Anthony Joshua Reveals How A Fight With Mike Tyson Would Go

[bluepete]

Guy give it up ,theres a reason why k.o percentages drop the HEAVIER the opposition weighs on average . Im done with you too,utter nonsense with about everything you posted above !

If you're done you're done. Nothing about being heavier makes you more resistant to power, especially Tyson type power. Having a chin is all that saves you. That's why Golota was knocked down and quit at 242.Bruno knocked down and stopped at 247.Saverese, Francis ect. All flattened. Thats why you needed a shot Tyson against McBride, Williams, Lewis ect to prove your point. All you did was prove mine. All of those fights were a much heavier Tyson. Ineffective and lacking stamina. Hmm, wonder if there's a connection? If Joshua was abit lighter he mightve stopped Wlad in the fifth, instead of gassing. He was helpless at the end of that round against 40year old Wlad. Tyson wouldn't have gassed in he's prime like that. Outlast Tyson in nine? You're high.

[juggernaut666]

If you're done you're done. Nothing about being heavier makes you more resistant to power, especially Tyson type power. Having a chin is all that saves you. That's why Golota was knocked down and quit at 242.Bruno knocked down and stopped at 247.Saverese, Francis ect. All flattened. Thats why you needed a shot Tyson against McBride, Williams, Lewis ect to prove your point. All you did was prove mine. All of those fights were a much heavier Tyson. Ineffective and lacking stamina. Hmm, wonder if there's a connection? IfJoshau was abit lighter he mightve stopped Wlad in the fifth, instead of gassing. He was helpless at the end of that round against 40year old Wlad. Tyson wouldn't have gassed in he's prime like that. Outlast Tyson in nine? You're high.

Let me give you a LITTLE EDUCATION pete , first IF Whyte was 225 he wouldn't last 3 rnds with Joshua bc it was his DIRECT girth of 250 which kept him standing for 7 ,even though Joshua toyed in the beginning .

Second ..Your using select matches when FACTS show the heavier guy USUALLY wins and ANYONE knowledgeable enough knows weight almost always determines or helps an outcome so you can use Tyson all you like ,you obviously have reading comprehension problems to what i posted ?

Thirdly .Joshua weighed MORE than Wlad by 10 pounds bc he thought he may need the EXTRA weight to take HEAVIER punches jand maybe that EXTRA weight did save him? Yes he should be 245 for now but hes only 19 fights in and will weigh DIFFERENTY depending on who hes fighting .

Fourth . PRIME Tyson was about 30 pounds lighter than Joshua so OBVIUOSLY his punch out put is higher as well as his movements . No one of bad stamina goes 11 with Klitchko after getting knocked down or EVER going past 7 .......of course you knew stamina comes with rnds experience RIGHT pete ?


O.K im REALLY done now as i can easily go up too 10 here with all the wrong things you posted but i wont !

[bluepete]

Let me give you a LITTLE EDUCATION pete , first IF Whyte was 225 he wouldn't last 3 rnds with Joshua bc it was his DIRECT girth of 250 which kept him standing for 7 ,even though Joshua toyed in the beginning .

Second ..Your using select matches when FACTS show the heavier guy USUALLY wins and ANYONE knowledgeable enough knows weight almost always determines or helps an outcome so you can use Tyson all you like ,you obviously have reading comprehension problems to what i posted ?

Thirdly .Joshua weighed MORE than Wlad by 10 pounds bc he thought he may need the EXTRA weight to take HEAVIER punches jand maybe that EXTRA weight did save him? Yes he should be 245 for now but hes only 19 fights in and will weigh DIFFERENTY depending on who hes fighting .

Fourth . PRIME Tyson was about 30 pounds lighter than Joshua so OBVIUOSLY his punch out put is higher as well as his movements . No one of bad stamina goes 11 with Klitchko after getting knocked down or EVER going past 7 .......of course you knew stamina comes with rnds experience RIGHT pete ?


O.K im REALLY done now as i can easily go up too 10 here with all the wrong things you posted but i wont !

We're we not originally debating a Tyson Joshua fantasy fight? So the issue here is whether the extra weight he has would help him overcome Tyson power. Although I keep demonstrating that Tyson put away men in the 240s your still blocking this out. That's where it's relevant right? Whether it would be help Joshua. How do you know Whyte being 225 would've had him out of there in 3? This is based on nothing. You think the fat on he's midsection helped him take head punches? If anything he may well haven moved more effectively. Regardless this is a matter of skill not weight, those extra pounds achieved nothing. Comparing Joshua's stamina against a 41 year old with a low punch output to how he'd have done with the Tyson who poured on combination after combination and never stopped pressing is completely illogical. Joshua was gassed early against Whyte because he went for the knockout and in the 5th against Wlad he was totally punched out laying on the ropes at the end of the round against a guy he'd dropped as hurt. He was still tired by the 6th, which contributed to him being dropped. He isn't capable of avoiding a prime Mike, doesn't move on he'd feet like Tucker and Biggs to avoid the early rush. Not fast enough with hes jab, lead left hook or one twos. Hows he gonna hit Mike full pelt, he's much slower. Despite Haye and Wilder still being in the 220s and regularly knocking out guys 240plus,despite men in the 220s regularly lasting with men Wlad's size, Haye, Povetkin, Byrd in fight one in he's case, you still think a guy at 225 gets steamrolled by a guy because he's 240plus.It has nothing to do with it. Its a liability against a good, lighter, faster heavyweight 'puncher'. And that's what we're talking about.

[bluepete]

Let me give you a LITTLE EDUCATION pete , first IF Whyte was 225 he wouldn't last 3 rnds with Joshua bc it was his DIRECT girth of 250 which kept him standing for 7 ,even though Joshua toyed in the beginning .

Second ..Your using select matches when FACTS show the heavier guy USUALLY wins and ANYONE knowledgeable enough knows weight almost always determines or helps an outcome so you can use Tyson all you like ,you obviously have reading comprehension problems to what i posted ?

Thirdly .Joshua weighed MORE than Wlad by 10 pounds bc he thought he may need the EXTRA weight to take HEAVIER punches jand maybe that EXTRA weight did save him? Yes he should be 245 for now but hes only 19 fights in and will weigh DIFFERENTY depending on who hes fighting .

Fourth . PRIME Tyson was about 30 pounds lighter than Joshua so OBVIUOSLY his punch out put is higher as well as his movements . No one of bad stamina goes 11 with Klitchko after getting knocked down or EVER going past 7 .......of course you knew stamina comes with rnds experience RIGHT pete ?


O.K im REALLY done now as i can easily go up too 10 here with all the wrong things you posted but i wont !

You can't educate me on this because I've been in there. Ive seen several fighters who didn't get better in any way when they bulked up. I trained with Lloyd Honeygan, Derek Angol, even the Simms brothers who ran my amateur gym. Everyone knows weight doesn't help power. You clearly can't handle a difference in opinion. Mine come from experience, and lessons from people who've been there. And of course countless examples of heavyweight carrying unnecessary bulk that hasn't prevented them being stopped or knocked out. You used Breazle as an example. But Bruno is a good example of a big man with power, who actually fought the man in question. Where was the extra durability? Where was the extra power. Did he last longer or make a better impression? Did the extra muscle work? . If you'd watched the second fight first you'd be on here saying "Bruno only lasted as long as he did because he was 247.If he'd been 225 he'd have been out of there quicker".Didnt work out that way did it? . It's the opposite. Use your brain, how does extra bodyweight stop your brain rattling? How does it stop the nerve pressure on your jaw making your leg go dead? Now how does being lighter help? You move quicker on your feet and your head moves faster. Fact.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Talk about cherry picking, although I do admire the amount of effort you put into your reply. The evidence you stated that the higher the weight of fighter Tyson fought the more resistant they were to his punches was a good case of seeing half the story. Like I told you, the lighter guys were largely at the beginning of hes career, low level types who he crushed. The better fighters were in he's championship reign obviously. The very heavy men largely were when he was on the downside of he's career. For Nielsen, who he stopped, we actually have a case of Tyson himself coming in at 240lbs, and admitting that he didnt feel the power he usually had in interview after. He also fought Williams at a heavier, far more muscular weight, and when he was well past he's prime. Nobody disputes this was a shot Tyson, including Danny himself, who I've spoke to many times and trained beside at the Lynn AC boxing club in camberwell. Tyson had Williams seriously wobbled, then injured his knees. Who knows if he would've stopped him in the next few rounds. He hurt Berbick and Thomas in the first rounds of their fights, and uninjured, stopped them. It proves nothing that Williams got through the first round. Anyone Tyson stopped after the first wasn't impervious to he's power, he just took more than one round. It's idiotic to use this as an example of weight improving punch resistance. I've given you examples of much lighter men with good chins, the best in the division, and you come back with the "one off" excuse. What these "one offs" prove is that weight isn't connected to chin. Where's the actual evidence here? Where's the evidence James Toneys chin got better with the extra weight? This is just your opinion and connected to nothing. James Toney had a good chin and great skills. Head movement. It's harder to hit a moving target. You can't get full weight into the shots. That's why Mike never had trouble with power. Ruddock hit him with decent shots, but not the kind of shot that nearly killed Dokes.Think about it. We are talking about a peak Tyson here, not a shot one. Why do you keep comparing fights that happened at different stages? Holyfield actually did drop Tyson in their first fight for your information. Keep this truthful. And that version of Tyson was still much better than the seven years older fighter of the Lewis fight. Remember too, that Tyson came in at 233 in that fight. He looked like crap. Heavier, less mobile, less stamina. It makes you slower. It sapps your energy. The fact that you even dare to compare these two performances show how badly you want this extra weight thing to be right. As for the stamina issue, all you have to do is watch Whyte, who I've shared a gum with fighting Chisora or even Joshua. Look how slow the pace is. Watch some of the eighties heavyweight fights. The proof is before your eyes. Joshua, as big as he is, wobbled against Whyte clearly. Whyte isn't a big puncher, as he's proved in several fights at UK level. He's an accumulation puncher.But he still hurt Joshua. The weight doesn't prevent that. It does force you to fight at a slower pace. Beating a 41 year old Wlad, coming off a loss, who was stopped descively three times in he's career because he's own chin was shaky, despite he's weight, and who's best win is either Haye or Povetkin, smaller men who he couldn't stop, proves nothing about Joshua's comparison to the eighties crop of heavies. He has a high guard, little head movement, fights at a much lower pace, looked gassed by the fourth against Whyte, and has a very dentable chin, which he showed in the only two wins of consequence on he's record. Now he's beating some of the best skilled heavies of all time. In your mind.

Talk about cherry picking

'Cherry picking' what exactly? I could claim the same about you in regards to you selectively 'cherry picking' rare / uncommon / unusual / inconsistent feats to substantiate your claim that weight doesn't have any effect on punch resistance or punching power at heavyweight boxing.

The evidence you stated that the higher the weight of fighter Tyson fought the more resistant they were to his punches was a good case of seeing half the story.

The stats are available for Mike Tyson's ENTIRE CAREER. What is the other 'half of the story' you're referring to?

Like I told you, the lighter guys were largely at the beginning of hes career, low level types who he crushed. The better fighters were in he's championship reign obviously.

None of that changes the fact that Mike Tyson's knockout percentage were lower against heavier and taller opposition than lighter and shorter opposition of the same caliber.

The very heavy men largely were when he was on the downside of he's career.

Define 'downside'! That's a very vague term which can be interpreted many ways. How was he so 'downside' that he was unable to KO opponents he was able to land multiple of his hardest punches on? What exactly of Mike Tyson was on the 'downside'?

For Nielsen, who he stopped, we actually have a case of Tyson himself coming in at 240lbs,

Whether he came in at 220 pounds or 240 pounds isn't that relevant. The relevance is, Mike Tyson's knockout percentage was significantly lower against opponents above 230 pounds and even more so against opponents weighing above 250 pounds than opponents weighing below 230 pounds. That's a FACT!

and admitting that he didnt feel the power he usually had in interview after.

Again, none of that has any relevance to my original argument. There's no way to verify how truthful a boxer's claims are in an interview.

He also fought Williams at a heavier, far more muscular weight,

So what? How does that refute my argument that Mike Tyson's knockout percentage was lower against opponents weighing above 230 pounds than below?

and when he was well past he's prime.

Again, that's not an acceptable excuse. The 'past his prime' excuse is only acceptable if Mike Tyson failed to land his power punches on a skilled opponent, not if Mike Tyson was able to land multiple of his absolute hardest punches repeatedly.

If Mike Tyson was so 'past his prime', then why was he able to land so many of his power punches repeatedly on Danny William's face / body? If he was 'well past his prime', then he wouldn't have been able to land many, if any of his power punches in the first place.

Nobody disputes this was a shot Tyson, including Danny himself, who I've spoke to many times and trained beside at the Lynn AC boxing club in camberwell.

Again, whether Mike Tyson was 'shot' or not shot wouldn't have made much of a difference against Danny Williams because Mike Tyson was able to land his power punches at will on Danny Williams and was still unable to drop him, never mind KO him. If a 'shot' version of Mike Tyson was able to land his hardest punches repeatedly on Danny Williams without even dropping him, it's highly unlikely a non - shot version of Mike Tyson would've been able to KO him either because it's highly unlikely that a non-shot Mike Tyson would've had any extra power (boxers still usually retain their power, well after they become shot and power is usually one of the last attributes to decline from a boxer).

Tyson had Williams seriously wobbled, then injured his knees.

Doesn't change the fact that Mike Tyson was unable to KO a heavy bum in Danny Williams like he was able to KO a very light bum in 30 seconds like Marvis Frazier.

Danny Williams isn't a better boxer with a better record than Marvis Frazier. The only significant difference is, despite both being bums, Danny Williams was a very heavy bum (thus more difficult for Mike Tyson to knockout) whereas Marvis Frazier was a very light bum (thus easier for Mike Tyson to knockout).

Who knows if he would've stopped him in the next few rounds.

All speculation, but fact is, he failed against Danny Williams, just like he failed against many other larger sized heavyweights.

He hurt Berbick and Thomas in the first rounds of their fights, and uninjured, stopped them.

Mike Tyson also hurt many of his other opponents but failed to stop them. So what exactly is your point?

It proves nothing that Williams got through the first round.

It proves that a heavier bum (Danny Williams) is more difficult to knockout than a lighter bum (Marvis Frazier).

It proves that everything else being equal, a heavier opponent is more difficult to KO than a lighter opponent.

Anyone Tyson stopped after the first wasn't impervious to he's power, he just took more than one round.

I didn't claim any such thing. My point was, Mike Tyson's (along with many other heavyweight's) knockout record against lower opposition is usually higher than against heavier opposition. Thus proving that more often than not, heavier opponents are more difficult to KO.

It's idiotic to use this as an example of weight improving punch resistance.

No, it's not 'idiotic'. Otherwise, Mike Tyson should've been able to KO Danny Williams as quick as he knocked out Marvis Frazier (both being bums and have similar records).

I've given you examples of much lighter men with good chins, the best in the division, and you come back with the "one off" excuse.

I've never claimed lighter boxers couldn't have good punch resistance or even better punch resistance than some heavier boxers in the heavyweight division. That wasn't my point. My point was, a heavier opponent will be more difficult to knockout on average than a lighter heavyweight.

In other words, a heavier heavyweight will more often have better punch resistance than lighter heavyweights. That doesn't mean that you won't find a rare lighter heavyweight with better punch resistance than a heavier heavyweight. Just that, it's not as common. The amount of heavier heavyweights having very good punch resistance outnumbers the amount of lighter heavyweights having equally good punch resistance.

What these "one offs" prove is that weight isn't connected to chin.

Yes, it is. Otherwise, many of those boxers wouldn't have a lower knockout percentage against heavier opposition than against lighter opposition. This applies to Mike Tyson, Evander Holyfield and many other boxers.

Where's the actual evidence here?

The evidence is, boxers usually have a lower knockout percentage against heavier opposition (of the same caliber) than against lighter opposition.

Where's the evidence James Toneys chin got better with the extra weight?

My evidence lies within the rules of boxing, which is that James Toney wouldn't have even been allowed to compete against a heavyweight like Samuel Peter or Hasim if he were to weigh below 200 pounds. The fact that he wouldn't be allowed to compete against heavyweights if he were to weigh below 200 pounds proves that James Toney's punch resistance wouldn't have been good enough to take punches from heavyweights unless he also became a heavyweight himself.

What do you think would have happened had James Toney fought Samuel Peter or Hasim Rahman whilst weighing below 200 pounds? Most likely scenario is, he would've been knocked out. That's the reason why boxers weighing below 200 pounds aren't allowed to compete against heavyweights.

This is just your opinion and connected to nothing.

It's an opinion based on actual facts. It's connected with the rules of boxing.

Why do you keep comparing fights that happened at different stages?

What 'different stages'? I deem them relevant that's why.

Holyfield actually did drop Tyson in their first fight for your information.

Yes, with a punch to the chest which Mike Tyson got up from immediately without even looking hurt. Hardly the same as knocking someone down with a hurtful punch which keeps them down for the 10 count.

And that version of Tyson was still much better than the seven years older fighter of the Lewis fight.

Pure speculation! Is there any reliable way to verify which version of Mike Tyson was better? Otherwise, it just remains a personal opinion without any factual basis.

I could claim that Mike Tyson was just as good a boxer against Lennox Lewis as he was against Evander Holyfield. My claim won't be any less wrong than yours.

Remember too, that Tyson came in at 233 in that fight. He looked like crap. Heavier, less mobile, less stamina. It makes you slower. It sapps your energy.

Or perhaps Lennox Lewis was so much better against Mike Tyson than Evander Holyfield was against Mike Tyson that he made him look that bad?

All of what you wrote is just speculation.

Facts are, Lennox Lewis beat Mike Tyson far more convincingly than Evander Holyfield did.

8th round canvas KO (Lennox Lewis) > 11th round standing TKO (Evander Holyfield).

Not losing any round (Lennox Lewis) > losing multiple rounds (Evander Holyfield).

The fact that you even dare to compare these two performances show how badly you want this extra weight thing to be right.

Nothing to do with what I want. Rather, it's all to do with how it naturally is.

As for the stamina issue, all you have to do is watch Whyte, who I've shared a gum with fighting Chisora or even Joshua. Look how slow the pace is.

I can also list lighter boxers who have stamina, just as bad if not worse. Look at David Haye against Tony Thompson for example.

How can we know for sure that it's weight and simply not a lack of training / physical conditioning which was the cause of the poor stamina?

There are heavier boxers with very good conditioning too, just like there are lighter boxers with very good conditioning at heavyweight.

Joshua, as big as he is, wobbled against Whyte clearly.

So what? He still wasn't knocked out!

Whyte isn't a big puncher, as he's proved in several fights at UK level. He's an accumulation puncher.But he still hurt Joshua. The weight doesn't prevent that.

You're using a strawman logical fallacy. I haven't claimed that weight prevents one from being hurt. I'll reinstate my argument again:

Being heavier makes a boxer less likely to be knocked out than if they were lighter. That doesn't mean they can't be knocked out or even hurt. Just that it'll provide more protection.

It's similar to having a protective shield during battle / combat. Having it doesn't make one immune to getting killed or even hurt. Instead, it just reduces the likelihood by adding extra protection.

Beating a 41 year old Wlad, coming off a loss, who was stopped descively three times in he's career because he's own chin was shaky, despite he's weight, and who's best win is either Haye or Povetkin, smaller men who he couldn't stop, proves nothing about Joshua's comparison to the eighties crop of heavies.

A 41 year old Wlad still has a better heavyweight record and greater heavyweight accomplishments than any heavyweights from the 80's.

He has a high guard, little head movement, fights at a much lower pace, looked gassed by the fourth against Whyte, and has a very dentable chin, which he showed in the only two wins of consequence on he's record. Now he's beating some of the best skilled heavies of all time. In your mind.

So you're looking at only some of the negatives of Anthony Joshua. This can be done with any heavyweight in history. In fact, some of the heavyweights from the 80's have even worse negatives than Anthony Joshua.

Anthony Joshua's positives trumps the positives of practically any heavyweights of the 80'.

[Mr Objecitivity]

"it wouldn't be because the facts do support this notion."

Tyson never was close to remotely losing until he departed with Rooney and that is an actual fact not your statistic of irrelevance to the year EVERYONE knows when the era we are using is the 80's ,and even pre prison one could see vindictive Tyson vs Tillman/Bruno /Williams and Ruddock.

" Anthony Joshua fought Wladimir Klitschko and I don't see any reason to believe that Mike Tyson hits harder than Wladimir Klitschko. Wlad has a higher / better knockout percentage / record than Mike Tyson in virtually every department."

It doesnt really matter who hit harder , Tyson EASILY poses more threat to Joshua style wise (we all know Wlad can be beat if pressured bc he likes to calculate his moves ) Tyson would force Joshua into his own world and have to fend off HUGE shots coming his way . Joshua is NOT a clincher or staller ,you know this though .

"Mike Tyson couldn't finish Danny Williams and Brian Nielsen early (both roughly the same size as Joshua but are inferior), despite throwing his hardest punches on them multiple times. Thus, he is even less likely to do it against Anthony Joshua. "

Well it looks like weve reached the end here !

We might have to just agree to disagree in regards to the match up between Mike Tyson and Anthony Joshua. I personally think it's a mismatch in favor of Anthony Joshua whilst you think it's a closer bout. However, the main / original topic I was arguing about was the significance of weight in heavyweight boxing which I assume you would agree with me in regards to.

[bluepete]

We might have to just agree to disagree in regards to the match up between Mike Tyson and Anthony Joshua. I personally think it's a mismatch in favor of Anthony Joshua whilst you think it's a closer bout. However, the main / original topic I was arguing about was the significance of weight in heavyweight boxing which I assume you would agree with me in regards to.

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.

[juggernaut666]

We might have to just agree to disagree in regards to the match up between Mike Tyson and Anthony Joshua. I personally think it's a mismatch in favor of Anthony Joshua whilst you think it's a closer bout. However, the main / original topic I was arguing about was the significance of weight in heavyweight boxing which I assume you would agree with me in regards to.

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 ? !

[bluepete]

'Cherry picking' what exactly? I could claim the same about you in regards to you selectively 'cherry picking' rare / uncommon / unusual / inconsistent feats to substantiate your claim that weight doesn't have any effect on punch resistance or punching power at heavyweight boxing.



The stats are available for Mike Tyson's ENTIRE CAREER. What is the other 'half of the story' you're referring to?



None of that changes the fact that Mike Tyson's knockout percentage were lower against heavier and taller opposition than lighter and shorter opposition of the same caliber.



Define 'downside'! That's a very vague term which can be interpreted many ways. How was he so 'downside' that he was unable to KO opponents he was able to land multiple of his hardest punches on? What exactly of Mike Tyson was on the 'downside'?



Whether he came in at 220 pounds or 240 pounds isn't that relevant. The relevance is, Mike Tyson's knockout percentage was significantly lower against opponents above 230 pounds and even more so against opponents weighing above 250 pounds than opponents weighing below 230 pounds. That's a FACT!



Again, none of that has any relevance to my original argument. There's no way to verify how truthful a boxer's claims are in an interview.



So what? How does that refute my argument that Mike Tyson's knockout percentage was lower against opponents weighing above 230 pounds than below?



Again, that's not an acceptable excuse. The 'past his prime' excuse is only acceptable if Mike Tyson failed to land his power punches on a skilled opponent, not if Mike Tyson was able to land multiple of his absolute hardest punches repeatedly.

If Mike Tyson was so 'past his prime', then why was he able to land so many of his power punches repeatedly on Danny William's face / body? If he was 'well past his prime', then he wouldn't have been able to land many, if any of his power punches in the first place.



Again, whether Mike Tyson was 'shot' or not shot wouldn't have made much of a difference against Danny Williams because Mike Tyson was able to land his power punches at will on Danny Williams and was still unable to drop him, never mind KO him. If a 'shot' version of Mike Tyson was able to land his hardest punches repeatedly on Danny Williams without even dropping him, it's highly unlikely a non - shot version of Mike Tyson would've been able to KO him either because it's highly unlikely that a non-shot Mike Tyson would've had any extra power (boxers still usually retain their power, well after they become shot and power is usually one of the last attributes to decline from a boxer).



Doesn't change the fact that Mike Tyson was unable to KO a heavy bum in Danny Williams like he was able to KO a very light bum in 30 seconds like Marvis Frazier.

Danny Williams isn't a better boxer with a better record than Marvis Frazier. The only significant difference is, despite both being bums, Danny Williams was a very heavy bum (thus more difficult for Mike Tyson to knockout) whereas Marvis Frazier was a very light bum (thus easier for Mike Tyson to knockout).



All speculation, but fact is, he failed against Danny Williams, just like he failed against many other larger sized heavyweights.



Mike Tyson also hurt many of his other opponents but failed to stop them. So what exactly is your point?



It proves that a heavier bum (Danny Williams) is more difficult to knockout than a lighter bum (Marvis Frazier).

It proves that everything else being equal, a heavier opponent is more difficult to KO than a lighter opponent.



I didn't claim any such thing. My point was, Mike Tyson's (along with many other heavyweight's) knockout record against lower opposition is usually higher than against heavier opposition. Thus proving that more often than not, heavier opponents are more difficult to KO.



No, it's not 'idiotic'. Otherwise, Mike Tyson should've been able to KO Danny Williams as quick as he knocked out Marvis Frazier (both being bums and have similar records).



I've never claimed lighter boxers couldn't have good punch resistance or even better punch resistance than some heavier boxers in the heavyweight division. That wasn't my point. My point was, a heavier opponent will be more difficult to knockout on average than a lighter heavyweight.

In other words, a heavier heavyweight will more often have better punch resistance than lighter heavyweights. That doesn't mean that you won't find a rare lighter heavyweight with better punch resistance than a heavier heavyweight. Just that, it's not as common. The amount of heavier heavyweights having very good punch resistance outnumbers the amount of lighter heavyweights having equally good punch resistance.



Yes, it is. Otherwise, many of those boxers wouldn't have a lower knockout percentage against heavier opposition than against lighter opposition. This applies to Mike Tyson, Evander Holyfield and many other boxers.



The evidence is, boxers usually have a lower knockout percentage against heavier opposition (of the same caliber) than against lighter opposition.



My evidence lies within the rules of boxing, which is that James Toney wouldn't have even been allowed to compete against a heavyweight like Samuel Peter or Hasim if he were to weigh below 200 pounds. The fact that he wouldn't be allowed to compete against heavyweights if he were to weigh below 200 pounds proves that James Toney's punch resistance wouldn't have been good enough to take punches from heavyweights unless he also became a heavyweight himself.

What do you think would have happened had James Toney fought Samuel Peter or Hasim Rahman whilst weighing below 200 pounds? Most likely scenario is, he would've been knocked out. That's the reason why boxers weighing below 200 pounds aren't allowed to compete against heavyweights.



It's an opinion based on actual facts. It's connected with the rules of boxing.



What 'different stages'? I deem them relevant that's why.



Yes, with a punch to the chest which Mike Tyson got up from immediately without even looking hurt. Hardly the same as knocking someone down with a hurtful punch which keeps them down for the 10 count.



Pure speculation! Is there any reliable way to verify which version of Mike Tyson was better? Otherwise, it just remains a personal opinion without any factual basis.

I could claim that Mike Tyson was just as good a boxer against Lennox Lewis as he was against Evander Holyfield. My claim won't be any less wrong than yours.



Or perhaps Lennox Lewis was so much better against Mike Tyson than Evander Holyfield was against Mike Tyson that he made him look that bad?

All of what you wrote is just speculation.

Facts are, Lennox Lewis beat Mike Tyson far more convincingly than Evander Holyfield did.

8th round canvas KO (Lennox Lewis) > 11th round standing TKO (Evander Holyfield).

Not losing any round (Lennox Lewis) > losing multiple rounds (Evander Holyfield).



Nothing to do with what I want. Rather, it's all to do with how it naturally is.



I can also list lighter boxers who have stamina, just as bad if not worse. Look at David Haye against Tony Thompson for example.

How can we know for sure that it's weight and simply not a lack of training / physical conditioning which was the cause of the poor stamina?

There are heavier boxers with very good conditioning too, just like there are lighter boxers with very good conditioning at heavyweight.



So what? He still wasn't knocked out!



You're using a strawman logical fallacy. I haven't claimed that weight prevents one from being hurt. I'll reinstate my argument again:

Being heavier makes a boxer less likely to be knocked out than if they were lighter. That doesn't mean they can't be knocked out or even hurt. Just that it'll provide more protection.

It's similar to having a protective shield during battle / combat. Having it doesn't make one immune to getting killed or even hurt. Instead, it just reduces the likelihood by adding extra protection.



A 41 year old Wlad still has a better heavyweight record and greater heavyweight accomplishments than any heavyweights from the 80's.



So you're looking at only some of the negatives of Anthony Joshua. This can be done with any heavyweight in history. In fact, some of the heavyweights from the 80's have even worse negatives than Anthony Joshua.

Anthony Joshua's positives trumps the positives of practically any heavyweights of the 80'.

I've got to tell you, this weight being a protective shield thing is pure nonsense. 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. Nope, nothing to do with it. Toney, a highly skilled fighter would be beaten all the same people if he weighed 200.Bulking up doesn't alter your chin . You want to ignore stages of people's careers because it suits your arguments. So you can come along and rewrite the boxing book. The Tyson that fought Lewis was the same as the Tyson that fought Holyfield now. The Tyson that fought Williams (injured although you ignore it) was no different that any other Tyson. All these years everyone in the game thought fighters become shot, or regress, this just doesnt exist because you say so. The Ali that fought Berwick was the same as the one who fought Foreman. In Tyson case the weight did come into it. 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. And he regressed. He still had good power because he was light and fast fighting 240 250lb Golota, Bruno, Savereese. Down they all went. 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. But fantasy fight Tyson is in he's prime. The guy who sent down the big fellas I just mentioned.He sends down Joshua too. And yes the whole boxing world knows that earlier Tyson was better than later Tyson. It's embarrassing you can't understand this. 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.

[bluepete]

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 ? !

Get out of here with your straw man. Bruno had just come off he's best win in the mid 90s, and Tyson wasn't long from a prison sentence. So they were both later in the day. Tyson certainly wasn't as technical as under Rooney, or even for Bruno one. But Bruno made alot of the fact that he was bigger and stronger than ever, two stone heavier, and then it didn't do anything for him, in either terms of durability, or in terms of offence.All it did was make him slower and unlike the first fight, unable to land anything on Tyson at all. This against, like you say, a LESS technical Tyson. Lewis got heavier later in he's career, so did Foreman, naturally because they were older. Lewis became a better fighter because he had Emanuel Steward. The same Steward that said the fluid boxing 226lb Lewis of the Olympics was hes ideal model of a heavyweight. Did you know sub 17stone Lewis never lost and was never floored? He came in at 17 for Mccall one, got stopped. Now he did get better under Steward defensively. He got heavier as he aged. But remember Rahman one. Came in heavy again, 250plus for that one. Looked bad before he got knocked out. He's performance didn't get better because of weight. In fact, the heavier he was the more susceptible to getting knocked out he was. . Foreman got heavier because he got older, he took alot of shots off of Holyfield, but he defended well with the Moore inspired cross arm defence and did well because he was a tough durable fighter. He lost nearly every round. Do you think he'd have been shut out in he's 16stone prime? Do you think he'd have been unable to take Holyfields punches? He said himself he wanted to get down to 230,and he tried for the Qawi fight, because he felt he had better skills lighter, but he couldn't give up the food he needed for recovery. Yeah Wlad bulked up for he's later career. It didn't help he's durability. Steward helped him skill wise. He still got stopped by Brewster when he was heavier. The fight where Holyfield defeated Bowe, the rematch, Holyfield came in at 218! Bowe was on the 240s again! See how this works? Bowe added nearly twenty pounds from fight one. So you want to use Holyfield as a good example of weight gain helping, but you don't like it when I, like right here, will use Bowe as an example of why weight gain won't help. The Bowe of the first fight was better than any other Bowe fight. Lighter, faster, fought at a high pace. Could take a shot and give one. Look at round eleven. Look at the output. Punched the whole round in a way that oversized heavies only dream of, against a fighter who was still near he's prime, undefeated and fighting back. Joshua, or any fighter can weight what they want. Does it give them an advantage in taking shots? Nope. It's funny how you assumed I'd never been in there, but in there, and in gyms amongst good heavies from my teenage years with people like the Simms who ran the Lynn, who now work with Joshua, to Danny Williams and Henry Akinwande, to right up close with Dillian Whyte at Keddles, to getting punched for 20 years have shown me all the theory means nothing. Your chin is your chin. I've seen heavy muscular men smashed by supermiddles on sparring, layed out through headguards, because speed and condition trumps weight and bulk any day. You want to disregard every real life living breathing example I give you of why a guy below 230 has every advantage, all things being equal, and that bigger brings diminishing returns, but that's something precious to you obviously. It still ain't true. Danny Williams said himself that he thought coming in heavier for Vitali would help he's durability, but all it did was make it harder to get out the way. It doesn't work in real life. Joshuas extra 25lbs is he's choice, doesn't afford him any advantage. Sapps hes stamina after flurries and he stays lactic for some time after. I'd expect a 230lb Joshua to be better. He don't need 19inch biceps. Wilder is poorly skilled but hits as hard and is abit taller. It wouldnt take away Joshs power. It would help he's mobilty and stamina. Watch and see at who eventually takes Anthony out and why they did it. Faster, lighter more mobile. I bet ya.Btw, 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.