Anthony Joshua Reveals How A Fight With Mike Tyson Would Go

[bluepete]

This is why CONSISTENCY matters. I'm not looking at ONLY those particular fights against such smaller opponents. When you analyze the entire career record of a boxer's knockout percentage against heavier and lighter opposition, you will get varied results against various different types of heavy opponents and light opponents. Unless your argument is that every or most of those smaller sized opponents are 'young up coming fighters or fat old cruiserweights' which would take the discussion to a different route that I am also still willing to participate in.



Whatever way you want to classify it, the heavier boxer usually has better punch resistance and knockout records in comparison to a lighter boxer when both are at a similar level of skills / accomplishments.

I'm willing to have a look at the stats. I do believe there is a level of diminishing returns on the effectiveness of weight for heavys.Im willing to accept a larger man may have naturally denser bones in some cases and a bigger neck obviously not always. But certainly I don't think adding artifical weight, or simply putting on fat affords any protection. So for Dillian, who I've watched train firsthand and who jiggles as he skips, or Joshua, who has gained alot of less than useful mass on he's chest and biceps, since say he's appearance on superstars when he showed very good stamina for a big man, I don't think they have any advantages in chin or power over the many big framed men Tyson fought in the 80s early 90s . In fact, against a fast mid sized heavy I think it truly does put you at a disadvantage. Especially if the smaller man is a puncher. He carries the same power, but more agility. I've never met anyone who claimed to gain punching power from weight gain, and I've been around for a long time. I tried landmines, powerlifting, Olympic style lifting, plyos. I'd say with confidence that at 206lb I hit no harder than I did at 180.But reasonable men may disagree on this subject. But I agree with the likes of Steward, Roach, Dundee and my own trainers Roy Beamon, a man with an 80% knockout percentage as a pro, Llyod Honeygan and the Simms brothers, one of whom trains Anthony Joshua. So there you have it.

[Mr Objecitivity]

I'm willing to have a look at the stats. I do believe there is a level of diminishing returns on the effectiveness of weight for heavys.Im willing to accept a larger man may have naturally denser bones in some cases and a bigger neck obviously not always. But certainly I don't think adding artifical weight, or simply putting on fat affords any protection. So for Dillian, who I've watched train firsthand and who jiggles as he skips, or Joshua, who has gained alot of less than useful mass on he's chest and biceps, since say he's appearance on superstars when he showed very good stamina for a big man, I don't think they have any advantages in chin or power over the many big framed men Tyson fought in the 80s early 90s . In fact, against a fast mid sized heavy I think it truly does put you at a disadvantage. Especially if the smaller man is a puncher. He carries the same power, but more agility. I've never met anyone who claimed to gain punching power from weight gain, and I've been around for a long time. I tried landmines, powerlifting, Olympic style lifting, plyos. I'd say with confidence that at 206lb I hit no harder than I did at 180.But reasonable men may disagree on this subject. But I agree with the likes of Steward, Roach, Dundee and my own trainers Roy Beamon, a man with an 80% knockout percentage as a pro, Llyod Honeygan and the Simms brothers, one of whom trains Anthony Joshua. So there you have it.

I'm willing to have a look at the stats.

I'm willing to present them.

I do believe there is a level of diminishing returns on the effectiveness of weight for heavys.

Your personal 'beliefs' are irrelevant. ACTUAL facts that have occurred are what's most relevant.

Im willing to accept a larger man may have naturally denser bones in some cases and a bigger neck obviously not always.

I could go into the science / physics behind all of this, but there isn't much need. 'WHY' heavier people usually have better punch resistance and power than lighter people isn't what's relevant. What's relevant is the fact that they do.

However, I'll give you some information in regards to 'WHY'. The heavier a person is, the more force is required in order to cause trauma. In addition, the heavier a person is, the more potential they'll have for generating power due to extra weight. If there are two people and one is heavier than the other, assuming they are are equal in all other departments such as technique, speed and etc. The heavier person will generate more power.

But certainly I don't think adding artifical weight, or simply putting on fat affords any protection.

Again, what you may 'think' is irrelevant. What's relevant are actual facts that can be represented by statistics.

So for Dillian, who I've watched train firsthand and who jiggles as he skips, or Joshua, who has gained alot of less than useful mass on he's chest and biceps, since say he's appearance on superstars when he showed very good stamina for a big man, I don't think they have any advantages in chin or power over the many big framed men Tyson fought in the 80s early 90s .

We could discuss about Anthony Joshua / Dillian Whyte in comparison to past heavyweights separately in which I am more than willing to participate in. Right now, the topic is about the significance of weight in boxing.

Especially if the smaller man is a puncher. He carries the same power, but more agility. I've never met anyone who claimed to gain punching power from weight gain, and I've been around for a long time. I tried landmines, powerlifting, Olympic style lifting, plyos. I'd say with confidence that at 206lb I hit no harder than I did at 180.But reasonable men may disagree on this subject. But I agree with the likes of Steward, Roach, Dundee and my own trainers Roy Beamon, a man with an 80% knockout percentage as a pro, Llyod Honeygan and the Simms brothers, one of whom trains Anthony Joshua. So there you have it.

You've committed many logical fallacies including argument from popularity and anecdotal evidence. It's flawed logic. In addition, lot of what you've written is your personal theory / opinion on how something should be rather than how something ACTUALLY is already.

Here are some statistics for you:

1) Evander Holyfield's KO percentage below heavyweight = above 80%. His KO percentage at heavyweight = 38%

2) James Toney's KO percentage below heavyweight = above 50%. His KO percentage at heavyweight = below 50%

I could list more boxers but you get the gist. Let me know if you need more. The career statistics of many boxers proves that heavier opponents are less frequently knocked out than lighter opponents.

[lparm]

How does the fight go?

AJ eating out of a feeding tube for a month after a prime Tyson batters him. At least the boy has common sense and knows that.

[bluepete]

I'm willing to present them.



Your personal 'beliefs' are irrelevant. ACTUAL facts that have occurred are what's most relevant.



I could go into the science / physics behind all of this, but there isn't much need. 'WHY' heavier people usually have better punch resistance and power than lighter people isn't what's relevant. What's relevant is the fact that they do.

However, I'll give you some information in regards to 'WHY'. The heavier a person is, the more force is required in order to cause trauma. In addition, the heavier a person is, the more potential they'll have for generating power due to extra weight. If there are two people and one is heavier than the other, assuming they are are equal in all other departments such as technique, speed and etc. The heavier person will generate more power.



Again, what you may 'think' is irrelevant. What's relevant are actual facts that can be represented by statistics.



We could discuss about Anthony Joshua / Dillian Whyte in comparison to past heavyweights separately in which I am more than willing to participate in. Right now, the topic is about the significance of weight in boxing.



You've committed many logical fallacies including argument from popularity and anecdotal evidence. It's flawed logic. In addition, lot of what you've written is your personal theory / opinion on how something should be rather than how something ACTUALLY is already.

Here are some statistics for you:

1) Evander Holyfield's KO percentage below heavyweight = above 80%. His KO percentage at heavyweight = 38%

2) James Toney's KO percentage below heavyweight = above 50%. His KO percentage at heavyweight = below 50%

I could list more boxers but you get the gist. Let me know if you need more. The career statistics of many boxers proves that heavier opponents are less frequently knocked out than lighter opponents.

I already said a man with a bigger denser bone structure, thicker skull, jawbone ect would likely have better punch resistance than a smaller man with out it. That's why we have Hagler and Chavez Snr, both documented as having thicker skulls.The ideas that adding weight improves punch resistance or power hasn't been established by yiy or anyone else. Then fact that a bigger man is better at stopping men smaller than him in general would come down to reach and overall size in most cases giving him a chance to land on a smaller man more often. Reach, in most cases is a clear advantage in the ring. Not very one is Qawi or Tyson. Taller bigger people tend to be heavier, the bigger the frame the more lean weight can naturally sit on it. That doesn't mean adding weight improves the power of a punch. Just because bigger people in most cases have thicker bones, doesn't mean the heavier you get the better you take a punch. You are looking at numbers on paper and not taking into account the other factors involved in stoppages. As I said earlier, the proportion of men who rise the weight divisions at the end of their career. The fact that many of these men are fighting men with larger frames who have the reach to land more on them than they can in return. You are looking at size advantages due to stoppages and putting it down to weight, then coming to the conclusion that more weight equals more power. The thing about "all things being equal" is all things are never equal. More stoppages are due to skill disparity and accumulatiom than power. Factor this in. James Toney. He rose to heavyweight in he's mid 30s.The tail end of he's career. He began fighting men on average 5 to 6 inches taller than himself. Men more difficult to reach. Men he couldn't land as flush on. Of course he still stopped Holyfield, a man that only Bowe had stopped. Do you think this was because he hit harder than Lennox Lewis and Mike Tyson? No. It's because there were other factors involved outside of power. Including the stage of career Holyfield was at. Holyfield himself was fighting mostly at a lower class level as a cruiser. Against men who had smaller frames, easier to reach, short and fat light heavies like Qawi ect. Then he moves up to heavy. Straight into high world class, almost all of he'd opponents at heavy were top class, taller, longer reach ect. You put the whole thing down to weight, thinking that's the main factor and come to the flawed conclusion that more weight equals better chin. It's easy to pretend that the experience of the people in the game, and the knowledge gained thorough actual fights and training fighters is "irrelevant" and what you see on paper is the bottom line, but what it doesn't show is other factors tied to size itself. This is why so many trainers come into boxing with bright ideas, think they know the science, but get absolutely nowhere. This is why Steward threw them out of the gym. And this is why someone who's given and taken punches through the years knows more than you armchair experts.

[juggernaut666]

You might have misunderstood the point of that statement I made which you responded to. The point wasn't about anything else, other than the best method to determine whether weight of an opponent has an effect on the knockout record of a boxer. It had nothing directly to do with a potential fight between Anthony Joshua and Mike Tyson. Hell, it wasn't purely even necessarily about Mike Tyson either. it was about any boxer in general, which is to use the career statistics of a boxer's knockout percentage against heavier and lighter opposition to establish if the weight of opposition has an effect on the knockout percentage of said boxer.

I don't agree with everything else you stated, but most of your arguments do seem reasonable.

I will start discussing about the match up between Mike Tyson and Anthony Joshua after it's established that weight does indeed affect a boxer's knockout record and even win record too.

The thread isnt about how size effects out comes ,its about 2 aggressive fighters ,one in his PRIME never remotley close to losing against a green SHW with great potential untested chin beyond a Klitchko ONE punch right hand . In what would be a great fight . THIS matchup itself has KNOCK OUT written all over it .

I think you are ignoring the other fact everyone tried to stay away from Tyson, Joshua wont and this would have brought out the best Tyson, we ever saw under Rooney . If Tyson, knew he had a few fights won he coasted ........it AINT happening here . These are factors that go beyond ANY statistics you are going to have to calculate to the related thread .

The only guy you could think of having Tyson looked at as a minor annoyance as you put it is Ivan Drago ......but he doesnt exist ! YET


Theres nothing to establish unless you go off course and are TRYING to convince a CERTAIN individual that a heavier fighter has won a FAR more amount than a smaller one (good luck with that )


Though you are correct size almost always plays a factor ,some ppl just are ignorant in terms of that ,cough , cough,....lol

[Mr Objecitivity]

The thread isnt about how size effects out comes ,its about 2 aggressive fighters ,one in his PRIME never remotley close to losing against a green SHW with great potential untested chin beyond a Klitchko ONE punch right hand . In what would be a great fight . THIS matchup itself has KNOCK OUT written all over it .

I think you are ignoring the other fact everyone tried to stay away from Tyson, Joshua wont and this would have brought out the best Tyson, we ever saw under Rooney . If Tyson, knew he had a few fights won he coasted ........it AINT happening here . These are factors that go beyond ANY statistics you are going to have to calculate to the related thread .

The only guy you could think of having Tyson looked at as a minor annoyance as you put it is Ivan Drago ......but he doesnt exist ! YET


Theres nothing to establish unless you go off course and are TRYING to convince a CERTAIN individual that a heavier fighter has won a FAR more amount than a smaller one (good luck with that )


Though you are correct size almost always plays a factor ,some ppl just are ignorant in terms of that ,cough , cough,....lol

Since this thread is about a hypothetical match up between Mike Tyson and Anthony Joshua and since weight has usually played a big factor in boxing bouts, especially in bouts related to Mike Tyson, then it's a very relevant topic of discussion. Size, especially weight played a bigger factor in Mike Tyson's knockout record than style of opposition or quality of opposition.

Here are the facts about Mike Tyson's performances against non-bummy (a boxer with less than 12 fights in his whole career or has lost 25% (or more) of fights of his WinLossCareerRecord) TALLER opponents:

First time Mike met a taller+better opponent:
·Mitch Green (6'5.0'') –> UD10

Second time Mike met a taller+better opponent:
·James Bonecrusher Smith (6'4.0'') –> UD10

Third time Mike met a taller+better opponent:
·Tony Tucker (6'5.0'') –> UD12

Fourth time Mike met a taller+better opponent:
·Buster Douglas (6'3.5'') –> Tyson gets KO'ed

Sixth time Mike met a taller+better opponent:
·Lennox Lewis (6'5.0'') –> Tyson gets KO'ed

Seventh time Mike met a taller+better opponent:
·Kevin McBride (6'6.0'') –> Tyson gets KO'ed

In other words, Mike Tyson's chances of knocking out an opponent decreases significantly if they are above 6 foot 3 inches in height.

These stats take into account Mike Tyson supposed 'prime' period as well. It's his entire career statistics in display. Nothing is cherry picked.

Mike Tyson's consistent failures of knocking out non-bummy taller opposition that were inferior to Anthony Joshua prompts me to infer that Mike Tyson isn't very likely to KO Anthony Joshua either.

[Mr Objecitivity]

I already said a man with a bigger denser bone structure, thicker skull, jawbone ect would likely have better punch resistance than a smaller man with out it. That's why we have Hagler and Chavez Snr, both documented as having thicker skulls.The ideas that adding weight improves punch resistance or power hasn't been established by yiy or anyone else. Then fact that a bigger man is better at stopping men smaller than him in general would come down to reach and overall size in most cases giving him a chance to land on a smaller man more often. Reach, in most cases is a clear advantage in the ring. Not very one is Qawi or Tyson. Taller bigger people tend to be heavier, the bigger the frame the more lean weight can naturally sit on it. That doesn't mean adding weight improves the power of a punch. Just because bigger people in most cases have thicker bones, doesn't mean the heavier you get the better you take a punch. You are looking at numbers on paper and not taking into account the other factors involved in stoppages. As I said earlier, the proportion of men who rise the weight divisions at the end of their career. The fact that many of these men are fighting men with larger frames who have the reach to land more on them than they can in return. You are looking at size advantages due to stoppages and putting it down to weight, then coming to the conclusion that more weight equals more power. The thing about "all things being equal" is all things are never equal. More stoppages are due to skill disparity and accumulatiom than power. Factor this in. James Toney. He rose to heavyweight in he's mid 30s.The tail end of he's career. He began fighting men on average 5 to 6 inches taller than himself. Men more difficult to reach. Men he couldn't land as flush on. Of course he still stopped Holyfield, a man that only Bowe had stopped. Do you think this was because he hit harder than Lennox Lewis and Mike Tyson? No. It's because there were other factors involved outside of power. Including the stage of career Holyfield was at. Holyfield himself was fighting mostly at a lower class level as a cruiser. Against men who had smaller frames, easier to reach, short and fat light heavies like Qawi ect. Then he moves up to heavy. Straight into high world class, almost all of he'd opponents at heavy were top class, taller, longer reach ect. You put the whole thing down to weight, thinking that's the main factor and come to the flawed conclusion that more weight equals better chin. It's easy to pretend that the experience of the people in the game, and the knowledge gained thorough actual fights and training fighters is "irrelevant" and what you see on paper is the bottom line, but what it doesn't show is other factors tied to size itself. This is why so many trainers come into boxing with bright ideas, think they know the science, but get absolutely nowhere. This is why Steward threw them out of the gym. And this is why someone who's given and taken punches through the years knows more than you armchair experts.

I already said a man with a bigger denser bone structure, thicker skull, jawbone ect would likely have better punch resistance than a smaller man with out it. That's why we have Hagler and Chavez Snr, both documented as having thicker skulls.

Only weight divisions / classes exist. Jawbone dimensions or skull dimension divisions / classes don't exist. Even skill divisions / classes don't exist. Boxers are only separated by weight divisions. Now why would that be? Perhaps if you did some research, you'd know the answer to the question.

Weight is the common denominator for dividing boxers into groups. Nothing else! Not skill, not jawbone or skull thickness but purely weight.

The ideas that adding weight improves punch resistance or power hasn't been established by yiy or anyone else.

Yes, it has been. My statistics establish exactly that.

Then fact that a bigger man is better at stopping men smaller than him in general would come down to reach and overall size in most cases giving him a chance to land on a smaller man more often. Reach, in most cases is a clear advantage in the ring. Not very one is Qawi or Tyson. Taller bigger people tend to be heavier, the bigger the frame the more lean weight can naturally sit on it.

Again, reach and height divisions don't exist. Only weight divisions exist and that's it. It can be statistically proven that weight plays a big factor on a boxer's knockout percentage and win record. I've already done this. Can you do the same with height with actual facts instead of just spouting your own subjective opinions / views?

That doesn't mean adding weight improves the power of a punch. Just because bigger people in most cases have thicker bones, doesn't mean the heavier you get the better you take a punch.

In general and on average, it does. Facts suggest so.

You are looking at numbers on paper and not taking into account the other factors involved in stoppages.

Numbers are facts! Facts have the highest priority in debates / discussion. Unless you can refute my fact based arguments by providing facts of your own, my conclusions are justified.

As I said earlier, the proportion of men who rise the weight divisions at the end of their career. The fact that many of these men are fighting men with larger frames who have the reach to land more on them than they can in return. You are looking at size advantages due to stoppages and putting it down to weight, then coming to the conclusion that more weight equals more power.

Again, I'm repeating myself here a couple of times but it's weight that is the common denominator. Hence, weight divisions exist and not reach divisions or age divisions or anything like that. Meaning, weight is the most significant factor in a boxing bout.

The statistics support this conclusion. I'm yet to see any stat that suggests height playing a bigger factor than weight when it comes to knockout records and win records. If you can, please share those stats with me.

The thing about "all things being equal" is all things are never equal.

By 'all things being equal', I mean when boxers are the same level in everything except weight. So for example, Evander Holyfield is a lighter boxer with one of the greatest punch resistance ever. Whereas Vitali Klitschko is a heavier boxer with one of the greatest punch resistance ever. Both evander Holyfield and Vitali Klitschko are at the same level since Evander Holyfield is a lighter ATG and Vitali Klitschko is a heavier ATG. Now comparing these two is valid because it's a like for like comparison and from the comparison, it's easy to identify that Vitali Klitschko has even better punch resistance and a much better knockout record compared to Evander Holyfield. Why? Because of size.

So to compare two boxers who are equal (or close to it), you have to compare two boxers at the same level. So it's correct to compare a heavy ATG with a lighter ATG. It's correct to compare a heavy journeyman with a lighter journeyman. However, it's incorrect to compare a heavy bum / Journeyman (David Prince) to a light ATG (Evander Holyfield) as they are not equal.

So in conclusion, when two boxers are compared who are at the same level, the heavier boxer usually has better punch resistance and power.

More stoppages are due to skill disparity and accumulatiom than power.

With very few exceptions, knockouts are ALWAYS caused by power. A boxer can have all the skills in the world or land all the accumulations, but if the power isn't there, then knockouts aren't going to happen. Hence, Manny Pacquiao was able to destroy Ricky Hatton but couldn't even drop Antonio Margarito with his skills and accumulations.

Factor this in. James Toney. He rose to heavyweight in he's mid 30s.The tail end of he's career. He began fighting men on average 5 to 6 inches taller than himself. Men more difficult to reach. Men he couldn't land as flush on. Of course he still stopped Holyfield, a man that only Bowe had stopped. Do you think this was because he hit harder than Lennox Lewis and Mike Tyson? No. It's because there were other factors involved outside of power. Including the stage of career Holyfield was at.

There's something called 'Laws Of Averages'. If you don't what it is, I suggest you research on it.

If a boxer fights enough times, they are bound to knock someone out, even if they are competing against heavier opponents. That doesn't mean they are impressive knockout artists because they knocked out one rare opponent. It's just the laws of averages coming into play.

James Toney knocking out Evander Holyfield is an example of a rare instance. How about all his other fights at heavyweight. How many other opponents did he knockout? He knocked one opponent out but failed to KO all the others. Thus, it makes him a poor puncher.

The best punchers knockout more opponents than they don't knockout. They have an overall higher knockout percentage. James Toney's knockout percentage is way below 50% (feather fist).

Holyfield himself was fighting mostly at a lower class level as a cruiser. Against men who had smaller frames, easier to reach, short and fat light heavies like Qawi ect. Then he moves up to heavy. Straight into high world class, almost all of he'd opponents at heavy were top class, taller, longer reach ect.

Again, it was weight which was the biggest factor for Holyfield's decreased knockout percentage and not anything else. Hence, the reasons for having weight divisions.

You put the whole thing down to weight, thinking that's the main factor and come to the flawed conclusion that more weight equals better chin.

No, it's not a 'flawed' conclusion because the conclusion is based on stats which are ACTUAL facts. Facts are, heavier opponents are normally more difficult to knock out than lighter opponents. Thus, heavier boxers normally have better punch resistance as they are knocked out less frequently than lighter boxers.

It's easy to pretend that the experience of the people in the game, and the knowledge gained thorough actual fights and training fighters is "irrelevant" and what you see on paper is the bottom line, but what it doesn't show is other factors tied to size itself.

The opinions and conclusions of other people are irrelevant if it contradicts actual facts. It's a logical fallacy named 'appealing to authority'. There was a time when scientific experts believed that we will never fly. Now we do. So facts >>> other people's opinions / conclusions, even if they happen to be experts.

This is why so many trainers come into boxing with bright ideas, think they know the science, but get absolutely nowhere. This is why Steward threw them out of the gym. And this is why someone who's given and taken punches through the years knows more than you armchair experts.

A totally irrelevant point to the topic being discussed (significance of weight in boxing).

[juggernaut666]

Since this thread is about a hypothetical match up between Mike Tyson and Anthony Joshua and since weight has usually played a big factor in boxing bouts, especially in bouts related to Mike Tyson, then it's a very relevant topic of discussion. Size, especially weight played a bigger factor in Mike Tyson's knockout record than style of opposition or quality of opposition.

Here are the facts about Mike Tyson's performances against non-bummy (a boxer with less than 12 fights in his whole career or has lost 25% (or more) of fights of his WinLossCareerRecord) TALLER opponents:

First time Mike met a taller+better opponent:
·Mitch Green (6'5.0'') –> UD10

Second time Mike met a taller+better opponent:
·James Bonecrusher Smith (6'4.0'') –> UD10

Third time Mike met a taller+better opponent:
·Tony Tucker (6'5.0'') –> UD12

Fourth time Mike met a taller+better opponent:
·Buster Douglas (6'3.5'') –> Tyson gets KO'ed

Sixth time Mike met a taller+better opponent:
·Lennox Lewis (6'5.0'') –> Tyson gets KO'ed

Seventh time Mike met a taller+better opponent:
·Kevin McBride (6'6.0'') –> Tyson gets KO'ed

In other words, Mike Tyson's chances of knocking out an opponent decreases significantly if they are above 6 foot 3 inches in height.

These stats take into account Mike Tyson supposed 'prime' period as well. It's his entire career statistics in display. Nothing is cherry picked.

Mike Tyson's consistent failures of knocking out non-bummy taller opposition that were inferior to Anthony Joshua prompts me to infer that Mike Tyson isn't very likely to KO Anthony Joshua either.

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 .

[bluepete]

Only weight divisions / classes exist. Jawbone dimensions or skull dimension divisions / classes don't exist. Even skill divisions / classes don't exist. Boxers are only separated by weight divisions. Now why would that be? Perhaps if you did some research, you'd know the answer to the question.

Weight is the common denominator for dividing boxers into groups. Nothing else! Not skill, not jawbone or skull thickness but purely weight.



Yes, it has been. My statistics establish exactly that.



Again, reach and height divisions don't exist. Only weight divisions exist and that's it. It can be statistically proven that weight plays a big factor on a boxer's knockout percentage and win record. I've already done this. Can you do the same with height with actual facts instead of just spouting your own subjective opinions / views?



In general and on average, it does. Facts suggest so.



Numbers are facts! Facts have the highest priority in debates / discussion. Unless you can refute my fact based arguments by providing facts of your own, my conclusions are justified.



Again, I'm repeating myself here a couple of times but it's weight that is the common denominator. Hence, weight divisions exist and not reach divisions or age divisions or anything like that. Meaning, weight is the most significant factor in a boxing bout.

The statistics support this conclusion. I'm yet to see any stat that suggests height playing a bigger factor than weight when it comes to knockout records and win records. If you can, please share those stats with me.



By 'all things being equal', I mean when boxers are the same level in everything except weight. So for example, Evander Holyfield is a lighter boxer with one of the greatest punch resistance ever. Whereas Vitali Klitschko is a heavier boxer with one of the greatest punch resistance ever. Both evander Holyfield and Vitali Klitschko are at the same level since Evander Holyfield is a lighter ATG and Vitali Klitschko is a heavier ATG. Now comparing these two is valid because it's a like for like comparison and from the comparison, it's easy to identify that Vitali Klitschko has even better punch resistance and a much better knockout record compared to Evander Holyfield. Why? Because of size.

So to compare two boxers who are equal (or close to it), you have to compare two boxers at the same level. So it's correct to compare a heavy ATG with a lighter ATG. It's correct to compare a heavy journeyman with a lighter journeyman. However, it's incorrect to compare a heavy bum / Journeyman (David Prince) to a light ATG (Evander Holyfield) as they are not equal.

So in conclusion, when two boxers are compared who are at the same level, the heavier boxer usually has better punch resistance and power.



With very few exceptions, knockouts are ALWAYS caused by power. A boxer can have all the skills in the world or land all the accumulations, but if the power isn't there, then knockouts aren't going to happen. Hence, Manny Pacquiao was able to destroy Ricky Hatton but couldn't even drop Antonio Margarito with his skills and accumulations.



There's something called 'Laws Of Averages'. If you don't what it is, I suggest you research on it.

If a boxer fights enough times, they are bound to knock someone out, even if they are competing against heavier opponents. That doesn't mean they are impressive knockout artists because they knocked out one rare opponent. It's just the laws of averages coming into play.

James Toney knocking out Evander Holyfield is an example of a rare instance. How about all his other fights at heavyweight. How many other opponents did he knockout? He knocked one opponent out but failed to KO all the others. Thus, it makes him a poor puncher.

The best punchers knockout more opponents than they don't knockout. They have an overall higher knockout percentage. James Toney's knockout percentage is way below 50% (feather fist).



Again, it was weight which was the biggest factor for Holyfield's decreased knockout percentage and not anything else. Hence, the reasons for having weight divisions.



No, it's not a 'flawed' conclusion because the conclusion is based on stats which are ACTUAL facts. Facts are, heavier opponents are normally more difficult to knock out than lighter opponents. Thus, heavier boxers normally have better punch resistance as they are knocked out less frequently than lighter boxers.



The opinions and conclusions of other people are irrelevant if it contradicts actual facts. It's a logical fallacy named 'appealing to authority'. There was a time when scientific experts believed that we will never fly. Now we do. So facts >>> other people's opinions / conclusions, even if they happen to be experts.



A totally irrelevant point to the topic being discussed (significance of weight in boxing).

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.

[bluepete]

The thread isnt about how size effects out comes ,its about 2 aggressive fighters ,one in his PRIME never remotley close to losing against a green SHW with great potential untested chin beyond a Klitchko ONE punch right hand . In what would be a great fight . THIS matchup itself has KNOCK OUT written all over it .

I think you are ignoring the other fact everyone tried to stay away from Tyson, Joshua wont and this would have brought out the best Tyson, we ever saw under Rooney . If Tyson, knew he had a few fights won he coasted ........it AINT happening here . These are factors that go beyond ANY statistics you are going to have to calculate to the related thread .

The only guy you could think of having Tyson looked at as a minor annoyance as you put it is Ivan Drago ......but he doesnt exist ! YET


Theres nothing to establish unless you go off course and are TRYING to convince a CERTAIN individual that a heavier fighter has won a FAR more amount than a smaller one (good luck with that )


Though you are correct size almost always plays a factor ,some ppl just are ignorant in terms of that ,cough , cough,....lol

Still obssessing about me ain't you son? Most of your post was pretty good tbh. As for Richard Dawkins up here, he's not going to convince me of anything. You, however, have convinced me that what I think is very important to you since you can't stop talking about me. I feel very special. ��