fighter would be beaten all the same people if he weighed 200.

Yes, because that's the minimum requirement to be a heavyweight.

Bulking up doesn't alter your chin .

No, but it does alter your punch resistance, provided you are well conditioned for the bout.

You want to ignore stages of people's careers because it suits your arguments.

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm looking at Mike Tyson's entire career, along with other boxers instead of nitpicking rare / singular instances of an event.

All these years everyone in the game thought fighters become shot, or regress, this just doesnt exist because you say so.

Boxing skills do deteriorate. Punching power RARELY, if ever deteriorates by someone's 30's.

He talks about he's lack of cardio in later fights, the slowed handspeed, the lack of snap. Why? Because he was heavier and slower and older.

All of that can be accounted for other factors and not weight. You do realize there are much fatter boxers who have had better stamina than even a peak Mike Tyson, right? So Mike Tyson having poor stamina, later on in his career is more likely down to him not training or conditioning himself properly instead of just his weight gain.

When he fought the big men at the end, they don't go down. Why? Because he was slower, heavier and didn't hit as hard.

Nonsense! So you expect me to believe that his punching power decreased that much, only by his late 30's?

Are you aware that virtually every power puncher still have their power by their late 30's?

But fantasy fight Tyson is in he's prime. The guy who sent down the big fellas I just mentioned.

Even a prime Mike Tyson had poorer knockout percentage against bigger sized opponents than against smaller sized opponents.

He sends down Joshua too.

Except, he failed to send down Tony Tucker, Mitch Green and Bonecrusher Smith, all who are inferior to Anthony Joshua.

And yes the whole boxing world knows that earlier Tyson was better than later Tyson. It's embarrassing you can't understand this.

it's embarrassing you can't avoid using strawman arguments. I've already acknowledged that a younger Mike Tyson had better BOXING SKILLS than an older Mike Tyson. However, I have no reason to believe the older Mike Tyson had any less power than a younger Mike Tyson. Power is one of the last attributes to deteriorate from a boxer. It's highly unreasonable to assume that someone in their 30's will have such less power than when they were in their 20's. Makes no sense!

I promise you, go spar at a local gym. Pick some regulars. Go eat or go on a cycle and gain 20lb.See how you do this time. See if you don't get mopped up even quicker. See if your cardio do go way down. Then understand why the lighter heavies managed 15rounders, when the current crop fight at a low output and look like they're dying after a fifth round flurry.

I don't need to do any of this. The evidence exists in a boxer's knockout percentage stats against lighter and heavier opponents. The fact that most, if not all the heavyweight boxers have a higher knockout percentage against lighter opponents than against heavier opponents proves the significance of weight, when it comes to punch resistance and punching power.

Also, I'd rather have 12 round heavyweight bouts where bouts are won quickly with early knockouts, than back and forth feather fists fighting each other in a 15 round fight, where they aren't able to KO each other earlier.

At heavyweight boxing, quick knockouts > long fights. A modern heavyweight doesn't need 15 rounds because they are consistently able to end fights before that stage.

[removed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by denium

Juggernaut only started using paragraphs himself after i kept owning him in debate.

I actually agree with him with this one though.

OWNING ? Kid you didnt even know how to spell my screen name until after 20 posts you realised it was spelled CORRECTLY ?

How does one OWN anyone when they (YOU ) are the second dumbest poster on here next to Kigali ?

Is it because I keep laughing at your haircut?


Posted from Boxingscene.com App for Android

[juggernaut666]

I agree with everything you wrote about the advantages weight brings to a boxer for punch resistance and knockout power.

However, the best way to analyse this is by looking at the knockout percentage of multiple heavyweight boxers against lighter opponents and then heavier opponents. Those rare examples of fights aren't conclusive. It's the entirety of a boxer's career that is conclusive. So it's not a matter of whether a boxer knocked out a heavier opponent that he usually struggles against, but what's his KO percentage against such heavier opponents compared to his KO percentage against lighter opponents. I can guarantee you that nearly every time, a heavyweight boxer's knockout percentage will be higher against lighter opponents than against heavier opponents.

We can discuss about Mike Tyson vs Anthony Joshua after this initial topic has been completed.

" It's the entirety of a boxer's career that is conclusive. "

Except we arent comparing careers we are comparing 2 fighters ,in this case one when at his best was under another trainer and against Joshua who is there to BRING an attack NOT survive .Anything else compared is illogical. Tyson had more snap in his punch and put his shots together better along with MUCH better defense and counter puncher skills in the 80's ,we are comparing SKILLS here right ? Not punching power alone even if you are suggestion it was the same?

blue pete is incompetent with the entire boxing mechanics of weight and physics and a D level troller at this point that im finished reading his mile long pile of regurgitation ,if you really think you will get a legit convo you haven't read the posts i have ,just look at the last post after this one which he states im using suggested guys against Tyson when im doing the opposite and picking Tyson . Hes an imbecile who makes up his own reality ...lol

Really this quote by him to use for his size is irrelevant sums him up perfectly !

" how has David Price done since he decided to put on extra weight for durability "?. Gassing out so bad he gets stopped by low level journeymen. Did it help he's chin? Is he's power overwhelming everyone like he, himself, thought it would? Nope, it's a cardio game."

We wont tell him a guy named Valuev of 300 plus pounds had very good stamina and even went 12 with active Haye ,he might faint combating his STRAW MAN points with STRAW MAN points ! LOL

But you continue to use stats that dont suggest the entire fight from SELECT fights from just stats which dont work here bdc Tyson was 2 different fighters at ONE point . I GUARANTEE you beyond thismatch up ,Tyson knocks out 95% of the guys you THINK he cant!

Joshua is a counter puncher ,he defeated everyone with that ,other than Klitchko who he was able to press ,he NEEDS to press Tyson to win. Tyson will hit him with ONE shot hits that require no set up for Joshua to counter with little margin of era on Joshua part bc of that . You arent goint to out counter THAT Tyson .

So the question is who wins the inside fight ,bc Joshua is NOT going to hold . Which tells me for now Tyson has the SLIGHT edge with sharper close quarter range punching in a fight he will be FORCED to end quickly as possible and will have more on target shots landed bc both are aggressive ,theres NO way around it .Tyson ON POINT is nearly impossible to out point ,you literately have to have the abilities to K.O him or TRY and coast to a loss .

Joshua does have the abilities to K.O him ,but Tyson was that good,which is why i only have ONE guy i can confidently say who COULD out point him for a win and Vitali Klitchko has the best chance in doing so .

"At heavyweight boxing, quick knockouts > long fights. A modern heavyweight doesn't need 15 rounds because they are consistently able to end fights before that stage."

This is true and 12 rnd fights actually produce more punches bc they have less time to float rnds . A big misconception ,really a myth with old time fighters ,when actually you had MUCH more clinching too back in the day . People are easily duped ,just read some of these comments for some eye poppers .

[bluepete]

Why are you responding to a comment of mine that wasn't directed towards you? That particular comment was directed towards Juggernaut66.



Mike Tyson is only one out of many example of boxers who had their knockout percentage decreased as they fought heftier opposition.

Furthermore, stage of career is relevant only if boxing skills are a factor. They where a factor when he fought Lennox Lewis (because he was unable to even land his KO punches in the first place, thus an indication of poor offensive skills instead of lack of power). Offensive skills deteriorate as boxers become older. However, power is rarely, if ever decreased by someone's late 30's (the age Mike Tyson boxed up to). Thus, I have no reason to believe a 30 year old Mike Tyson's power was any different to a young Mike Tyson's.



Power is usually one of the last attributes to deteriorate from a boxer. You're not going to convince me that a boxer's punching power by his late 30's would've deteriorated that much, like you're claiming for Mike Tyson.



Head movement wasn't necessary against Mcbride because he was a journeyman who wasn't throwing any skilled / special punches to Mike Tyson for Tyson to evade.

Again, I don't buy the idea that Mike Tyson's raw punching power was any different at that stage of his career.



Of course there is. That wasn't my point. I've already acknowledged smaller sized boxers can KO heavier opponents. However, my original argument was that heavier opponents ARE MORE DIFFICULT TO KNOCKOUT than lighter opponents. This can be seen by looking at the knockout percentage of boxers against lighter opponents and then against heavier opponents. Against heavier opponents, the knockout percentage of boxers is almost always lower.



The Gololota fight was irrelevant because that was a no contest.

As for the Bruno fight, he is one of the only few non-bummy opponents Mike Tyson knocked out who was weighing 250 pounds or more.



Boxer's statements don't matter to me as much as actual facts and statistics. Boxers could lie and have agendas. It's unreliable!



You're attacking a straw man argument (which is a logical fallacy). I haven't claimed that a 220 pounder can't KO heavier opponents like Joshua. My argument was that it's more difficult to KO heavier opponents than it is to KO lighter opponents, with everything else being equal.



The topic we were originally discussing about was whether weight of opposition affects knockout percentage. Let's complete this first, before we move on to another topic.



We can discuss about Wladimir Klitschko and how impressive his heavyweight record is relative to past generation heavyweight boxers on another thread. In the meantime, let's stick to the original topic we were discussing about, which is the affects of weight on knockout percentage.



Yes, I do know this and that was a rare exception, not the rule. Find me one modern boxer below 200 pounds who has been a top 10 heavyweight in the last decade.


Why are there weight divisions if weight didn't matter? Why is there a cruiserweight division if boxers below 200 pounds could fight heavyweights? Why hasn't there been any boxer below 200 pounds in the modern era who has been a top 10 heavyweight?

The general rule is, for one to be a heavyweight boxer, they have to weigh 200 pounds or above.

The Roy Jones Jr vs John Ruiz bout was I believe a catchweight with unofficial weights where Roy Jones Jr looked like he rehydrated above 200 pounds on fight night.



Yes, because that's the minimum requirement to be a heavyweight.



No, but it does alter your punch resistance, provided you are well conditioned for the bout.



I'm not ignoring anything. I'm looking at Mike Tyson's entire career, along with other boxers instead of nitpicking rare / singular instances of an event.



Boxing skills do deteriorate. Punching power RARELY, if ever deteriorates by someone's 30's.



All of that can be accounted for other factors and not weight. You do realize there are much fatter boxers who have had better stamina than even a peak Mike Tyson, right? So Mike Tyson having poor stamina, later on in his career is more likely down to him not training or conditioning himself properly instead of just his weight gain.



Nonsense! So you expect me to believe that his punching power decreased that much, only by his late 30's?

Are you aware that virtually every power puncher still have their power by their late 30's?



Even a prime Mike Tyson had poorer knockout percentage against bigger sized opponents than against smaller sized opponents.



Except, he failed to send down Tony Tucker, Mitch Green and Bonecrusher Smith, all who are inferior to Anthony Joshua.



it's embarrassing you can't avoid using strawman arguments. I've already acknowledged that a younger Mike Tyson had better BOXING SKILLS than an older Mike Tyson. However, I have no reason to believe the older Mike Tyson had any less power than a younger Mike Tyson. Power is one of the last attributes to deteriorate from a boxer. It's highly unreasonable to assume that someone in their 30's will have such less power than when they were in their 20's. Makes no sense!



I don't need to do any of this. The evidence exists in a boxer's knockout percentage stats against lighter and heavier opponents. The fact that most, if not all the heavyweight boxers have a higher knockout percentage against lighter opponents than against heavier opponents proves the significance of weight, when it comes to punch resistance and punching power.

Also, I'd rather have 12 round heavyweight bouts where bouts are won quickly with early knockouts, than back and forth feather fists fighting each other in a 15 round fight, where they aren't able to KO each other earlier.

At heavyweight boxing, quick knockouts > long fights. A modern heavyweight doesn't need 15 rounds because they are consistently able to end fights before that stage.

As some who has fought I can tell you why stage of career can effect power. Lots of punchers like Tyson rely on speed and snap. At the end of he's career this diminished and although he landed some shots on the later opponents they were not of the same quality. He didn't have the speed to get full leverage into he's shots. So we have the Lewis fight which you rightly disregarded because he didn't land much. We have Williams who he easily hurt in the first but did certainly incur a knee injury which most certainly would change he's leverage. But for all of these he had diminished handspeed and couldn't transfer the power quick enough. He talked about this clearly in interviews after Nielsen btw. He said he felt slow, lack of snap and that he didn't have he's old power. Weighing 240.You can disregard this, but he would know. You can't just say Golota was irrelevant because he quit. He got knocked down in a fight that hes twenty pound weight advantage counted for nothing. He was unable to land a thing because he was too slow. He was hurt and knocked down. And he quit because he was dizzy after the knockdown. He was taken to hospital with neurological symptoms because of Tyson. He was on he's way out. It's abit convenient to dismiss this fight. Saverese wasn't a bad big heavy either. Not elite, but smashed and dissmissed with ease. Any durability factor that may exist at a lower level counts for nothing with a fast heavyweight puncher. In fact size becomes a liability in alot of cases. This is why Haye states he prefers fighting heavier men. Roy Jones Ruiz was not a catchweight fight. Ruiz could come is as heavy as he wanted. Jones would have no reason the rehydrate at all, because he wasn't trying to come in under anything. Sure he may have put a couple of pounds on over the day lie we all do. But he weighed in at 193.Hes not known for durability. But the bigger man made no impression. He hurt Ruiz in the fifth badly too. And Ruiz was considered durable, despite the Tua fight. The reason I harp on about Tyson, and note how misleading it is to look at the weight of he's opponents weight while ignoring their class and the stage of he's career was because the original talk was of a peak Tyson in a fantasy fight. You start giving examples like Williams and McBride but when I give examples like Golota and Bruno there's excuses "that's just one fight" ect. Now Tucker, Mitch Green and Bonecrusher were not Joshua. What you call, inferior seems to be based on biceps size more than boxing. All of them were faster on their feet than Anthony. Green and Tucker were noted for their durability and good head movement. Both threw combinations without tiring. Well never know how good Green was but Tucker was a good fighter pressure drugs who stopped an in shape Douglas prior to Tyson. Joshua biggest win was stopping and 41year old Wlad, who was coming off a loss and a lay off. Wlad, who's been stopped three times before against guys who were never top line heavyweights. Stopped by much lighter men. Whats "clearly inferior" about these fighters compared to Joshua? They they might not punch as hard? They may well be superior to Joshua in terms of durability. Tucker nor Green had wobbles against a Dillian Whyte, who isn't a puncher at domestic level. You think the fifteen round era had feather fisted heavyweights? Modern fanboy attitude. I prefered the time that guys weren't clinching constantly, gassing in figths with journeyman they should be putting away. You think the eighties had heavies who couldn't put each other away? Thats ignorance. You had guys like Clooney, Weaver, Ruddock, Bonecrusher, Witherspoon, Tyson, Williams, all knocking guys out regularly. You had a good champ in Holmes for half of it having wars, getting off the deck to win, and then Tyson transcending the sport simply because he was knocking so many out in style. Maybe you mean the 70s and 60s and that 15 round era. Yeah,Foreman, Frazier, Lyle, Shavers. Era of feather fists. Guys now aren't that well conditioned overall, and even the poster boy for the superheavy era your talking about Wlad, often laboured over the distance with lighter men. Look how long he took to get rid of Chambers. I'm giving you real life examples, and you want to harp on about statistics that don't take into account any other factors in wins and losses. Half these fights you talk about could well have the heavier man only weighting a couple of pounds more that he's opponent. Lots of then may be cruisers who are at heavy because they got fat and old, coming up against a young heavy looking to pad he's record. I've seen enough of this kind of fights to know this happens all the time. Your stats are definitely misleading and don't show that it is the weight itself that is an advantage. You say if your well conditioned gaining weight makes you more durable. Where's the evidence in these top level fights that we actually watch and have some relevance to the subject, which was world class heavyweight boxing? What do you claim Joshua's superiority on? Strength, size, muscle, power? Why when directly pitted against other heavies of 225 did Wlad fall to early stoppages. Don't blame inexperience or he's team. Neither opponent had a hall of fame team or greater experience. Don't blame southpaw stances when that was only one guy. Don't go all vague with "underestimation" because we don't know this. Joshua is not superior because of the weight any more than Wlad was. Hes best win was an old Wlad, who he had life and death with. He did good, but it's not enough to proclaim him far superior to other good fighters of yesterday. Not yet.

[bluepete]

" It's the entirety of a boxer's career that is conclusive. "

Except we arent comparing careers we are comparing 2 fighters ,in this case one when at his best was under another trainer and against Joshua who is there to BRING an attack NOT survive .Anything else compared is illogical. Tyson had more snap in his punch and put his shots together better along with MUCH better defense and counter puncher skills in the 80's ,we are comparing SKILLS here right ? Not punching power alone even if you are suggestion it was the same?

blue pete is incompetent with the entire boxing mechanics and a D level troller at this point that im finished reading his mile long pile of regurgitation but you continue to use stats that dont suggest the entire fight from SELECT fights from just stats which dont work here bdc Tyson was 2 different fighters at ONE point . I GUARANTEE you beyond thismatch up ,Tyson knocks out 95% of the guys you THINK he cant!

Joshua is a counter puncher ,he defeated everyone with that ,other than Klitchko who he was able to press ,he NEEDS to press Tyson to win. Tyson will hit him with ONE shot hits with little margin of era on Joshua part . Youarent goint to out counter THAT Tyson . So the question is who wins the inside fight ,bc Joshua is NOT going to hold . Which tells me for now Tyson has the SLIGHT edge with sharper close quarter range punching in a fight he will be FORCED to end quickly as possible and will have more on target shots landed bc both are aggressive ,theres NO way around it .

"At heavyweight boxing, quick knockouts > long fights. A modern heavyweight doesn't need 15 rounds because they are consistently able to end fights before that stage."

This is true and 12 rnd fights actually produce more punches bc they have less time to float rnds . A big misconception ,really a myth with old time fighters ,when actually you had MUCH more clinching too back in the day . People are easily duped ,just read some of these comments for some eye poppers .

I'm incompetent? You, who doesn't like me pointing out actual facts about Lewis losing to Rahman while heavy without acknowledging Lewis crushing guys like Golota who he outweighed by a small amount? They both weighed the same in that fight, 244lbs. But this is supposed to count as an example of you being right and me being wrong? Still this coming from the guy who thinks Mike Dixon was Lewis's best win prior to Pepe taking over as he's trainer. If I'm incompetent you're obviously senile. Shame you had to name drop me on a reply your making to a true incompetent who thinks Tyson would be a minor annoyance to Anthony Joshua . But then stating an opinion that doesn't align with yours must be trolling mustn't it?

[Mr Objecitivity]

As some who has fought I can tell you why stage of career can effect power. Lots of punchers like Tyson rely on speed and snap. At the end of he's career this diminished and although he landed some shots on the later opponents they were not of the same quality. He didn't have the speed to get full leverage into he's shots. So we have the Lewis fight which you rightly disregarded because he didn't land much. We have Williams who he easily hurt in the first but did certainly incur a knee injury which most certainly would change he's leverage. But for all of these he had diminished handspeed and couldn't transfer the power quick enough. He talked about this clearly in interviews after Nielsen btw. He said he felt slow, lack of snap and that he didn't have he's old power. Weighing 240.You can disregard this, but he would know. You can't just say Golota was irrelevant because he quit. He got knocked down in a fight that hes twenty pound weight advantage counted for nothing. He was unable to land a thing because he was too slow. He was hurt and knocked down. And he quit because he was dizzy after the knockdown. He was taken to hospital with neurological symptoms because of Tyson. He was on he's way out. It's abit convenient to dismiss this fight. Saverese wasn't a bad big heavy either. Not elite, but smashed and dissmissed with ease. Any durability factor that may exist at a lower level counts for nothing with a fast heavyweight puncher. In fact size becomes a liability in alot of cases. This is why Haye states he prefers fighting heavier men. Roy Jones Ruiz was not a catchweight fight. Ruiz could come is as heavy as he wanted. Jones would have no reason the rehydrate at all, because he wasn't trying to come in under anything. Sure he may have put a couple of pounds on over the day lie we all do. But he weighed in at 193.Hes not known for durability. But the bigger man made no impression. He hurt Ruiz in the fifth badly too. And Ruiz was considered durable, despite the Tua fight. The reason I harp on about Tyson, and note how misleading it is to look at the weight of he's opponents weight while ignoring their class and the stage of he's career was because the original talk was of a peak Tyson in a fantasy fight. You start giving examples like Williams and McBride but when I give examples like Golota and Bruno there's excuses "that's just one fight" ect. Now Tucker, Mitch Green and Bonecrusher were not Joshua. What you call, inferior seems to be based on biceps size more than boxing. All of them were faster on their feet than Anthony. Green and Tucker were noted for their durability and good head movement. Both threw combinations without tiring. Well never know how good Green was but Tucker was a good fighter pressure drugs who stopped an in shape Douglas prior to Tyson. Joshua biggest win was stopping and 41year old Wlad, who was coming off a loss and a lay off. Wlad, who's been stopped three times before against guys who were never top line heavyweights. Stopped by much lighter men. Whats "clearly inferior" about these fighters compared to Joshua? They they might not punch as hard? They may well be superior to Joshua in terms of durability. Tucker nor Green had wobbles against a Dillian Whyte, who isn't a puncher at domestic level. You think the fifteen round era had feather fisted heavyweights? Modern fanboy attitude. I prefered the time that guys weren't clinching constantly, gassing in figths with journeyman they should be putting away. You think the eighties had heavies who couldn't put each other away? Thats ignorance. You had guys like Clooney, Weaver, Ruddock, Bonecrusher, Witherspoon, Tyson, Williams, all knocking guys out regularly. You had a good champ in Holmes for half of it having wars, getting off the deck to win, and then Tyson transcending the sport simply because he was knocking so many out in style. Maybe you mean the 70s and 60s and that 15 round era. Yeah,Foreman, Frazier, Lyle, Shavers. Era of feather fists. Guys now aren't that well conditioned overall, and even the poster boy for the superheavy era your talking about Wlad, often laboured over the distance with lighter men. Look how long he took to get rid of Chambers. I'm giving you real life examples, and you want to harp on about statistics that don't take into account any other factors in wins and losses. Half these fights you talk about could well have the heavier man only weighting a couple of pounds more that he's opponent. Lots of then may be cruisers who are at heavy because they got fat and old, coming up against a young heavy looking to pad he's record. I've seen enough of this kind of fights to know this happens all the time. Your stats are definitely misleading and don't show that it is the weight itself that is an advantage. You say if your well conditioned gaining weight makes you more durable. Where's the evidence in these top level fights that we actually watch and have some relevance to the subject, which was world class heavyweight boxing? What do you claim Joshua's superiority on? Strength, size, muscle, power? Why when directly pitted against other heavies of 225 did Wlad fall to early stoppages. Don't blame inexperience or he's team. Neither opponent had a hall of fame team or greater experience. Don't blame southpaw stances when that was only one guy. Don't go all vague with "underestimation" because we don't know this. Joshua is not superior because of the weight any more than Wlad was. Hes best win was an old Wlad, who he had life and death with. He did good, but it's not enough to proclaim him far superior to other good fighters of yesterday. Not yet.

You wrote a bunch of irrelevant sentences by waffling off topic. I'm not going to reply to all of it. Only some of what you wrote was related to the topic being discussed, which I'll respond to.

Fact of the matter is, weight does indeed have an impact on the knockout record of a boxer. Compile the career statistics of many boxers that are ATG's (All Time Greats), hall of famers or legends, you'll find that more often than not (nearly all the time), their knockout percentage against heavier opposition was lower than against lighter opposition. Which proves that heavier boxers usually have better punch resistance and are more difficult to KO.

Likewise, with everything else being equal, the heavier boxer usually has better knockout records and punch resistance than their lighter counterparts.

The heaviest boxer with the best punch resistance > lighter boxers with the best punch resistance.

Heaviest boxer with average punch resistance (for their size) > lighter boxers with average punch resistance (for their size).

The same applies for knockout records as well.

You can use invalid, non - like for like examples such as comparing James Toney's punch resistance (lighter boxer with the best punch resistance) to David Price's punch resistance (a heavier boxer with very poor punch resistance for his size) and claim that weight doesn't matter when it comes to punch resistance / power. However, such comparisons aren't valid because they aren't like for like.

If you want to compare the punch resistance of James Toney to a heavier boxer, then compare him to someone like Nikolai Valuev or Vitali Klitschko. Then, we will have more of a valid comparison that is fair. In which case, the heavier boxer is again superior.