Anthony Joshua Reveals How A Fight With Mike Tyson Would Go

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

All respect to Joshua. He's knows the deal and is man enough to admit it.

[juggernaut666]

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



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

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

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



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



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

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

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



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



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

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



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



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

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



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

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



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

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



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

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

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

After all the quotes you gave back too him do you really think hes going to get it ? I only see them now bc you are responding to him an his LARGE long posts....do you need a aspiring after that ? i know i did with one which is why i stopped reading blue messes responses along with him switching or denying stances he posted this guys all over the place ,as you know by now.

[Mr Objecitivity]

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

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

After all the quotes you gave back too him do you really think hes going to get it ? I only see them now bc you are responding to him an his LARGE long posts....do you need a aspiring after that ? i know i did with one which is why i stopped reading blue messes responses .

My comments aren't exclusively directed towards him / her, but for anybody else that happens to visit this thread. Especially open minded individuals. They may learn something new and recognize myths / misconception. Thus, my comments can help clear those misconceptions. Then they can decide for themselves what is true and what isn't

Having stated that, I'll probably comment one more time and then finish it off because I've made all the points I've needed to make. Thus, I'll just end up repeating myself if I continue after that. Also, none of the points that user is making in his / her new comments is refuting / addressing my main points. So until that happens, I'll probably stop commenting.

[juggernaut666]

My comments aren't exclusively directed towards him / her, but for anybody else that happens to visit this thread. Especially open minded individuals. They may learn something new and recognize myths / misconception. Thus, my comments can help clear those misconceptions. Then they can decide for themselves what is true and what isn't

Having stated that, I'll probably comment one more time and then finish it off because I've made all the points I've needed to make. Thus, I'll just end up repeating myself if I continue after that. Also, none of the points that user is making in his / her new comments is refuting / addressing my main points. So until that happens, I'll probably stop commenting.

Well you missed this part i added ......along with him switching or denying stances he posted this guys all over the place ,as you know by now .

Thats what he does as well ss not address actual points but brings straw man selective ones to fit his puzzle .! lol

You also should have asked him who wins 160 Toney or 215 Holyfield , he seemed to not want to answer that one ....of many .

[Mr Objecitivity]

Well you missed this part i added ......along with him switching or denying stances he posted this guys all over the place ,as you know by now .

Thats what he does as well ss not address actual points but brings straw man selective ones to fit his puzzle .! lol

You also should have asked him who wins 160 Toney or 215 Holyfield , he seemed to not want to answer that one ....of many .

Well you missed this part i added

Which part?

along with him switching or denying stances he posted this guys all over the place ,as you know by now .

Thats what he does as well ss not address actual points but brings straw man selective ones to fit his puzzle .! lol

You also should have asked him who wins 160 Toney or 215 Holyfield , he seemed to not want to answer that one ....of many .

I agree with everything else you wrote and I totally understand what you mean.

[bluepete]

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



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

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

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



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



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

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

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



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



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

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



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



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

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



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

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



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

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



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

The fact that weight divisions exist doesn't lend credence to the theory extra weight means better chin or punch. It's just a simpler way of having a reasonable comparison of physicality since there is much more to boxing than power and chin. Men of a similar weight tend to be of a similar frame, and similar frames indicate that one man isn't massively disadvantaged as to size and reach and the ability to implement skills as a result of this. Even physical strength as this can influence a contest.This is the easiest most reasonable way of matching people fairly. It doesnt mean that chins and punch power is dependent on weight as the main factor and therefore it doesn't follow on that you can increase either by gaining weight. This is your mistake of correlation and causation again. In fact, in practice, it had been proven that chins are not improvable and neither is power. I know you don't like examples but boxing is littered with it. Someone you would like, Jarrell Miller fought last night at 300lbs.Youd think he would've done a better job than the 225 to 230 pound Wilder in terms of putting a dent in a common opponent. In fact he's punches lacked power. This is the trend with fighters coming in with extra, excess weight. They lose effectiveness. Since you don't care about stage of career,what do you think of the stats that show as fighters get heavier their performances decline and they take more losses? Is it misleading? 🤔

[bluepete]

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



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

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

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



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



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

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

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



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



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

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



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



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

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



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

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



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

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



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

Weight is still not a major factor in chin. Again you are missing other factors. The reason we don't match Manny with Vitali is size and frame and of course Vitali would have a huge strength advantage. Vitali has much bigger, thicker bones and therefore would have a better chin. I don't suppose one guy being 5 5 and the other 6 8 would matter either. It's a ridiculous example. But it's not proof that being heavy means you have a better chin or a harder punch. That is why Froch says in interviews that he's sparred light middles who hit harder than some heavies . Thats why Jeff Lacy, when measured on machines hit harder than anyone on the Olympic team including Clay Bell. That's why 165 pound Grey Maynard beat James Toney when their punches were measured similarly. That's why Mike Tyson told smithy the same thing. Holyfield dot face anyone taller until he fought at heavy, so he did struggle with people taller. The fact Qawi took him the distance once was because Qawi had a great defence and an Iron chin. In the rematch Holyfield knocked him out in four. It still stands that Evander struggled with taller men the most. You haven't taken away from that point at all.

[bluepete]

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



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



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

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

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



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



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



Like what?



Which example and example for what exactly?

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



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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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



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



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



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



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



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

I have covered some of this in previous replies. I can highlight some of where I think you are going wrong here though.You don't factor in other factors and this is why the weight thing misleads you. The Vitali Holyfield chin comparison, to you, is as simple as ones been down and not the other. It's not. One, the best fighters he fought were not a their best. You can't compare the people Vitali fought to Bowe, Foreman, Lewis, Moorer,, Tyson ect. He wasn't hit consistently against men like this either. He had a much better defence than Holyfield for punches taken. You can't compare end stage Holyfield to promenade Holyfield. The exact point he declined may be arguable, but fighters alter with age and this is accepted by everyone in boxing and always has been. So we have no way of knowing who's chin is best. As for Valuev, as Adam Booth said he was hard to hit at full power because he's height forced you to punch up to your detriment. Haye was the only great puncher he fought and he only took one flush shot the whole night. So we don't know how well Valuev would take the kind of shots Holyfield did. He never fought at the same level or took the same punches. He did have a huge weight advantage against the rest of the division though, and he wasn't a noted puncher. Go figure.

[bluepete]

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



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

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

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



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



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



That as well, but not by much.



Sentence makes no sense to me!



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

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



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



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



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

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



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

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



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

I've already taken that point back.



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

Before anything else, explain the relevance of Cooper managing to drop Holyfield to Valuev losing to Changaev? Cooper was a much bigger puncher than Changaev. According Mccall he was the hardest one punch hitter he ever fought. Changaev wouldn't have been expected to hurt Valuev. Haye did. Holyfield won the fight with Cooper. Valuev lost to Haye. What does any of this prove. We're talking chin vs chin, Holyfield Valuev right? Valuev wasn't hit by the same calibre men as Holyfield. In terms of power or class. So how can you judge it? Now you know that Holyfield Toney was shot but you bring it up because you want it to prove Evander had a weaker chin than the superheavies. It doesn't prove that. It proves he was hit all night by someone he couldn't hit back. When he was past prime. Accumulation disorientates and hurts. No boxer punchers like an infant believe me. Oh, btw, smaller and bigger untrained people have walked into many of my guns over the years. You get untrained little guys who hit much harder than untrained big ones. And sometimes it's vice versa. But that's not the point. So the best big chins aren't any better than the best smaller chins. Wach fought two good guys, Wlad, when he was on drugs and Povetkin when he was stopped. Is he's chin, which is good, look at how thick the jaw is,better than Tuas? Or Mccalls. Nope, I don't believe so. He's good chin isn't due to weight. He's the same size as Price isn't he? . Other than he's head.

[bluepete]

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

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

After all the quotes you gave back too him do you really think hes going to get it ? I only see them now bc you are responding to him an his LARGE long posts....do you need a aspiring after that ? i know i did with one which is why i stopped reading blue messes responses along with him switching or denying stances he posted this guys all over the place ,as you know by now.

Why do you feel the need to interfere in this debate? Since the poster was addressing me and not you this seems abit bizarre. I'm happy to admit that I might not be a great debater on paper but I at least try to answer questions as well as asking my own. You invent numbers and creat weight advantages in fights were guys weigh the same like Lewis Golota and can't even own your mistake. This is the equivalent of "I'm not taking to him and I don't want you to either".Nobody has a gun to anyone's head. Why don't you mind your own business?