Anthony Joshua Reveals How A Fight With Mike Tyson Would Go

[bluepete]

Im only skimming what you are posting .

The clown here is one who cant see Foreman punch resistance at his girthier build .

The clown is one who cant understand that being bigger is an advantage even if you lose .


The clown here is someone who cant understand Lennox Lewis became a harder puncher weighing above 235 .

The clown is someone who thinks clumsey off balance ,innacurate Bowe is a more talented fighter than lateral fast accurate counter punch Holyfield .

The clown cant comprehend Bowe defeated Holyfield Twice when the weight disparity was greatest .

The clown is someone who would use David Price as evidence size doesnt matter

The clown is someone who uses prime Tyson and then uses NOT prime Klitchko to utilise more straw man points .

The clown is someone who thinks Bowe was at his best at 230 pounds going the distance with shot Tony Tubbs .

The clown is someone who thinks modern HW's should be in 220's .


The clown is someone who uses M.Tyson as a measuring stick to prove being smaller is an advantage .

The clown is someone who thinks bc Tua at 5'10 was at his best at 225 it applies to 6'7 V_Klitchko .

The clown is someone who in general ignores facts ,makes straw man arguments and thinks he can pretzel twist someone who is smarter than he is !


The clown doesnt even know Foreman ducked Shavers bc he feared his power in the 70's .And cant understand why Foreman had numerous conversations about Shavers even on talk shows .


The clown cant understand that a harder to defeat Foreman would be less susceptible to getting k.od by Lyle .

The clown has said so many backwards things i cant remember them all!

The clown is YOU !

Who said anything about Foreman ducking Shavers? . You said Foreman said he hit harder than Lyle. Ali said that. Foreman never fought him so how could he say that? If it's from sparring then it was off topic, the point being Foreman said Lyle was the hardest hitter he faced as a pro. You're all over the place tonight. Are you high? A harder to defeat fighter is always harder to knock over. So that proves it was Foremans defence and ability to pace himself that made him better in career two not some improvement ent in chin due to weight. Thanks but I already said that. Haha.

[bluepete]

Im only skimming what you are posting .

The clown here is one who cant see Foreman punch resistance at his girthier build .

The clown is one who cant understand that being bigger is an advantage even if you lose .


The clown here is someone who cant understand Lennox Lewis became a harder puncher weighing above 235 .

The clown is someone who thinks clumsey off balance ,innacurate Bowe is a more talented fighter than lateral fast accurate counter punch Holyfield .

The clown cant comprehend Bowe defeated Holyfield Twice when the weight disparity was greatest .

The clown is someone who would use David Price as evidence size doesnt matter

The clown is someone who uses prime Tyson and then uses NOT prime Klitchko to utilise more straw man points .

The clown is someone who thinks Bowe was at his best at 230 pounds going the distance with shot Tony Tubbs .

The clown is someone who thinks modern HW's should be in 220's .


The clown is someone who uses M.Tyson as a measuring stick to prove being smaller is an advantage .

The clown is someone who thinks bc Tua at 5'10 was at his best at 225 it applies to 6'7 V_Klitchko .

The clown is someone who in general ignores facts ,makes straw man arguments and thinks he can pretzel twist someone who is smarter than he is !


The clown doesnt even know Foreman ducked Shavers bc he feared his power in the 70's .And cant understand why Foreman had numerous conversations about Shavers even on talk shows .


The clown cant understand that a harder to defeat Foreman would be less susceptible to getting k.od by Lyle .

The clown has said so many backwards things i cant remember them all!

The clown is YOU !

Tell me smarty pants, how does having 20lbs extra hanging off your waist help you take a better shot to your head again? How about bigger pecs and triceps? I know how a thicker jaw and skull would work, thats actually been documented. I'd like to know how two inches on my arms makes my chin better? Can't wait to hear this science ..��

[Mr Objecitivity]

Since you like to dismiss my examples as irrelevant, and you like using Holyfield as an example, let's look at him. At world class, so allowing for unknowns record padding Evander won 7 at cruiser 6 by Ko. He then went to heavy, and Ko'd 7 there too. No sign of a drop in power. One of these was the heavyweight champ. The first man to take him the distance was 6 4.Then, out of the next five, he's only stoppage was against a shorter man who still outweighed him. All the men that extended him were 6 3 to 6 5.After losing to Moorer, he went the distance with iron chinned Mercer. Lost to 6 5 Bowe. Then back to stoppages 3 fights in a row against shorter men. Next time he lost was to the 6 5 Lewis twice. After Lewis the consensus view was Holyfield was majorly on the slide, splitting fights with Ruiz and losing to Toney. Every stoppage he had from this point on was over shorter fighters or those the same size. All those who beat him, Donald, Valuev ect were taller. The men who took him the distance in he's wins were also taller, Oqendo and Saverse. All of this you put down to weight. With notably tough exceptions like Mercer, he stopped the shorter men regardless of weight. In almost all the fights he lost or struggled with, it was against much taller men. Your weight idea here has been shown to be misleading. Seems the height, reach, range factor was more of an impact on Evanders KO record. That, and for the fact that alot of Holyfields heavyweight career he was on the slide. Post Ruiz he wasn't the same.

All of what you've wrote can be addressed with a simple point, which is that weight divisions exist and height and reach divisions don't. Thus, proving that weight is a more significant factor than height and reach. Nothing more needs to be stated after this. However, I will still go further and address more of your points point by point.

Height is only a big factor when the height difference between two boxers is SIGNIFICANT. Such as between David Tua and Alexander Ustinov. However, height isn't much of a factor when two boxers are close or similar, such as between Evander Holyfield and George Foreman.

So I'm going to closely analyze the height of all the heavyweight opponents Evander Holyfield failed to KO. No contests and retirements don't count. Only KO / TKO count.

Evander Holyfield failed to KO 16 / 39 (41%) total opponents. Those 16 opponents he failed to KO were all below 6 feet 4 inches. Considering Evander Holyfield was 6 feet 2 and a half inches himself, all of those 16 opponents were roughly the same height as him. They were either an inch taller at most, the same height or shorter than him. Thus, Evander Holyfield still had a poor KO percentage against opponents his own height at heavyweight.

Even if we include retirements, his knockout percentage will still be below 60% which is MUCH lower than his cruiserweight knockout percentage (above 80%).

Including retirements and excluding no contests, Evander Holyfield failed to KO his opponents in 15/39 (38%) bouts and I'm excluding any opponent above 6 foot 3. So in all of those 15 bouts, his opponents were roughly the same height as him. Yet, his KO percentage was still dreadful compared to his cruiserweight record. Why? The answer is because of weight.

So the stats proves the significance weight plays in determining how likely a boxer is to KO an opponent.

This means, Evander Holyfield stood less than a 40% chance of knocking out heavyweights who are below 6 feet 4 inches.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Your statistics don't trump what the experts have found at all. This is the arrogance of your ego. All your stats prove is bigger men with bigger frames take a better shot in general. Same as the fact that bigger men with longer arms can land on smaller men more often and therefore stop them more often. The fact that bigger framed men tend to be heavier due to body volume is you mistaking correlation for causation. It's not the weight. That's why the so called anomalies exist. You want to dismiss the reason guys like Chavez and Hagler had great chins, even though their skull thickness is documented fact. You want to ignore as irrelevant the many examples of power and chin not being due to weight. You want to ignore my examples while you bring up examples like Evander and Vitali. No matter that you have no idea that it's not a real comparison. One guy, being smaller and more hittable, took alot of punches against a high level of opposition. The other absorbed far less shots. Vitali was rarely hit in he's fights. The punch stat prove this. The biggest punches he took were against a heavy, end career Lewis. Lennox didn't stop or floor Evander in 24 rounds either. So what.Now Vitalis 6foot 8 frame made him harder hit. Big advantage there, like I was saying. Most knockouts are due to accumulated shots and accuracy, not power. This explains Toney Holyfield and the like. It's not weight. As for Pac Hatton Pac Margarito. What's the difference there? Yes chin. Why? One has a massive jaw and head and stands 5 11 and the other is barely 5 6 with tiny hands feet and head. Now there are men like Qawi, 5 6, but guess what? One of the thickest heads necks wrists I've ever seem on a smaller man. You want it to be weight, your looking for it, and that's why your mistaking the causes of the trends that you see on paper. That's why these so called anomalies keep coming up. Otherwise, if it was weight, Golovkin and Froch wouldnt have great power, chin for their divisions. Being very light compared to most who they fight against. Yeah yeah, another "one off". These things exist because it's not weight at all. Why the massive variety of chins at any given weight if what you say is true? Height reach and jawbone divisions are impractical in a sporting sense. Its much easier to organise due to weight. But the reason you have Shane Mosley chins and Amir Khan chins in the same division is because it's density of bone. Can't be changed I'm afraid. Sorry that you don't, in fact, know more than those who've been in the game forever. Must be quite a shock to you . Btw I just watched Chris Eubank vs Henry Wharton. As Wharton was boasting he'd knock Chris out, Eubank commented that he's dentist told him he had the thickest jawbone he'd ever seen. Eubank, originally a middle, went right through to cruiser, chin never cracked. Fought the much bigger Carl Thompson, weighing in a 13 4 against a man who was a known puncher an entered the ring at 200lb. Later stopped Haye. Another one for the jaw density theory.

Your statistics don't trump what the experts have found at all.

Yes, statistics does trump expert's 'findings' that contradict those ACTUAL facts.

All your stats prove is bigger men with bigger frames take a better shot in general.

Correction: heavier boxers have better punch resistance and are more difficult to knockout in general.

Same as the fact that bigger men with longer arms can land on smaller men more often and therefore stop them more often.

Likewise, shorter men with shorter reach can use their agility advantages to land punches without getting punched in return through superior movement.

In other words, height and reach advantages are only advantages if a boxer knows how to use them. There's advantages of being short and tall.

However, weight is usually an advantage by default. One doesn't necessarily even need to know how to use it.

It's not the weight.

Yes, it is! Hence, the reasons why weight divisions exist in boxing and all combat sports.

You want to dismiss the reason guys like Chavez and Hagler had great chins, even though their skull thickness is documented fact.

I'm not dismissing the fact that they had great chins. I'm just arguing the point that weight is a more significant factor than skull thickness. Based on the fact that it's weight divisions that exists and not skull thickness divisions.

You want to ignore as irrelevant the many examples of power and chin not being due to weight.

Like what?

You want to ignore my examples while you bring up examples like Evander and Vitali.

Which example and example for what exactly?

The reason why I bought up the point about Evander Holyfield and Vitali Klitschko is to show that when everything is equal, the heavier boxer has the superior punch resistance.

No matter that you have no idea that it's not a real comparison. One guy, being smaller and more hittable, took alot of punches against a high level of opposition. The other absorbed far less shots. Vitali was rarely hit in he's fights. The punch stat prove this. The biggest punches he took were against a heavy, end career Lewis. Lennox didn't stop or floor Evander in 24 rounds either. So what.Now Vitalis 6foot 8 frame made him harder hit. Big advantage there,

Vitali Klitschko was hit many times. His defense wasn't as good as Wladimir Klitschko's. However, you could argue his defense was better than Evander Holyfield's.

Either way, there are other heavier boxers with ATG punch resistance like Nikolai Valuev and Mariusz Wach who have superior punch resistance compared to Evander Holyfield.

Evander Holyfield has been stopped a few times and has been dropped.

The heavier boxers with ATG chins like Mariusz Wach, Nikolai Valuev and Viali Klitschko were never dropped before.

like I was saying. Most knockouts are due to accumulated shots and accuracy, not power. This explains Toney Holyfield and the like. It's not weight.

A little baby can punch me with accumulations but wouldn't be capable of knocking me out. Why? Because of lack of power.

So you're wrong! Punching power is required, accumulation or not. A boxer needs sufficient power in the first place to KO opponents, irrespective of whether they are landing accumulation of punches or singular punches.

As far as Toney and Holyfield, Holyfield was the only top level heavyweight James Toney managed to stop. So what does it mean? It means very little!

It still doesn't change that James Toney's knockout percentage against heavyweights is SIGNIFICANTLY lower compared to his knockout percentage against sub heavyweights.

As for Pac Hatton Pac Margarito. What's the difference there? Yes chin. Why? One has a massive jaw and head and stands 5 11 and the other is barely 5 6 with tiny hands feet and head.

The cause of the chin advantage was due to weight. The cause of Manny Pacquiao failing to KO anybody since he stopped Miguel Cotto in 2009 is due to weight = heavier opponents have been more difficult to KO for Manny Pacquiao. The same applies to Floyd Mayweather as well.

You want it to be weight, your looking for it, and that's why your mistaking the causes of the trends that you see on paper.

Nothing to do with what I want, but everything to do with how boxing is. Hence, the reasons why weight divisions exist in boxing.

Otherwise, if it was weight, Golovkin and Froch wouldnt have great power, chin for their divisions. Being very light compared to most who they fight against. Yeah yeah, another "one off".

Actually, both GGG and Carl Froch regularly fight opponents their own size. They rarely fight opponents much bigger than themselves. If GGG ever moves up in weight, you'll discover the significance weight has on knockout records when GGG's knockout percentage decreases just as Manny Pacquiao's and Floyd Mayweather's knockout percentages decreased when they moved up in weight as well.

Why the massive variety of chins at any given weight if what you say is true?

Of course, one boxer can have better punch resistance than another despite being the same weight. The point is, on average, heavier boxers are more difficult to KO than lighter opponents, especially when levels are equal (heavier bum > lighter bum or heavier ATG > lighter ATG).

Height reach and jawbone divisions are impractical in a sporting sense. Its much easier to organise due to weight.

In what way are they 'impractical' and more difficult? Care to explain in more detail by elaborating?

[Mr Objecitivity]

Tyson was barely a pro for ONE yr when he fought Green who he battered . SIX fights later he destroyed Berbick who defeated Green and Pinklon . He did so bc a title was on the line and had more fights under him by then .

I went over the other matches ,you are clearly ignoring the actual style and match up here .You are aware i could do the same right ?

Joshuas FIRST puncher he fought was wobbled by a LEFT hook (arguably Tyson best punch ) and that was D.Whyte . Are you suggesting Whyte defeats Tyson or gives Joshua a better fight bc of weight ? I hope not

Holmes ANOTHER motivated fight Tyson showed IF he wanted you gone you were going . Tyson is the BEST finisher in the game anyone has ever seen when he hurts you .

You are picking selected matches ,and ignoring Tysons title fights and HUGE punchers like Ruddock ,Stewart and Bruno three similar Joshua types that forced Tysons aggression to come out (even out of his prime)

You can list all stats you like they are irrelevant to this particular match up. As well as CALCULATING in Joshua has NEVER knocked out anyone with defense and CHIN like Tysons .You simply cant say Tyson lasts one rnd based on a guy with 19 fights against a proven fighter like Tyson who has displayed a level at one time not seen since and come to the conclusion its a mismatch .

You are picking selected matches ,and ignoring Tysons title fights and HUGE punchers like Ruddock ,Stewart and Bruno three similar Joshua types that forced Tysons aggression to come out (even out of his prime)

I am picking matches against the specific TYPE of opponent which Mike Tyson failed to normally KO. That happens to be a non-bummy heavyweight above 6 foot 3 inches in height. Mike Tyson's troubles existed even in his prime at knocking out this specific type of opponent. Excluding the Golota no contest, the only non-bummy skilled heavyweight above 6 foot 3 inches tall which Mike Tyson knocked out was Lou Savarese and that's it.

All of those other boxers you've mentioned don't count because they weren't above 6 foot 3 inches in height.

You can list all stats you like they are irrelevant to this particular match up.

Statistics are FACTS, thus are more relevant than baseless opinions / conclusions. My conclusions are based on facts.

As well as CALCULATING in Joshua has NEVER knocked out anyone with defense and CHIN like Tysons .

Despite his defense, Mike Tyson was ALWAYS hit-able against top caliber opposition, even in his prime. Buster Douglas knocked out a prime Mike Tyson (Douglas who's punching power is nowhere the level of Anthony Joshua) and the likes of Mitch Green tagged him enough times. Somehow, I doubt Mike Tyson is going to absorb Joshua's punches as well as he did against those opponents.

You simply cant say Tyson lasts one rnd based on a guy with 19 fights against a proven fighter like Tyson who has displayed a level at one time not seen since and come to the conclusion its a mismatch .[/

I'll take the statement back when I claimed Tyson won't last 1 round or it's a mismatch. However, Anthony Joshua is a riskier opponent than any other 6 foot 3 inches plus boxer Mike Tyson ever fought (with the exception of perhaps the old Lennox Lewis).

Joshuas FIRST puncher he fought was wobbled by a LEFT hook (arguably Tyson best punch ) and that was D.Whyte .

Being 'wobbled' means very little. He wasn't dropped, nor was he knocked out. He ended up knocking Whyte out cold in that fight.

On the other hand, Mike Tyson ACTUALLY FAILED to KO those taller boxers I've mentioned.

Are you suggesting Whyte defeats Tyson or gives Joshua a better fight bc of weight ? I hope not

No, I'm not!

[bluepete]

All of what you've wrote can be addressed with a simple point, which is that weight divisions exist and height and reach divisions don't. Thus, proving that weight is a more significant factor than height and reach. Nothing more needs to be stated after this. However, I will still go further and address more of your points point by point.

Height is only a big factor when the height difference between two boxers is SIGNIFICANT. Such as between David Tua and Alexander Ustinov. However, height isn't much of a factor when two boxers are close or similar, such as between Evander Holyfield and George Foreman.

So I'm going to closely analyze the height of all the heavyweight opponents Evander Holyfield failed to KO. No contests and retirements don't count. Only KO / TKO count.

Evander Holyfield failed to KO 16 / 39 (41%) total opponents. Those 16 opponents he failed to KO were all below 6 feet 4 inches. Considering Evander Holyfield was 6 feet 2 and a half inches himself, all of those 16 opponents were roughly the same height as him. They were either an inch taller at most, the same height or shorter than him. Thus, Evander Holyfield still had a poor KO percentage against opponents his own height at heavyweight.

Even if we include retirements, his knockout percentage will still be below 60% which is MUCH lower than his cruiserweight knockout percentage (above 80%).

Including retirements and excluding no contests, Evander Holyfield failed to KO his opponents in 15/39 (38%) bouts and I'm excluding any opponent above 6 foot 3. So in all of those 15 bouts, his opponents were roughly the same height as him. Yet, his KO percentage was still dreadful compared to his cruiserweight record. Why? The answer is because of weight.

So the stats proves the significance weight plays in determining how likely a boxer is to KO an opponent.

This means, Evander Holyfield stood less than a 40% chance of knocking out heavyweights who are below 6 feet 4 inches.

Height and reach divisions don't exist for practical reasons, being that its easier to organise fights based on weight divisions that we know. However height and reach advantages do exist in boxing whether you like it or not. These are still factors in getting hit and not getting hit, since you watch boxing you have to acknowledge this. Speed divisions don't exist either. Are you going to say that speed is less important than weight too? Again you are ignoring other factors while allowing for those that support your position. It's no good harping on about Holyfields ko record at cruiser, while ignoring the fact that most of these were low level fighters and men much shorter than himself. If you watch he's title run at 190 you can also see many of these wins were from he's high energy, wear you down style leading to the stoppages . Not from single power shots. But anyway, when he went to heavy he mixed in world class against very good fighters and then encountered the long period of he's career where he was old an shot and was losing fights. There's a reason Toney stopped him and Ruiz gave him hell. He was finished. This is why, yet again, stats ignoring the stage of career a guy is at, the style and defensive adeptness of the opponent and the condition of both fighters are relevant and you are not taking them into account, opting instead of seeing weight as the main factor. The fact is that nobody has improved their chin through weight gain. No mechanism exists in which bigger muscles on the torso or legs or in some fighters cases a belly full of fat can stop brain shake or the nerve at the side of the jaw causing collapse down the same side of the body from a punch is the other part of this that you refuse to look at. Brain stability, thick jaw and skull contribute to a good chin. The jury is still out on how much neck strength can prevent as far a knockouts are concerned. Bodyweight gain hasn't been shown to help, unless we're talking about someone rehydrating an improving the amount of fluid around the brain following killing themselves at a weight or actually weighing in for a fight. And we're not.

[bluepete]

Yes, statistics does trump expert's 'findings' that contradict those ACTUAL facts.



Correction: heavier boxers have better punch resistance and are more difficult to knockout in general.



Likewise, shorter men with shorter reach can use their agility advantages to land punches without getting punched in return through superior movement.

In other words, height and reach advantages are only advantages if a boxer knows how to use them. There's advantages of being short and tall.

However, weight is usually an advantage by default. One doesn't necessarily even need to know how to use it.



Yes, it is! Hence, the reasons why weight divisions exist in boxing and all combat sports.



I'm not dismissing the fact that they had great chins. I'm just arguing the point that weight is a more significant factor than skull thickness. Based on the fact that it's weight divisions that exists and not skull thickness divisions.



Like what?



Which example and example for what exactly?

The reason why I bought up the point about Evander Holyfield and Vitali Klitschko is to show that when everything is equal, the heavier boxer has the superior punch resistance.



Vitali Klitschko was hit many times. His defense wasn't as good as Wladimir Klitschko's. However, you could argue his defense was better than Evander Holyfield's.

Either way, there are other heavier boxers with ATG punch resistance like Nikolai Valuev and Mariusz Wach who have superior punch resistance compared to Evander Holyfield.

Evander Holyfield has been stopped a few times and has been dropped.

The heavier boxers with ATG chins like Mariusz Wach, Nikolai Valuev and Viali Klitschko were never dropped before.



A little baby can punch me with accumulations but wouldn't be capable of knocking me out. Why? Because of lack of power.

So you're wrong! Punching power is required, accumulation or not. A boxer needs sufficient power in the first place to KO opponents, irrespective of whether they are landing accumulation of punches or singular punches.

As far as Toney and Holyfield, Holyfield was the only top level heavyweight James Toney managed to stop. So what does it mean? It means very little!

It still doesn't change that James Toney's knockout percentage against heavyweights is SIGNIFICANTLY lower compared to his knockout percentage against sub heavyweights.



The cause of the chin advantage was due to weight. The cause of Manny Pacquiao failing to KO anybody since he stopped Miguel Cotto in 2009 is due to weight = heavier opponents have been more difficult to KO for Manny Pacquiao. The same applies to Floyd Mayweather as well.



Nothing to do with what I want, but everything to do with how boxing is. Hence, the reasons why weight divisions exist in boxing.



Actually, both GGG and Carl Froch regularly fight opponents their own size. They rarely fight opponents much bigger than themselves. If GGG ever moves up in weight, you'll discover the significance weight has on knockout records when GGG's knockout percentage decreases just as Manny Pacquiao's and Floyd Mayweather's knockout percentages decreased when they moved up in weight as well.



Of course, one boxer can have better punch resistance than another despite being the same weight. The point is, on average, heavier boxers are more difficult to KO than lighter opponents, especially when levels are equal (heavier bum > lighter bum or heavier ATG > lighter ATG).



In what way are they 'impractical' and more difficult? Care to explain in more detail by elaborating?

Nope, skull thickness is the defining factor. That is why there is such a difference between peoples chins at the same weight. If it were weight then everyone's chin in a similar division would be similar. They are not. Any one who's ever been to a gym and got in the ring would tell you you most certainly have to know what your doing to deliver power. Some have an aptitude it's true, but just being heavy doesn't give you a more powerful punch.I know this firsthand, been in there with big heavy men all my life. Some of them can't punch. The fact that you don't want to know doesmr change a thing. To say a man like Vitali has a better chin than Holyfield requires a better look at who they fought. Holyfield at he's best fought tremendous fighters and many good punchers. He was only stopped once before he was shot. Vitali only fought two very good punchers who actually hit him solidly. One was Sanders, who had him hurt. The other was Lennox, who also couldn't put Evander away. So there is nothing to suggest that Vitali physically had a better chin. Better defence yes. But a lower level of fighters faced and far less shots absorbed thrown by power punchers.As for Valuev. Who did he fight who was a world class fighter? Who did he fight who was a power puncher. One man. Haye . Valuev never fought anyone like who Holyfield did. He lost to Changaev for goodness sake. A very old Holyfield barely lost a controversial decision to him. I know stages of career don't seem to matter to you. Why is that? You think Berwick fight Ali was the same as the guy who beat Liston? As for the child hitting you, stop being silly. All pro fighters can hurt you if they land enough. Percentages landed matter, most stoppages aren't from one punch. They are from more than one and accuracy is more important than brute power mostly. Froch was always very much the lighter man in he's contests, for instance against Bute giving away 8lb.If durability was related to weight wouldn't the more durable men in any given division be the heaviest? You are talking averages, but they are meaningless because there are many other factors. You can't take weight and assume it gives any protection from knockouts when it often makes no difference. I'm fact it's often the exact opposite, in terms of power too. This shouldn't happen. In relation to the fantasy fight that started all this, Joshuas extra weight offers no inbuilt protection based on the fact that Tyson felled many big men in he's prime, some in the 240s,some of 6 5 or 6 6,and just had a style perfected against bigger men with less than iron chins. Yiu want to count in McBride ect when talking about prime Mike . And the fact that you think Tyson wouldve been a nuisance based on height and weight, to anyone, let alone a man with only one reap name on he's ledger shows how unrealistic your view is. On paper it might look good to you. To everyone else, Joshua included its absurd in the extreme.

[NahMean]

Lol made this thread ages ago but this news is only now being talked about by websites and boxing YouTubers.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Height and reach divisions don't exist for practical reasons, being that its easier to organise fights based on weight divisions that we know. However height and reach advantages do exist in boxing whether you like it or not. These are still factors in getting hit and not getting hit, since you watch boxing you have to acknowledge this. Speed divisions don't exist either. Are you going to say that speed is less important than weight too? Again you are ignoring other factors while allowing for those that support your position. It's no good harping on about Holyfields ko record at cruiser, while ignoring the fact that most of these were low level fighters and men much shorter than himself. If you watch he's title run at 190 you can also see many of these wins were from he's high energy, wear you down style leading to the stoppages . Not from single power shots. But anyway, when he went to heavy he mixed in world class against very good fighters and then encountered the long period of he's career where he was old an shot and was losing fights. There's a reason Toney stopped him and Ruiz gave him hell. He was finished. This is why, yet again, stats ignoring the stage of career a guy is at, the style and defensive adeptness of the opponent and the condition of both fighters are relevant and you are not taking them into account, opting instead of seeing weight as the main factor. The fact is that nobody has improved their chin through weight gain. No mechanism exists in which bigger muscles on the torso or legs or in some fighters cases a belly full of fat can stop brain shake or the nerve at the side of the jaw causing collapse down the same side of the body from a punch is the other part of this that you refuse to look at. Brain stability, thick jaw and skull contribute to a good chin. The jury is still out on how much neck strength can prevent as far a knockouts are concerned. Bodyweight gain hasn't been shown to help, unless we're talking about someone rehydrating an improving the amount of fluid around the brain following killing themselves at a weight or actually weighing in for a fight. And we're not.

Height and reach divisions don't exist for practical reasons, being that its easier to organise fights based on weight divisions that we know.

You've already stated this. I then asked you to explain how / why, which you've failed to do so far.

However height and reach advantages do exist in boxing whether you like it or not.

I never claimed they don't exist. Just that they weren't DEFAULT advantages and that any advantage one may have in height and reach, can be overcome with other advantages that their opponents may possess.

On the other hand, weight can be a DEFAULT advantage and sometimes it can't be overcome by a boxer who is facing a weight disadvantage. Hence, weight classes exist and no other classes exist.

So weight is the biggest factor in boxing, whether you like it or not.

Speed divisions don't exist either. Are you going to say that speed is less important than weight too?

Yes, it is. Otherwise, Manny Pacquiao would be allowed to fight the Klitschkos or Anthony Joshua since he is much faster than them. However, his speed advantage is insignificant compared to his weight disadvantage. Thus, weight advantage > speed advantage. Despite Pacquiao's speed advantages, he won't be allowed to step into the ring against Joshua or a Klitschko.

It's no good harping on about Holyfields ko record at cruiser, while ignoring the fact that most of these were low level fighters and men much shorter than himself.

You do realize the two opponents he failed to KO even at cruiserweight were actually shorter than him (Dwight Muhammad Qawi and Lionel Byarm). Thus, it's a myth that he struggled as much against taller opponents as you claim.

In addition, his cruiserweight knockout record compared to his heavyweight knockout record proves that weight plays a big role in how high or low someone's knockout percentage is. The fact that Holyfield's KO percentage was higher at cruiserweight and lower at heavyweight proves that heavier opponents were more difficult for him to knock out.

Evander Holyfield became the unified cruiserweight champion. You don't achieve that without fighting top level competition. So yes, he did beat top level opposition.

If you watch he's title run at 190 you can also see many of these wins were from he's high energy, wear you down style leading to the stoppages .

All of that is irrelevant because as already stated, one still requires power to KO opponents, irrespective of whether they're landing accumulations or single punches.

But anyway, when he went to heavy he mixed in world class against very good fighters and then encountered the long period of he's career where he was old an shot and was losing fights.

That's not a justifiable excuse for him having such a SIGNIFICANTLY lower knockout percentage than what he had at cruiserweight. It wasn't a 5 or 10% drop, but by over 50% He was a featherfist with a 38% KO percentage at heavyweight.

Other boxers have had careers at heavyweight which were just as long, if not longer and have had superior Knockout percentage than Holyfield against similar opposition. Thus, it's not an acceptable excuse to make for Holyfield.

There's a reason Toney stopped him and Ruiz gave him hell. He was finished.

Toney stopped him because of the laws of averages. If he were to fight Holyfield another 10 times, he would've probably failed to stop him. That stoppage means very little because it was a rare instance. Toney wasn't regularly knocking out opponents at heavyweight and Holyfield wasn't regularly getting stopped by opponents either.

17900045 This is why, yet again, stats ignoring the stage of career a guy is at, the style and defensive adeptness of the opponent and the condition of both fighters are relevant and you are not taking them into account, opting instead of seeing weight as the main factor.

I'm seeing weight as the main factor because it's a CONSISTENT factor. Meaning, many boxers CONSISTENTLY (not just Evander Holyfield) have their KO percentage decreased as they step up to fight heavier opponents. Thus, it's a genuine factor which affects KO percentage. I can list many other boxers too.

As far as stage of career, it can be interpreted subjectively by different people. One can say a boxer lost when he was young because he was too inexperienced. Another person can say that a boxer lost when he was old because he declined. These are excuses. I'm not just going to ignore them because you subjectively believe that a boxer is better at one point than another. You can list a magical time for many boxers and then claim that said boxer is unbeatable / invincible at that period. However, that doesn't work with me. I objectively analyse / evaluate entire careers.

The fact is that nobody has improved their chin through weight gain.

No, it's a fact that boxers improve their punch resistance through adding weight. Hence, James Toney wouldn't have been allowed to fight heavyweights had he weighed 160 pounds because he would've been too light, thus lacking the punch resistance to absorb punches from heavyweights.

This is why James Toney had to weigh 200 pounds or more in order to qualify fighting heavyweights. That alone is sufficient evidence that weight does indeed improve punch resistance. Otherwise, if weight doesn't improve punch resisstance, then why can't a cruiserweight or a heavyweight fight a middleweight? It's because weight does play a role in punch resistance and power.

; No mechanism exists in which bigger muscles on the torso or legs or in some fighters cases a belly full of fat can stop brain shake or the nerve at the side of the jaw causing collapse down the same side of the body from a punch is the other part of this that you refuse to look at.

I question your understanding of science. The heavier a person is, the more force is required to cause trauma. You do realize this, right?

At heavyweight more than any other division, what composes someone's weight is irrelevant. It doesn't even matter whether the weight is mainly composed of fat or muscles. A heavier person is generally going to be more difficult to KO than a lighter person. Hence, weight divisions exist and not any other division.

Brain stability, thick jaw and skull contribute to a good chin.

Perhaps, perhaps not. However, they aren't as significant as weight considering there aren't any divisions for jaw / skull thickness. If boxing were to introduce a skull / jaw thickness division, only then would I consider it as something as significant as weight. Until then, I refuse to accept them as things more significant or as significant as weight.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Nope, skull thickness is the defining factor. That is why there is such a difference between peoples chins at the same weight. If it were weight then everyone's chin in a similar division would be similar. They are not. Any one who's ever been to a gym and got in the ring would tell you you most certainly have to know what your doing to deliver power. Some have an aptitude it's true, but just being heavy doesn't give you a more powerful punch.I know this firsthand, been in there with big heavy men all my life. Some of them can't punch. The fact that you don't want to know doesmr change a thing. To say a man like Vitali has a better chin than Holyfield requires a better look at who they fought. Holyfield at he's best fought tremendous fighters and many good punchers. He was only stopped once before he was shot. Vitali only fought two very good punchers who actually hit him solidly. One was Sanders, who had him hurt. The other was Lennox, who also couldn't put Evander away. So there is nothing to suggest that Vitali physically had a better chin. Better defence yes. But a lower level of fighters faced and far less shots absorbed thrown by power punchers.As for Valuev. Who did he fight who was a world class fighter? Who did he fight who was a power puncher. One man. Haye . Valuev never fought anyone like who Holyfield did. He lost to Changaev for goodness sake. A very old Holyfield barely lost a controversial decision to him. I know stages of career don't seem to matter to you. Why is that? You think Berwick fight Ali was the same as the guy who beat Liston? As for the child hitting you, stop being silly. All pro fighters can hurt you if they land enough. Percentages landed matter, most stoppages aren't from one punch. They are from more than one and accuracy is more important than brute power mostly. Froch was always very much the lighter man in he's contests, for instance against Bute giving away 8lb.If durability was related to weight wouldn't the more durable men in any given division be the heaviest? You are talking averages, but they are meaningless because there are many other factors. You can't take weight and assume it gives any protection from knockouts when it often makes no difference. I'm fact it's often the exact opposite, in terms of power too. This shouldn't happen. In relation to the fantasy fight that started all this, Joshuas extra weight offers no inbuilt protection based on the fact that Tyson felled many big men in he's prime, some in the 240s,some of 6 5 or 6 6,and just had a style perfected against bigger men with less than iron chins. Yiu want to count in McBride ect when talking about prime Mike . And the fact that you think Tyson wouldve been a nuisance based on height and weight, to anyone, let alone a man with only one reap name on he's ledger shows how unrealistic your view is. On paper it might look good to you. To everyone else, Joshua included its absurd in the extreme.

That is why there is such a difference between peoples chins at the same weight. If it were weight then everyone's chin in a similar division would be similar. They are not

When two boxers weigh the same, other factors come into play. However, when they weigh differently, the extra weight of the heavier person plays a bigger role in punch resistance than anything else.

, but just being heavy doesn't give you a more powerful punch.

Someone who is heavy and untrained would usually have more power than someone who is light and untrained.

Someone who is well trained and heavy will usually have more power than someone who is light and well trained.

These are the reasons why weight divisions exist. When two boxers are equal in technique and skill (or close to it), the heavier boxer will have a huge unfair advantage which the lighter boxer can't overcome.

To say a man like Vitali has a better chin than Holyfield requires a better look at who they fought.

They fought a few common opponents and both fought similar level of opposition. Vitali Klitschko fought the best of his era and Holyfield did the same. Yet, it was Holyfield who was dropped multiple times in his career. Vitali Klitschko WAS NEVER dropped by anybody, even when he reached the same age that Evander Holyfield was getting stopped at or getting knocked down at.

So there is nothing to suggest that Vitali physically had a better chin.

Except the fact that Vitali was never dropped in his boxing career whilst Holyfield was multiple times.

Better defence yes.

That as well, but not by much.

But a lower level of fighters faced and far less shots absorbed thrown by power punchers

Sentence makes no sense to me!

As for Valuev. Who did he fight who was a world class fighter? Who did he fight who was a power puncher. One man. Haye . Valuev never fought anyone like who Holyfield did. He lost to Changaev for goodness sake. A very old Holyfield barely lost a controversial decision to him.

He fought similar caliber opposition or better opponents than the two boxers that knocked down / dropped Evander Holyfield (Bert Cooper and James Toney). Yet, unlike Holyfield, Valuev was never dropped in his career and Haye has a better knockout record than either Bert Cooper or James Toney at heavyweight and even he couldn't even drop Valuev. In addition, Valuev's defense and skills were inferior, even compared to Holyfield. So he was getting hit plenty. His size is what gave him the career he had, despite being so inferior skill wise. Thus, proving that weight can make up for lack of skills at heavyweight.

Chagaev is arguably better than Bert Cooper as a heavyweight and even he couldn't drop him the way Cooper dropped Holyfield. Losing is irrelevant because the topic is more about punch resistance and power related to weight than winning records.

I know stages of career don't seem to matter to you. Why is that?

It doesn't matter much to me because it can be interpreted subjectively by different individuals. It only matters when objective and irrefutable facts can be brought forward.

As for the child hitting you, stop being silly. All pro fighters can hurt you if they land enough.

But not all pro fighters have sufficient power to KO everybody. Roman Gonzalez is unlikely to KO Nikolai Valuev or Vitali Klitschko, irrespective of what he does in the ring (legally). That's because he lacks power, which is due to his lack of size / weight in comparison.

Froch was always very much the lighter man in he's contests, for instance against Bute giving away 8lb

Carl Froch (Like GGG) has fought only in one division throughout his career. We would've seen how much weight would've affected his knockout percentage had he moved up in weight as such a thing happened to many other boxers who moved up in weight. Including (but not limited to) Manny Pacquiao, Roy Jones Jr, Floyd Mayweather Jr, James Toney and even Thomas Hearns.

Unless a sub-heavyweight boxer is moving up in weight above his natural weight division, he doesn't have to worry as much about weight because there is a weight limit in his division. Only in heavyweight is the weight unlimited.

If durability was related to weight wouldn't the more durable men in any given division be the heaviest?

This doesn't apply much to boxers below heavyweight because most boxers are more or less the same weight in other divisions.

However, at heavyweight, the heaviest boxers with the best punch resistance (Vitali Klitschko, Mariusz Wach and Nikolai Valuev) have better punch resistance than lighter boxers with the best punch resistance.

You are talking averages, but they are meaningless because there are many other factors.

No, they aren't meaningless because if you're going to use an average light boxer, then you will have to compare their punch resistance and power to an average heavy boxer. It's unfair and not objective to compare the punch resistance to an ATG light boxer to a bummy heavy boxer.

And the fact that you think Tyson wouldve been a nuisance based on height and weight, to anyone, let alone a man with only one reap name on he's ledger shows how unrealistic your view is. On paper it might look good to you. To everyone else, Joshua included its absurd in the extreme.

[/QUOTE]

I've already taken that point back.

In relation to the fantasy fight that started all this, Joshuas extra weight offers no inbuilt protection based on the fact that Tyson felled many big men in he's prime, some in the 240s,some of 6 5 or 6 6,and just had a style perfected against bigger men with less than iron chins. Yiu want to count in McBride ect when talking about prime Mike .

Except Mike Tyson rarely knocked out anybody during his 'prime' years that were the same size (in height and reach) to Anthony Joshua and the same caliber. Out of all non-bummy boxers above 6 foot 3 inches tall, he only managed to stop Lou Savarese and failed against everyone else. The time he did fight opponents above 230 pounds was after 1990's (the time you and many others claim he wasn't in his peak any longer) and his KO% against such opponents was much lower than against his lighter opposition.