Prime Iron Mike versus Joshua or Wilder today

[Poppo168]

Not many boxers are going to be able to handle an improving Joshua ,no matter what era they fought in. The 2 that come to mind are Mike Tyson and Vitali Klitchko as i see no one else you can give a realistic reason to favor over him. It all comes down to attributes and abilities not who fought in what era and who won in the amatuers , that pretty much leaves Wilder out of this equation bc he has not shown great abilities and can be pressed therefore Tyson knocks him out rather quickly .

Those who think Wilder knocks him out has never seen the Ruddock or Lewis fights 3 fights total show case how hard Tyson was hard to hurt , Wilder doesnt have the balance nor seems to react to punches well when landed cleanly , Tyson would lower the boom on him before rnd 5 ..

Lennox would be a harder fight than Tyson for sure.

[robertzimmerman]

with these hypothetical fights there are not ''right/wrong'' answer. just which is most logical.

i think wilders length and power would trouble mike. and sometimes ''awfulness'' can work in a guys favor. just my take on it.

You're entitled to your opinion mate, but there's nothing logical about favouring Wilder over Mike.

He has the power to take out anyone in history, but he just doesn't have the technique needed to have given him the opportunity.

Stylistically, Mike would have been a horrible match up for him.

[robertzimmerman]

as i mentioned to another mike fan, there are no right/wrong answers to hypothetical fights. just which pick makes the most sense.

BOTH guys have bums on there ledgers. yes, mike had hand speed, power and a reliable chin. but his movements were so predictable its hysterical. he got away with it because everyone were afraid to exchange with him.

but if a guy had the balls to actually fight back, mike would panic. its mho that wilder would figure out and time mike, tko/ko him late.

Both guys beat B and C class guys. The difference is: Wilder has looked poor against them, whereas Mike destroyed them. Also: Mike destroyed world class fighters who would be top 10 HW's if they were around today.

Mike's movements weren't at all predictable, and Wilder would have had an absolute nightmare trying to time him. His technique is very poor, and Mike's size and movement wouldn't allow him to get set.

[robertzimmerman]

wilder doesnt defeat guys before the fight, true. but i say the level of their opponents are exactly the same.
bums, everywhere you look.

mike did struggle vs guys who tied him up and fought back.

How on earth could their opponents be on the same level?

Mike fought:

Tony Tucker
Michael Spinks
Trevor Berbick
Larry Holmes
Frank Bruno
Pinklon Thomas
Donovan Ruddock

Deontay Wilder has fought:

Bermane Stiverne
Malick Scott
Audley Harrison
Chris Arreola
Artur Szpilka
Eric Molina
Gerald Washington

[robertzimmerman]

StudentOfDaGame,

This is coming from the guy that says Dempsey would have been competitive in today's Heavyweight era LOL. Maybe vs Bellew.
Your opinion is invalid as you've proven to be a bigoted nostalgic nutter. You're the poster who dismisses science and is void of any common sense. This is a hypothetical conversation, there is no wrong or right answer.

You have embarrassed yourself on this thread, because you debate on statistics, and you're obsessed by size. Size alone doesn't win fights.

Of course Dempsey would be competitive against today's guys. He had the power, the speed and the size, to get inside the majority of today's top 20 guys. He wouldn't beat everyone, but he'd beat a fair few guys. There's enough footage available to gauge how he'd have fared.

I don't dismiss science. But the right blend of skills and size is what gets a fighter a win.

You are the one who is devoid of common sense. Just reread through your comments on this thread.

You have the cheek to quote a Tucker post. I mean really he couldn't carry Lewis jock strap, he lost full stop. It's irrelevant whether it was a stoppage or distance. I've already explained the situation on Super HW's & the impact of Emmanuel Steward. The big men of today are much better than before if you can't see it you're just plain ******. Who's better than Lewis, Wlad, Josh, Fury & Wilder from the previous era, who was the same height? Who had better finesse?.

What difference does it make that Lennox beat Tucker?

The big men today aren't better than all of their predecessors.

Do you even watch boxing?

Wilder is garbage.

He's done NOTHING.

He has very poor technique.

Mike would have crushed him, and Wilder's size would actually have been a disadvantage for him.

Lewis>Klitschkos>Fury (Lineal champions) all dominant Super HW's. Why hasn't a smaller HW thrown a spanner in the works & dominated the division?.

There is nobody like Mike around today.

I liked Lennox, I loved Vitali, and I love Fury.

They are/were great fighters.

This is a debate regarding Mike-Wilder.

You'd have favoured Wilder due to the success of the above fighters, noting that Wilder is of a similar size. But what you don't realise, is that: Wilder is levels below those guys.

You can't offer a breakdown or anything. Your whole premise is: Wilder's bigger, and boxing has improved.

This is the last time I'll be responding to you because you seem stuck in the past & so delusional. The fact you're so adamant that Tyson steam rolls through Wilder without acknowledging the midgets weakness says it all. Go look up hypothetical please.

The only guy here who's delusional, is: YOU!

Mike would have thought it was Christmas against Wilder.

The guy has only beaten Stiverne in a laboured win, and has struggled against B and C class opposition, showing crude technique.

Go and watch Mike in the mid 80's. Study the head movement, the bobbing and weaving, the combinations, the body shots, how he was able to slip inside a big guys guard, the hand speed and the ferocity.

Go and watch Wilder swinging away like a lunatic who's never fought before.

Sports science and size wouldn't have determined the outcome of this fight.

[robertzimmerman]

Tyson was more icon more than a world class Boxer. Remember this was pre Internet. If HBO/Showtime told the general population he was the greatest thing since sliced bread the public would lap it up. In this day & age there's no where to hide.

I'm just saying if Tyson exchanges punches with Wilder or Joshua, Tyson comes of on the worse end because of the velocity these big men are punching with. They don't need to be vulgar or play mind games to get a win. Their hands do the talking.

People think this is a video game lol.

He proved he was a world class fighter by beating other world class fighters, you nut.

Wilder has more one punch power, but how would he have been able to have positioned himself to have landed it? It's no good possessing the power, if you can't get the shots off.

[REMOVE SHARK 55]

StudentOfDaGame,



You have embarrassed yourself on this thread, because you debate on statistics, and you're obsessed by size. Size alone doesn't win fights.

Of course Dempsey would be competitive against today's guys. He had the power, the speed and the size, to get inside the majority of today's top 20 guys. He wouldn't beat everyone, but he'd beat a fair few guys. There's enough footage available to gauge how he'd have fared.

I don't dismiss science. But the right blend of skills and size is what gets a fighter a win.

You are the one who is devoid of common sense. Just reread through your comments on this thread.



What difference does it make that Lennox beat Tucker?

The big men today aren't better than all of their predecessors.

Do you even watch boxing?

Wilder is garbage.

He's done NOTHING.

He has very poor technique.

Mike would have crushed him, and Wilder's size would actually have been a disadvantage for him.



There is nobody like Mike around today.

I liked Lennox, I loved Vitali, and I love Fury.

They are/were great fighters.

This is a debate regarding Mike-Wilder.

You'd have favoured Wilder due to the success of the above fighters, just because Wilder is of a similar size.

You can't offer a breakdown or anything. Your whole premise is: Wilder's bigger, and boxing has improved.



The only guy here who's delusional, is: YOU!

Mike would have thought it was Christmas against Wilder.

The guy has only beaten Stiverne in a laboured win, and has struggled against B and C class opposition, showing crude technique.

Go and watch Mike in the mid 80's. Study the head movement, the bobbing and weaving, the combinations, the body shots, how he was able to slip inside a big guys guard, the hand speed and the ferocity.

Go and watch Wilder swinging away like a lunatic who's never fought before.

Sports science and size wouldn't have determined the outcome of this fight.

Fair enough I complete agree with your premise that size wouldn't determine everything & you've put forth a good argument so bravo.
I personally don't think Dempsey would be competitive due to his skill set I've witnessed on footage but again that's hypothetical so I'm not right or wrong nor are you.

[robertzimmerman]

top 5 in the heavyweight division, yeah, but in the grand scheme of things overall time absolutely not. Even so i dont think Tyson ever fought super heavies on Wilder's level, he fought fighters who could be considered better than Wilder but they weren't super heavies, they were smaller and likely easier to get to.

Wilder's size and style would have meant that Mike would have been able to have got to him easily.

Wilder's size would actually have been a disadvantage against a guy like Mike.

[robertzimmerman]

Can't read English then, pal?

Idiot.

I can read, but it has zero logic.

Just reread what you've typed.

[Mr Objecitivity]

I've always knew and stated that Mike Tyson's greatest downfall and worst possible opponent is someone who is big (in height, weight and reach) + skilled. Being big alone certainly isn't enough if skills don't complement the size advantage. Thus, Deontay Wilder isn't going to be this type of threatening opponent for Mike Tyson as he is one of the least skilled 'big' heavyweight champions in history. Some of his technique is below average and some are even below contender level. This is why Deontay Wilder doesn't fulfill that type of boxer to pose that much of a threat to Mike Tyson. Mike Tyson does something similar or maybe even worse to Deontay Wilder what Evgeny Romanov did to Deontay Wilder in the amateurs when Wilder was knocked out:



Anthony Joshua on the other hand, is a big heavyweight who is also decently skilled. If it's the current Anthony Joshua (who has decent skills but is still relatively unrefined) vs peak Mike Tyson, then it's a 50/50 fight for me that could go absolutely either way. I personally see it lasting the distance and could very well be a draw or a close decision for either. However, in a few years time (assuming that Anthony Joshua would further refine / improve his skills as the most likely scenario), then I will favor him by a bigger margin to beat Mike Tyson.

A big skillful boxer will be the favorite to beat a small skilled boxer. However, Deontay Wilder is anything but skilled even though he is big. A big unskilled boxer can be beaten lopsidedly by a small skilled boxer.