Anthony Joshua Reveals How A Fight With Mike Tyson Would Go

[bluepete]

No problem! I don't watch much TV. Instead, I build televisions and computers for a living. So I have plenty of things to enjoy.

As far as what someone else said, I could care less. You should be able to guess by now that I only deal with valid and sound logic. Otherwise, I don't value them.

Just another example of people who are actually in combat sport, who experiment by hitting people in the head and getting hit, knowing less about it than a guy who fixes TVs hey?

[Mr Objecitivity]

You don't deal with valid or sound logic. You talk nonsense. Nobody who knows anything about boxing thinks Tyson would be a minor annoyance to any fighter. I don't care what you do for a living,I'm talking to someone who thinks that carrying extra weight, even if it's useless fat around their waist, adds to their power and durability. Again, bigger, in general is harder to stop. Not always due to chin. Bigger in general has, even from a skill perspective more opportunities to land punches and stop an opponent. Not always due to power. Bigger is generally heavier. Adding more weight doesnt increase chin or power. This is the truth that people in the game know.

You don't deal with valid or sound logic.

Yes, I do. All my arguments / claims have been logically put forward. You are yet to offer a single 'logical' criticism to any of my arguments. Merely claiming 'you don't deal with logic' is insufficient. You need to point out how such is the case before your claim could be accepted.

Nobody who knows anything about boxing thinks Tyson would be a minor annoyance to any fighter.

I've already taken that statement back so why are you still bringing it up?

I don't care what you do for a living

I also don't care whether it's a 'slow TV day'.

I'm talking to someone who thinks that carrying extra weight, even if it's useless fat around their waist, adds to their power and durability.

The evidence and science suggests that such is the case.

Just another example of people who are actually in combat sport, who experiment by hitting people in the head and getting hit, knowing less about it than a guy who fixes TVs hey?

Knowing less or more about what? About science? My job requires an extensive understanding of science and I know the impact weight has on punch resistance and power from a scientific basis / perspective. However, it's totally irrelevant. My position of authority doesn't make my claims automatically true by default. Likewise, people who are in the sport of boxing, even their claims don't automatically become true just because they claimed something. Logically sound & valid arguments / evidences have to be put forward before something should be accepted from an objective standpoint. It's totally irrelevant who is doing the arguing (whether it's someone who is in higher authority or lower authority based on experience). What's relevant is the ACTUAL argument put forward and whether it is sound/unsound or valid / invalid. Only sound and valid arguments can be accepted. Mere claims aren't sufficient enough, irrespective of who does the claiming.

[bluepete]

1) I wasn't advising you on how to present your facts. Instead, I was asking you to substantiate your claims. Which I have every right to do because claims are only acceptable until they can be substantiated with sound and valid logic. Otherwise, they have no room in a debate / discussion as something to be expected.

2) You keep claiming x, y or z, but until you can substantiate your claims, they hold very little worth in a discussion / debate. So until you can substantiate the claim that Nikolai Valuev's heavyweight record is 'dismal' compared to Holyfield's, your claims remain to continue holding very little or no worth / value. Just because I don't blindly accept that Holyfield is good as you're claiming doesn't mean I understand the sport any less.

3) Then why do weight divisions exist if not for separating boxers with different punch power and resistance? In addition, why do many boxers have their KO percentage against heavier opponents lower than against lighter opposition?

4) You don't know if I am a man, woman or a robot or an Alien. So I suggest you avoid making assumptions about me please.

5) How am I dismissing different stages of career or level of opposition when my statistics take into consideration each and every one of the boxers I complied stats for, their entire career? My stats take into consideration the KO record of a boxer's entire career.

6) David Haye has a MUCH higher KO percentage than Bert Cooper. So based on ACTUAL evidence, he does hit harder. There's NO WAY to know for ABSOLUTE certainty who punches with the highest force in an output value sense. However, records give us the next best understanding of the quality of a puncher.

7) You can keep making irrelevant excuses but the fact is, Nikolai Valuev has never been dropped in his entire career (especially by the same caliber of a boxer like Bert Cooper) whilst Holyfield has in multiple occassions. Thus, never getting knocked down > gettind knocked down multiple times. Thus, Nikolai Valuev's punch resistance > Evander Holyfield's punch resistance.

8) Julius Long was just as tall as Nikolai Valuev, yet look as his record. He has been knocked out multiple times. So the excuse of height protecting a boxer from getting knocked out isn't as significant as you're making it out to be.

9) You can have rare cases where a boxer with a 40 (or more) pound weight disadvantage beats a heavier boxer. However, the evidence suggests that the heavier boxer has a MUCH higher percentage of wins over lighter opponents than vice versa. So one, two or even three examples of a lighter boxer beating a heavier boxer doesn't prove that being heavier isn't a SIGNIFICANT advantage because the heavier boxers have a even HIGHER win record over lighter boxers than vice versa.

10) You're speculating with your own personal opinions / conclusions about how James Toney would've done against heavyweights whilst weighing below 200 hundred pounds himself. The fact is, in the modern day, James Toney (or anybody else for that matter) wouldn't be allowed to step into the ring against a heavyweight weighing 200 pounds according to the rules of boxing. Your baseless personal beliefs / thoughts / conclusions are irrelevant. In the past, it may have been allowed (when heavyweights weren't as evolved as modern heavyweights). However, it isn't allowed today.

11) As a rule, the heaviest boxers do have the best punch resistance, which is evident by the fact that they get knocked out less than lighter boxers on average.

12) Your logic is severely flawed. You've just committed a 'FALSE DILEMMA' LOGICAL FALLACY. Of course not ALL heavier boxers are going to have the advantage over lighter boxers. There are ALWAYS exceptions in boxing. It's a case of heavier boxer having the advantage MORE OFTEN than vice versa. David Haye is an exceptional light boxer. Not every light boxer is like David Haye.

13) 'APPEALING TO AUTHORITY' is a logical fallacy. So using it any situation (unless in a situation where evidence is also delivered by the individual in authority) leads to a flawed conclusion. Thus, they aren't valid / sound and therefore can be disregarded / ignored. So merely claiming boxer x or trainer x said this, therefore it's true isn't sound & valid logic. It's a fallacy! Until you can show ACTUAL sound & valid logic based evidence, your claims hold no worth / value. So if you wish to continue exposing your lack of logic, keep using logical fallacies such as appealing to authority.

14) Ad Hominem (personal attack) is also a logical fallacy. Who I am or what I personally do outside of this discussion has no relevance to my arguments in here. Thus, my arguments aren't any less valid / correct because of this. Such things don't invalidate my arguments in here. So why do you need to bring up points about my writing style and how much time I have? How does any of that make my arguments any less true / correct / valid? Perhaps take a logic course because your understanding and competency in logic is appalling?

15) I've already taken the point back about Mike Tyson being a 'minor annoyance' to Anthony Joshua. So why are you still bringing this up?

16) My stats reflect what happens in the ring. How are you going to 'give' me what happened in the ring? By writing a huge single paragraph of multiple unsubstantiated claims? Erm, OKAY!

17) It is not JUST me saying weight is a factor, but the group / individuals that came up with the rules of boxing. They've decided to divide boxers into weight division, not me. So if you have a problem with weight divisions, then take it up with them and not me. I'm just analyzing boxing exactly how it is now. So because weight divisions exist today, I will analyze weight. However, if in the future, head size divisions or skull thickness divisions are to exist and weight divisions were not to exist anymore, I will likewise analyze head size divisions and skull thickness divisions then whilst abandoning analysis of weight.

You miss the point every time. The fact that it's the way to divide boxers into categories doesn't mean weight is the main factor in stopping someome or being stopped. Size is. And with size tends to come weight. This doesnt mean adding more weight adds more power or chin. Stoppages often don't come down to power anyway. They come from being hit too often. Lack of being stopped isn't always due to chin. Mostly, it's due to not being hit. Both of these are aided by size. The fact that Julius Long has been knocked out proves my point better than it does yours. A massive man like him, should have a great chin, according to your theory. But he had a bad defense. He was stopped early by someone I actually know in Audley Harrison, who was never a big puncher, but hit Long accurately and got him out. Valuev had a better defence than Long, better skills. And a better chin, I'm not saying a big man can't have a great chin. But as Long proves, it's not weight equals chin. Now you were the one comparing Valuev to Holyfield chin for chin and saying Valuevs was better. But one took on Lewis twice Bowe three times, Moorer twice, Foreman, Tyson the list goes one. Valuevs best opponent was Haye. If you can't see the difference in calibre between the quality of opposition then that's your problem. This, again Mr TV repair man, is why a man who only looks at figures on pieces of paper doesn't know as much about boxing as the people in boxing. You miss the whole human side of it. As for personal attacks, I don't remember attacking you. Were not face to face and nobody is getting hurt. I'm not offended that you have your opinion and think that because the numbers tell you bigger tends to get stopped less and stop others more then even bigger, in the only way you can get bigger, gaining weight, is even better. I don't get offended when you talk about toddlers and spelling and other irrelevant rubbish. Ive given my theory in regards to chin. I haven't seen one from you. There's a big discrepancy between men of the same weight in how well they take punches, that, if it's weight that's the main factor, shouldn't be there. So what's the difference between these people? As someone who now takes punches in sparring as a hobby but still with trains fighters I'd love to know..

[juggernaut666]

You miss the point every time. The fact that it's the way to divide boxers into categories doesn't mean weight is the main factor in stopping someome or being stopped. Size is. And with size tends to come weight. This doesnt mean adding more weight adds more power or chin. Stoppages often don't come down to power anyway. They come from being hit too often. Lack of being stopped isn't always due to chin. Mostly, it's due to not being hit. Both of these are aided by size. The fact that Julius Long has been knocked out proves my point better than it does yours. A massive man like him, should have a great chin, according to your theory. But he had a bad defense. He was stopped early by someone I actually know in Audley Harrison, who was never a big puncher, but hit Long accurately and got him out. Valuev had a better defence than Long, better skills. And a better chin, I'm not saying a big man can't have a great chin. But as Long proves, it's not weight equals chin. Now you were the one comparing Valuev to Holyfield chin for chin and saying Valuevs was better. But one took on Lewis twice Bowe three times, Moorer twice, Foreman, Tyson the list goes one. Valuevs best opponent was Haye. If you can't see the difference in calibre between the quality of opposition then that's your problem. This, again Mr TV repair man, is why a man who only looks at figures on pieces of paper doesn't know as much about boxing as the people in boxing. You miss the whole human side of it. As for person attacks, I don't remember attacking you. Were not face to face and nobody is getting hurt. I'm not offended that you have your opinion and think that because the numbers tell you bigger tends to get stopped less and stop others more then even bigger, in the only way you can get bigger, gaining weight, is even better. I don't get offended when you talk about toddlers and spelling and other irrelevant rubbish. Ive given my theory in regards to chin. I haven't seen one from you. There's a big discrepancy between men of the same weight in how well they take punches, that, if it's weight that's the main factor, shouldn't be there. So what's the difference between these people? As someone who now takes punches in sparring as a hobby but still with trains fighters I'd love to know..

I was actually going to TRY and make it through this one but really no need to go past this point , i'll wait until tab breaks this down as usual with logic!

" The fact that the most sensible way to divide boxers into categories doesn't mean weight is the main factor in stopping someome or being stopped. Size is. And with size tends to come weight."


Talk about Topsey turvey .......Topsy-turvy: in or into great disorder or confusion !

[bluepete]

Yes, I do. All my arguments / claims have been logically put forward. You are yet to offer a single 'logical' criticism to any of my arguments. Merely claiming 'you don't deal with logic' is insufficient. You need to point out how such is the case before your claim could be accepted.



I've already taken that statement back so why are you still bringing it up?



I also don't care whether it's a 'slow TV day'.



The evidence and science suggests that such is the case.



Knowing less or more about what? About science? My job requires an extensive understanding of science and I know the impact weight has on punch resistance and power from a scientific basis / perspective. However, it's totally irrelevant. My position of authority doesn't make my claims automatically true by default. Likewise, people who are in the sport of boxing, even their claims don't automatically become true just because they claimed something. Logically sound & valid arguments / evidences have to be put forward before something should be accepted from an objective standpoint. It's totally irrelevant who is doing the arguing (whether it's someone who is in higher authority or lower authority based on experience). What's relevant is the ACTUAL argument put forward and whether it is sound/unsound or valid / invalid. Only sound and valid arguments can be accepted. Mere claims aren't sufficient enough, irrespective of who does the claiming.

I don't care what you accept. The evidence and science does not suggest that adding weight improves punch resistance. You are taking this from numbers that you see on paper, and numbers are misleading. No matter how many times you claim it, there is no mechanism for 20lb of belly flab to protect you from being concussed by a left hook to the head. The reason people in the game know this is we see plenty of experiments in giving and receiving punishment, including experiencing it ourselves. The reason people in the fight game know this is everything has been tried to improve punch resistance and punching power already. If it is the weight why the difference between men of the same weight? Btw, you may well have taken that comment back in your answer to another poster. But it's still a comment that proves youre out of your depth talking about actual boxing. You need to see a few punches thrown in reality to think a man like Tyson would be an annoyance to anyone of any size. And you need to see abit of sparring up close to think that being unable to handle a heavyweights power is the reason men under 200lb don't box heavyweights these days, even though we know they can do so and win. 200lb is not a magic number. James Toney wouldve beaten Ruiz at 193 just like Jones did. Just because the weight categories are what they are doesnt make a guys chin change with weight. No matter how many times you say it

[bluepete]

I was actually going to TRY and make it through this one but really no need to go past this point , i'll wait until tab breaks this down as usual with logic!

" The fact that the most sensible way to divide boxers into categories doesn't mean weight is the main factor in stopping someome or being stopped. Size is. And with size tends to come weight."


Talk about Topsey turvey .......Topsy-turvy: in or into great disorder or confusion !

You needn't have bothered then I guess. But nice of you to show up. Yeah, size does generally give you an advantage when it comes to not being stopped. Does that mean adding flab or some extra upper body muscle does the same? Nope. Yeah let him do the arguing, he seems to like it. You're both telling me something I know not to be true. I'll happily refute this weight equals chin nonsense until the site goes out of business.

[bluepete]

I was actually going to TRY and make it through this one but really no need to go past this point , i'll wait until tab breaks this down as usual with logic!

" The fact that the most sensible way to divide boxers into categories doesn't mean weight is the main factor in stopping someome or being stopped. Size is. And with size tends to come weight."


Talk about Topsey turvey .......Topsy-turvy: in or into great disorder or confusion !

How about the logic of Holyfield was dropped in he's career but Valuev wasn't therefore Valuev has a better chin? No thought to how they both fought totally different levels of opposition for the most part and one got hit far more than the other. It says one went down and not the other so therefore the God of stats has spoken. I mean, maybe Valuev does have a better chin, but that was never proven, and therefore the stats don't give the information from which to make the comparison, right?

[juggernaut666]

You needn't have bothered then I guess. But nice of you to show up. Yeah, size does generally give you an advantage when it comes to not being stopped. Does that mean adding flab or some extra upper body muscle does the same? Nope. Yeah let him do the arguing, he seems to like it. You're both telling me something I know not to be true. I'll happily refute this weight equals chin nonsense until the site goes out of business.

You live in bizarro world ,you just said weight is not the reason for more stoppages ,size was . Which you then said comes with weight .

In the real world thats exactly why divisions were created bc the commissions KNEW weight of bigger fighter took away from a SMALLER more skilled fighter who was still at disadvantage win or lose ....sorry to tell you but thats boxing history and boxing 101 .


Your refutting logic? Is that what you're refutting ? I guess so !

[bluepete]

You live in bizarro world ,you just said weight is not the reason for more stoppages ,size was . Which you then said comes with weight .

In the real world thats exactly why divisions were created bc the commissions KNEW weight of bigger fighter took away from a SMALLER more skilled fighter who was still at disadvantage win or lose ....sorry to tell you but thats boxing history and boxing 101 .


Your refutting logic? Is that what you're refutting ? I guess so !

What I'm actually saying is yes size is an advantage. That's height reach and weight. Height and reach help because generally I can control punching range if I'm taller and longer yeah? So I can hit you when you cant hit me and more often all things being equal. So the guy getting hit more and landing less, if the difference gets too wide, often results in a stoppage. This isn't always due to power either. Now the bigger guys tend to be heavier. I'm 6 1, boxed at 175. Pretty lean. Most of the guys shorter than me, about 5 10 tend to be middles. The big men, 6 3, tend to be heavies. I know there are exceptions. So for me to box at heavy, in general, I'm at a disadvantage. Those men who are of that weight, in shape, tend to be 6 3 4 or even 5 and above. So I'm at a definite disadvantage in those fights. So I'm not going up there to a division where I'm boxing at a disadvantage. It's not the power because of their weight. I mean, yeah, some of them might have enough to knock me out. But that goes for the guys at my own weight. That's why I imagine there are weight divisions. I guess when guys are lean, you tend to have the same kind of dimensions. Not always. That don't mean the guy of 220 necessarily hits harder than the guy of 175, though he might depending on who it is. It also doesn't follow that by me adding 20lb, I hit any harder, or take a shot any better. Do you see what im saying?

[bluepete]

I was actually going to TRY and make it through this one but really no need to go past this point , i'll wait until tab breaks this down as usual with logic!

" The fact that the most sensible way to divide boxers into categories doesn't mean weight is the main factor in stopping someome or being stopped. Size is. And with size tends to come weight."


Talk about Topsey turvey .......Topsy-turvy: in or into great disorder or confusion !

What I'm also saying, going back to how this started is that Joshua, a guy of 6 foot 6, in my opinion, doesn't necessarily have a chin advantage over the other men of similar height that Tyson fought, just because he's heavier and more muscular.Men like Green and Tucker, may have been lighter, but may well be more durable. I mean maybe not, but the fact hes 249 doesn't give him any edge in this department. If he has a better chin than them then it's be because he does. Same with power. Does he hit harder than Bruno, Bonecrusher, Ruddock? Maybe, but it isn't so because he had the weight on them. Well not Bruno. He was 247.I remember Joshua on superstars, he weighed 230 and I think he said he was 16 percent body fat. He was an amazing athlete. I think he weighed 230 on he's debut.Was it really necessary to add 19lbs. Maybe he thought it was. I know he went on a neck program because he thought it'd help him take shots. That I can see. Everyone does it. Anyway hope that's made my position clearer. You don't have to agree, that's life I guess.