Anthony Joshua Reveals How A Fight With Mike Tyson Would Go

[juggernaut666]

This user has practically self - admitted and self - exposed themselves as a troll (even if indirectly). Read through my previous response to learn why. It continues to get more and more hilarious.

I only read what you quote and believe me i think i have you beat with ALL the posts he posted to me in total. Go ahead go read comment 221 pg 23 and see how confused he actually is lol

He was coming around and even finally admiited size was an advantage but than became wacky pete again when the convo went into the MMA directions which i actually know more abourt bc i dont just box . Hes getting mugged left and right .

[Mr Objecitivity]

I'm a Troll for having an opinion. Your buddy just claimed at 170 he hits harder than Wilder, and punches harder than Jimi Manuwa kicks. What do you think of that at the National office of statistics? Hahaha

You've accepted yourself as a potential troll by the following statement:

I don't care what you accept.

If you don't care about others accepting your claims in a PUBLIC thread, then why are you posting those claims (the only other possible or most likely reason would be because you are trolling).

[bluepete]

1) Well what is the 'main factor' for having weight divisions in the first place then if not for it being the main factor for the likelihood of knocking out an opponent and not being knocked out in return for the heavier boxer? In addition, why are there multiple examples of multiple boxers having a CAREER lower KO percentage against heavier opponents than against lighter opponents?

2)

What's that supposed to mean?

3) If we REMOVE the word 'power' with the word 'KNOCKOUT CAPABILITIES', then my argument still stands, which is that the likelihood of a boxer knocking out heavier opposition will be lower than against lighter opposition. Whether it's 'power', or whether it's mystical 'OTHER FACTORS', my argument still stands, Which is that heavier boxers NORMALLY will have the better punch resistance and KNOCKOUT CAPABILITIES (replacing the word 'power') than lighter boxers.

4) Like with the word 'power', if we replace the word 'chin' with the word 'KNOCKOUT RESISTANCE', then my argument still stands, which is that heavier boxers will NORMALLY be less likely to get knocked out than lighter boxers.

At this point, it appears you're just playing around with semantics.

5) Julius Long getting knocked out proves that being TALL doesn't make you as resistant to getting knocked out as you have been claiming all along (making excuses for why Valuev has never been knocked out). Julius Long is naturally lighter than Nikolai Valuev but practically the exact same height.

6) My reason for comparing Holyfield to Valuev was to demonstrate that the best heaviest boxers with the greatest PUNCH RESISTANCE / KNOCKOUT RESISTANCE / CHIN have even better PUNCH RESISTANCE / KNOCKOUT RESISTANCE / CHIN than the best lightest boxers with the best PUNCH RESISTANCE / KNOCKOUT RESISTANCE / CHIN and my point is evidently true.

7) David Haye has a better knockout record at modern heavyweight than anybody Evander Holyfield fought, except Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis. With the exception of Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis and perhaps George Foreman, the caliber of opposition both Holyfield and Valuev fought on average are comparable at heavyweight.

8) Criticizing my knowledge and profession is irrelevant. You're yet to actually offer a logically sound & valid rebuttal argument. Are there others who know more about boxing than me? ABSOLUTELY! However, does their claims automatically become true just because they claimed something without those claims being substantiated? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

9) Do you even know what an Ad Hominem (personal attack) is? Read this to learn about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I didn't claim you physically attacked me. You were verbally attacking my character / personality, which is a logical fallacy.

Seriously, you're seriously exposing basic lack of knowledge in logic that anybody with average intelligence should be aware of, including pre-teens.

Perhaps stay out of boxing for awhile and take some logic courses? That might be more important for your life.


10) You've given your 'theory' but they aren't substantiated. Thus, no objective individual has any reason to accept them. My arguments have been substantiated by evidence, statistics and logically laid out data.

11) When two boxers are the same weight, other factors come into play and that's when those other factors are significant. However, when two boxers weigh different, weight is more significant and those other factors become less significant. Hence, the purpose of having weight divisions.




1)

Then why are you making claims then in a public thread? It's not just me not accepting your unsubstantiated claims but any objective individual. Either you're making claims because you want others to accept your claims. Or, you're just doing it for the sake of it (in which case you've just exposed yourself indirectly as a troll).

2) The evidence (statistics) do suggest that weight improves punch resistance. Science also does. There's a thing called 'MOMENTUM'. If you knew what it was, you would know how it affects punch resistance and power. If you didn't, then perhaps research upon it.

3) ,

A typical reproach against my analyses is to shout "Stats! Stats! Stats! Your stats don't tell the whole story".

Well, fortunately for me "Stats! Stats! Stats!" are "Facts! Facts! Facts!" thus anyone complaining about statistics is complaining about reality ("Arithmetic is not an opinion").

It's true, that a statistic like "1 KO in 1 fight = 100% KO'ratio" is ridiculous but a record of 30, 40, 50 and more fights _IS_ representative. You _CAN_ deduct things from it. You _CAN_ interpret it correctly.

4) Me making the statement (paraphrasing) 'Mike Tyson will be a minor irritant' was something called 'OVER EXAGGERATION'. Ever heard of that word before?

Even if it was an error, if I've already accepted the error and am ready to move on, then why should there be any need for you to bring it up again? One mistake has no bearing on my other arguments (which aren't directly connected).

4) Sparring and REAL bouts are SIGNIFICANTLY different. As in, I don't need to see sparring to know acknowledge why heavyweights (200 pounders) aren't allowed to fight opponents weighing below 200 pounds. Sparring sessions have no bearing on why the heavyweight division exists and why 200 pounders at heavyweight aren't allowed to fight sub - heavyweights. 200 might not be a 'magic' number, but it is a very IMPORTANT and SIGNIFICANT number, just like numbers 175, 168, 160, 154 and 147 are. Hence, the rule makers decided to divide boxers by those weight values / numbers.

Seeing size advantage and thinking it means the more weight the bigger the advantages. This is where your coming from. I get it. Im giving my opinion. If you think I'm a Troll you are a fool for talking to me. Everyone who writes on this site is giving theres.It doesn't tally with yours or how you interpret the numbers. So what? It seems to bother you that I don't agree with you. Get used to it. Hopefully you are wrong about science suggesting that weight improves punch resistance, because in Juggernaut, we have a supermiddle who hits harder than Deontay Wilder, and has a harder punch than a Muay Thai kick. How can those smaller men withstand it. He's going to kill someone. The more divisions the more titles the more money. Remember, those werent always the magic numbers. Some say boxing was better before so many weight classes. Go figure.

[bluepete]

You've accepted yourself as a potential troll by the following statement:



If you don't care about others accepting your claims in a PUBLIC thread, then why are you posting those claims (the only other possible or most likely reason would be because you are trolling).

I didn't realise I was here to be accepted by you or anyone else. People disagree on here all the time and express differences of opinions all the time. Are they all trolling? Is it only those who disagree with you who are trolling. That's abit Narcissistic.

[bluepete]

I only read what you quote and believe me i think i have you beat with ALL the posts he posted to me in total. Go ahead go read comment 221 pg 23 and see how confused he actually is lol

He was coming around and even finally admiited size was an advantage but than became wacky pete again when the convo went into the MMA directions which i actually know more abourt bc i dont just box . Hes getting mugged left and right .

I don't just box either. I'm at an MMA gym and I've said so all along. You punch harder than Muay Thai guys kick, you can't get more wacky than that. As for mugging, I come from Peckham, I know what mugging means. I'm just having a chat with two people who love to talk to me, that's all. 😊

[Mr Objecitivity]

I didn't realise I was here to be accepted by you or anyone else. People disagree on here all the time and express differences of opinions all the time. Are they all trolling? Is it only those who disagree with you who are trolling. That's abit Narcissistic.

I didn't realise I was here to be accepted by you or anyone else.

if you're going to make any claims on a public thread, the default purpose (unless specified) would be because you want others to accept your claims. So again, I ask why are you making claims then if not for others in this public thread (not just me) to accept your claims?

People disagree on here all the time and express differences of opinions all the time. Are they all trolling?

Disagreeing doesn't make on a troll. Making claims for the sake of it without any good reason (which appears to be the category you fall under) qualifies one as a troll.

Hopefully you are wrong about science suggesting that weight improves punch resistance

Research about 'MOMENTUM' (If you already don't know what it is) to know why and how weight affects punch resistance and power.

because in Juggernaut, we have a supermiddle who hits harder than Deontay Wilder, and has a harder punch than a Muay Thai kick.

That's an 'ANECDOTAL' evidence / fallacy. Thus, they can be disregarded and deemed irrelevant.

The more divisions the more titles the more money. Remember, those werent always the magic numbers. Some say boxing was better before so many weight classes. Go figure.

Weight divisions were created due to HIGH QUANTITY of mismatches in boxing. Which is evident by how often a boxer having a weight advantage wins compared to the boxer that is lighter. In other words, the heavier boxer wins more frequently than the lighter boxer (that doesn't mean the lighter boxer can't win at all, but that they have a lower chance of winning). This goes hand in hand with knockouts as well.

[Mr Objecitivity]

I only read what you quote and believe me i think i have you beat with ALL the posts he posted to me in total. Go ahead go read comment 221 pg 23 and see how confused he actually is lol

He was coming around and even finally admiited size was an advantage but than became wacky pete again when the convo went into the MMA directions which i actually know more abourt bc i dont just box . Hes getting mugged left and right .

I agree! I've read those comments and even earlier ones and have seen the gradual changes in the conclusions of that user. It goes from something like: 'Mike Tyson has no problems against taller opponents to something bizarre like: And with size tends to come weight. WTF! Lol.

Now, it appears the user is trying to argue that weight and size are DIFFERENT concepts. Lol

[bluepete]

You've accepted yourself as a potential troll by the following statement:



If you don't care about others accepting your claims in a PUBLIC thread, then why are you posting those claims (the only other possible or most likely reason would be because you are trolling).

I gotta admit though, I still get a chuckle out of the Julius Long thing. I didn't say people can't be knocked out when they are tall, only it's harder to reach them. Valuev was a decent boxer, Long wasn't. David Hayes a good puncher, but how can we know he was a better puncher than Bowe,Moorer or Alex's Stewart? Since they didn't fight the same guys? Maybe everyone who took Bowe or Moorer the distance does the same with Haye. There's no accurate way of comparing these punches therfore there's no accurate way to compare chin. Tell me, if on paper I have 20 fights and never go down but my opponents aren't that great and I'm not getting hit alot, do I have a better chin than a guy who's been down twice buts fought alot of good punchers with a crap defence? How can you know via the numbers?

[bluepete]

if you're going to make any claims on a public thread, the default purpose (unless specified) would be because you want others to accept your claims. So again, I ask why are you making claims then if not for others in this public thread (not just me) to accept your claims?



Disagreeing doesn't make on a troll. Making claims for the sake of it without any good reason (which appears to be the category you fall under) qualifies one as a troll.




Research about 'MOMENTUM' (If you already don't know what it is) to know why and how weight affects punch resistance and power.



That's an 'ANECDOTAL' evidence / fallacy. Thus, they can be disregarded and deemed irrelevant.



Weight divisions were created due to HIGH QUANTITY of mismatches in boxing. Which is evident by how often a boxer having a weight advantage wins compared to the boxer that is lighter. In other words, the heavier boxer wins more frequently than the lighter boxer (that doesn't mean the lighter boxer can't win at all, but that they have a lower chance of winning). This goes hand in hand with knockouts as well.

Its a public thread and I'm stating my opinion on it. An opinion gathered by fighting sparring training and being around the game. It's my point of view. And that's a good enough reason to share it. I didnt ask you to accept it. Me talking from experience doesn't make me a troll. I'll research momentum, if while I'm doing that you look up, quality of opposition and how two guys with similar records can be operating at different levels. How you can't compare chins as in Valuev Holyfield on paper at all. Because of different opponents, times circumstances ect. It may be Anecdotal, but according to Juggernaut, it happened, it's reality, and even just one small guys hitting harder than all these big guys and just one fist landing harder than a shin seems to call into question your whole theory. None of it means add weight get more power, add weight get better resistance. Your idea is if you don't accept my opinion i shouldn't give it. Too bad.If you think I'm a troll, then you must he a bit of a fool to waste time on me.

[HAMMER77777]

No, I'm a realist. Joshua would've beaten Tyson, too much of a size difference.


Posted from Boxingscene.com App for Android

It doesnt matter. MT KO'd guys who were larger. I would Say prime ALI beats AJ. Close 15 round decision.