Anthony Joshua warns Mike Tyson: We’re bigger, we’re stronger

[Onetimeonly]

Uh, AJ, it's not that.

It's that Tyson is in his 50s and has been smoking as much pot as Bob Dylan. Conducive to lyrics writing, to fighting? Not as much.

I imagine Tyson could better that bum in music.

[Tony1244]

Uh, AJ, it's not that.

It's that Tyson is in his 50s and has been smoking as much pot as Bob Dylan. Conducive to lyrics writing, to fighting? Not as much.

I imagine Tyson could better that bum in music.

[lazboy]

In summary and for my benefit in closing this issue:

EO called out Riddick Blowe for a comment Riddick Blowe never specifically stated.

Here’s what Blowe said originally: “I wonder how many threads we have now with the same moronic argument that size means everything in boxing.”

Somehow EO took this to mean: “EO, you specifically stated, “size means everything in boxing”, in the boxrec forum.”

Then EO challenged Blowe and the forum to specifically find where he had stated: “size means everything in boxing”. This was something that had come from his fictionalised version of Blowe’s post. In other words, he wanted people to find something he knew he didn’t specifically state. I don’t believe anyone claimed he had specifically said: “size means everything in boxing”. Essentially, he was setting an impossible task.

On top of that, EO unreasonably wouldn’t allow people to make implications or inferences. Of course, there is a strong argument that EO believes or did believe (until recently) size is the paramount consideration in boxing, remember he said: “Andy Ruiz beats Sonny Liston because size matters”.

He also challenged the forum to prove he had lied in general. I recall he lied recently about editing a post, as the Baroness Margaret Thatcher had exposed him. I believe the word of the Baroness holds more weight.

As he challenged the forum to prove he had lied it would be absurd if EO himself was the determiner of whether someone had proved he had lied or not; I suggested that he appoint a impartial third person or have a majority vote. He rejected these suggestions.

This leads to my conclusion that he was not sincere in challenge to the forum and Blowe and he was bluffing as to quitting the forum. I believe what I have written proves he is completely irrational. He asked forum members to source a fictional quote and wanted to be the person who determined if he, himself, was a liar or not.

On a personal note: I’m not proud of the time I have spent on this nor has it given me any satisfaction. I agree with counter puncher above comments that it is not fun anymore. I however needed to wrap up this for myself. I’ll put EO back on ignore as clearly, he is irrational. I’ll exercise self-discipline not to respond directly to his comments. If something is wrong about my summary, I will listen to any other person (other than EO) however.

End.

[Onetimeonly]

Eo claimed to have a wife. The results are in....LIAR!

[Counter-puncher]

Eo claimed to have a wife. The results are in....LIAR!

I remember rover pretending to get excited because he was supposedly going out for a meal later, with 'his Julie', or 'his Karen', or wtf he called his imaginary partner. everybody laughed at that, too.

[Enlightened-One]

In summary and for my benefit in closing this issue:

EO called out Riddick Blowe for a comment Riddick Blowe never specifically stated.

Here’s what Blowe said originally: “I wonder how many threads we have now with the same moronic argument that size means everything in boxing.”

Somehow EO took this to mean: “EO, you specifically stated, “size means everything in boxing”, in the boxrec forum.”

Then EO challenged Blowe and the forum to specifically find where he had stated: “size means everything in boxing”.

Correct so far.

This was something that had come from his fictionalised version of Blowe’s post.

Riddick Blowe posted a fictional claim. You've even quoted his lying dishonest nonsense. I also quoted his words when I attacked them. His words exist because we've both read and quoted them!

Can you not read?

Anyone with reading comprehension understands the difference between the phrases "size matters" and "size means everything".

It would be horrendously dishonest for anyone to claim they are synonymous.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "synonymous"?

In other words, he wanted people to find something he knew he didn’t specifically state.

Exactly. Therefore, why claim I believe in something that I never specifically stated?

I don’t believe anyone claimed he had specifically said: “size means everything in boxing”.

I can provide the names of several forum members that insist that is something I believe (i.e. Riddick Blowe or can you not read?), despite the fact I can provide at least a dozen posts of mine where I specifically stated that size wasn't the be-all-and-end-all.

Essentially, he was setting an impossible task.

Agreed. I was accused of writing or claiming something that never occurred in reality.

It's impossible for someone to prove I've claimed something if I have never once posted a remotely similar comment to this forum.

On top of that, EO unreasonably wouldn’t allow people to make implications or inferences.

Of course I wouldn't.

I'm not going to admit to believing in something that doesn't reflect my opinions. Especially if I am capable of quoting at least twenty sentences of mine that I've submitted to this forum that clearly opposes their claims.

Of course, there is a strong argument that EO believes or did believe (until recently) size is the paramount consideration in boxing, remember he said: “Andy Ruiz beats Sonny Liston because size matters”.

You're being dishonest by moving the goalposts. The word "paramount" doesn't mean "the only thing that matters".

Do you understand what I have to put up with? If you don't understand the definition of basic child-like English words, then you're going to keep misinterpreting people's posts.

And for the record, I don't believe that size is "paramount", instead it's simply one piece of the proverbial jigsaw puzzle.

Do you need me to explain what the word "proverbial" means, because if you don't know the definition of the word "paramount", then I'll have to assume you need some help with this?

He also challenged the forum to prove he had lied in general. I recall he lied recently about editing a post, as the Baroness Margaret Thatcher had exposed him. I believe the word of the Baroness holds more weight.

There's no proof.

You can't prove your claim about me believing that "size is the only thing that matters" and neither can you prove I lied about editing that post.

There's no proof.

You're assuming guilt based on a complete absence of evidence.

As he challenged the forum to prove he had lied it would be absurd if EO himself was the determiner of whether someone had proved he had lied or not; I suggested that he appoint a impartial third person or have a majority vote. He rejected these suggestions.

There's no proof of me having ever lied. Others have lied though, hence their inability to justify their claims.

I cannot defend fictional claims that others dream up. The onus is on everyone else to provide proof of my lying.

I am innocent until proven guilty.

This leads to my conclusion that he was not sincere in challenge to the forum and Blowe and he was bluffing as to quitting the forum.

There was never any risk of me quitting the forum based on Riddick Blowe's fictional claim about me.

After all, what did I have to worry about? If I never wrote anything that remotely resembled Blowe's claims, then it's impossible for anyone to provide proof of me believing in something that I've never believed in.

I believe what I have written proves he is completely irrational.

Then you're mentally ill. You deem guilt based on whom you like or dislike. Evidence and reality is irrelevant to you.

He asked forum members to source a fictional quote and wanted to be the person who determined if he, himself, was a liar or not.

Riddick Blowe lied, hence the reason why he's refused to back-up his claims and also leave the forum.

He knew he lied. And so do you.

On a personal note: I’m not proud of the time I have spent on this nor has it given me any satisfaction.

You're mentally ill. So being "proud" or not is irrelevant.

I agree with counter puncher above comments that it is not fun anymore. I however needed to wrap up this for myself.

Trolling must be fun for you, because otherwise what other reason do you have for doing it?

I’ll put EO back on ignore as clearly, he is irrational. I’ll exercise self-discipline not to respond directly to his comments. If something is wrong about my summary, I will listen to any other person (other than EO) however.

You won't ignore my posts. The vast majority of people that claim to do this, keep responding to them,

And of course, you won't pay attention to this response, because my counter-argument perfectly reflects reality, which is something you cannot possibly refute... except for resorting to lies and insults.

[Enlightened-One]

To justify what I actually believe, this was posted on the 16th June:

"Today VS Yesteryear: Has HW Punching Power Increased?"

If size is the end all, be all why does Fury have a lower KO percentage than Rocky Marciano?

Size does matter. It's just not the only thing that matters.

We both agree that size does matter.

No one has said that size is the be-all-and-end-all. You know for certain that I haven't claimed this to be the case, since we've discussed this at length and I must have explained this to you at least four times.

The thing is, you keep pretending that this is something I believe in, despite me repeatedly telling you otherwise.

Just in case you’ve misinterpreted what I’ve just written, let me make this perfectly clear!

• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!

Please refrain from being dishonest by making derogatory claims about what I believe in if your accusations bear no relation to anything I’ve actually written!

General rules exist. Exceptions exist also. Size matters, but other things do too.

The only thing that is totally irrelevant is nostalgia, hearsay, rumour, hype or reputation.

[tiny_acres]

To justify what I actually believe, this was posted on the 16th June:

"Today VS Yesteryear: Has HW Punching Power Increased?"

If size is the end all, be all why does Fury have a lower KO percentage than Rocky Marciano?

Size does matter. It's just not the only thing that matters.

We both agree that size does matter.

No one has said that size is the be-all-and-end-all. You know for certain that I haven't claimed this to be the case, since we've discussed this at length and I must have explained this to you at least four times.

The thing is, you keep pretending that this is something I believe in, despite me repeatedly telling you otherwise.

Just in case you’ve misinterpreted what I’ve just written, let me make this perfectly clear!

• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!
• I have never said that size is the be-all-and-end-all!

Please refrain from being dishonest by making derogatory claims about what I believe in if your accusations bear no relation to anything I’ve actually written!

General rules exist. Exceptions exist also. Size matters, but other things do too.

The only thing that is totally irrelevant is nostalgia, hearsay, rumour, hype or reputation.

In the immortal words of Saad

[Counter-puncher]

The only thing* that is totally irrelevant is nostalgia, hearsay, rumour, hype or reputation**


* I know, I say 'the only thing' and then go on to list four things, I'm not very good at this


**or in other words, as usual, me using four words when one would have sufficed perfectly well. I just can't help writing pompous, prolix, self-indulgent prose***, because I think it adds a patina of intelligence and thoroughness to my posts, when actually intelligent readers just notice the dozens of redundancies and the amount of times I use three or four words to say exactly the same thing. Unfortunately I lack the fundamental intelligence or self-awareness to realise that my excessive verbiage is actually detrimental both to the flow of my posts and their overall effect, so please have pity for me every time you read the mindless repetition of a phrase like 'hearsay, rumour, hype or reputation', because the excess of wasted words is actually in direct proportion to the vast aching chasm of my personality and the empty cell of my life that I try, futilely, to fill with internet forum posts and the various pathetic hollow 'victories' I claim

*** yes, i know I 'used three words when one would have sufficed perfectly well', here, it's parodic

[Enlightened-One]

The only thing* that is totally irrelevant is nostalgia, hearsay, rumour, hype or reputation**


* I know, I say 'the only thing' and then go on to list four things, I'm not very good at this


**or in other words, as usual, me using four words when one would have sufficed perfectly well. I just can't help writing pompous, prolix, self-indulgent prose***, because I think it adds a patina of intelligence and thoroughness to my posts, when actually intelligent readers just notice the dozens of redundancies and the amount of times I use three or four words to say exactly the same thing. Unfortunately I lack the fundamental intelligence or self-awareness to realise that my excessive verbiage is actually detrimental both to the flow of my posts and their overall effect, so please have pity for me every time you read the mindless repetition of a phrase like 'hearsay, rumour, hype or reputation', because the excess of wasted words is actually in direct proportion to the vast aching chasm of my personality and the empty cell of my life that I try, futilely, to fill with internet forum posts and the various pathetic hollow 'victories' I claim

*** yes, i know I 'used three words when one would have sufficed perfectly well', here, it's parodic

Oh come on! Are you that desperate to win an argument that you’re willing to abandon any claims about me believing that “size is the only thing that matters”… and now you’re labouring over spelling and grammar?

You’re appearing rather desperate! And so I’ll leave you to have this discussion with yourself.

As long as you don’t challenge my belief about size not being the be-all-and-end-all, then I really couldn’t care less!

And to be fair, you haven't challenged me on this point, because you can't.

[Counter-puncher]

The only thing* that is totally irrelevant is nostalgia, hearsay, rumour, hype or reputation**


* I know, I say 'the only thing' and then go on to list four things, I'm not very good at this


**or in other words, as usual, me using four words when one would have sufficed perfectly well. I just can't help writing pompous, prolix, self-indulgent prose***, because I think it adds a patina of intelligence and thoroughness to my posts, when actually intelligent readers just notice the dozens of redundancies and the amount of times I use three or four words to say exactly the same thing. Unfortunately I lack the fundamental intelligence or self-awareness to realise that my excessive verbiage is actually detrimental both to the flow of my posts and their overall effect, so please have pity for me every time you read the mindless repetition of a phrase like 'hearsay, rumour, hype or reputation', because the excess of wasted words is actually in direct proportion to the vast aching chasm of my personality and the empty cell of my life that I try, futilely, to fill with internet forum posts and the various pathetic hollow 'victories' I claim

*** yes, i know I 'used three words when one would have sufficed perfectly well', here, it's parodic

Oh come on! Are you that desperate to win an argument that you’re willing to abandon any claims about me believing that “size is the only thing that matters”… and now you’re labouring over spelling and grammar?

'spelling and grammar' are two things I don't even mention in my post, dear

Shall i now have a three-paragraph public breakdown screeching the word LIAR over and over, and challenging you to leave the forum if you can't find an example of my criticising your spelling and grammar?

My criticism speaks to your writing style and its prolixity, unfortunately you don't seem to understand the word 'prolix', despite your using so many of them words aren't really your thing I'm afraid, though i can assure you it has nothing to do with either grammar or spelling. in fact I'll give you a definition here to help you:

prolix
/ˈprəʊlɪks,prəˈlɪks/

adjective
(of speech or writing) using or containing too many words; tediously lengthy.
"he found the narrative too prolix and discursive"
Similar:
lengthy
long-winded
long-drawn-out
overlong
prolonged

[IRONFIST]

Peak Mike Tyson would've cut though Joshua like a hot knife through butter, 3 round max job.

[Counter-puncher]

i actually think peak Tyson would visibly intimidate Joshua in the ring and he could fall apart pretty quickly.

[Onetimeonly]

Eo claimed to have a wife. The results are in....LIAR!

I remember rover pretending to get excited because he was supposedly going out for a meal later, with 'his Julie', or 'his Karen', or wtf he called his imaginary partner. everybody laughed at that, too.

His sweet Sarah. He was posting the night of the big date. It's was one thing to post 24/7 while taking law school......

And I see eo has lost his shit and ruined another thread. Oh well, next.

[The Gratest]

What a load of prolix.

[H8Usernames]

There was a time when god was making men who were at their best fighting weight at 190 pounds but then god stopped and started making them at 200 pounds instead. Strange how god works, never mind the percentages from 168 to 175 there are only 7 pounds between. From 175 to 190 there were 15 but god decided that 15 pounds wasnt enough and started creating men a whole 25 pounds bigger. Funny how god works in mysterious ways. How many 7 pounds can you fit inside 25 pounds, lets do the calculation 7 14 21. 3 7 pounds and 4 pounds to spare.

[Tony1244]

“Andy Ruiz beats Sonny Liston because size matters”.

The above statement provides an example of "Size means Everything," and is every bit as stupid, so Riddick was correct and didn't lie.

Of course, if Ruiz was in the same shape as Sonny, he wouldn't be bigger, but no one has accused EO of being sharp.

[Onetimeonly]

Joshua is at least as good as fighters like Thomas, Tucker, Douglas and Ruddock that Mike faced in his prime. Doesn't mean Mike couldn't get him early, but both of their results deem it unlikely.

[jas80s]

Anytime you are talking about Tyson, his mindset, and the mindset of his opponent are hugely important. It is really hard to say how effective he would be, he was very fragile mentally and he seemed to rely on being able to intimidate his opponent, mostly to give himself a much needed boost of confidence it would seem.

Sometimes Tyson was a destroyer, and sometimes he was in there just waiting to be stopped by an opponent he didn't think he could beat. Joshua's response to Tyson's early shots would tell the story of the match up, if he took them well and fired back, Tyson would go away, always did.

[Syntax Error]

Anytime you are talking about Tyson, his mindset, and the mindset of his opponent are hugely important. It is really hard to say how effective he would be, he was very fragile mentally and he seemed to rely on being able to intimidate his opponent, mostly to give himself a much needed boost of confidence it would seem.

Sometimes Tyson was a destroyer, and sometimes he was in there just waiting to be stopped by an opponent he didn't think he could beat. Joshua's response to Tyson's early shots would tell the story of the match up, if he took them well and fired back, Tyson would go away, always did.

On the money.

This sums it up perfectly; it's definitely all about mindset.

Tyson was a very intelligent and knowledgeable fighter.

He had encyclopaedic of the greats of the past and he knew what made a great fighter.

The Holyfield fights spring to mind; he knew from about round 3 of the first fight he was never beating Evander and that's why he tried to get out of the first fight and why he reacted the way he did during the rematch.

The greatest fighters knew how to deal with adversity, but Tyson never did.

[Thomastearns]

Anytime you are talking about Tyson, his mindset, and the mindset of his opponent are hugely important. It is really hard to say how effective he would be, he was very fragile mentally and he seemed to rely on being able to intimidate his opponent, mostly to give himself a much needed boost of confidence it would seem.

Sometimes Tyson was a destroyer, and sometimes he was in there just waiting to be stopped by an opponent he didn't think he could beat. Joshua's response to Tyson's early shots would tell the story of the match up, if he took them well and fired back, Tyson would go away, always did.

On the money.

This sums it up perfectly; it's definitely all about mindset.

Tyson was a very intelligent and knowledgeable fighter.

He had encyclopaedic of the greats of the past and he knew what made a great fighter.

The Holyfield fights spring to mind; he knew from about round 3 of the first fight he was never beating Evander and that's why he tried to get out of the first fight and why he reacted the way he did during the rematch.

The greatest fighters knew how to deal with adversity, but Tyson never did.

Hold on a minute!

So basically Mike Tyson should not have been affected by the loss of both his legal guardian and mentor Cus D'Amato, and his chief trainer Kevin Rooney?

Nor should he have been destabilised by a disastrous marriage, a cocaine habit, a prison term following a conviction for rape which he always denied?

Nor should the constant infernal meddlings of a certain Don King or the constant glare of the world's media 24/7 have affected his once laser-like focus, should it?

I mean, it wouldn't bother any of us, would it?

Perhaps he should also still have been expected to walk through a 'phenomenally transformed' Evander Holyfield who back then regarded the casual use of his forehead as a major weapon?

Of course he should, shouldn't he?

He should neither have been expected to rely upon an entire entourage surrounding and protecting him the way the Nation of Islam once did with Ali, or the way virtually everyone in the public eye is today.

It's obvious then, just like Teddy says, Mike Tyson was just a mentally weak hype job, wasn't he?

This isn't just a facile attempt to rewrite and reinterpret the narrative of one man's life is it?

Of course not.

[Counter-puncher]

Dry your eyes sister

[RScarf1]

I don't think Tyson was ever mentally weak. He was undefeated from 1985-1989 and then he lost to Douglas in '90. He wasn't mentally focused in that fight. Then after that, he was good, but not the same. I think he was at about 75% of his abilities from '90-'91. His training wasn't as good and he probably had distractions. The conviction he had was because of a very unfair trial and I've read lengthy articles about that trial. That made him bitter and he lost a few of his prime years. That was a different situation from Muhammad Ali because Ali did not have to go to prison after he refused to be drafted into the Army because he was appealing the decision of the court, but he was banned from boxing for three years and couldn't leave the United States because the government took his passport. Tyson was in prison for a crime he should not have been convicted for. When he came back in '95, I think he was at about 50% of what he was in his prime and that was still good enough to win a couple of world titles, but he could not beat the elite such as Holyfield and Lewis. After the loss to Lewis, Tyson won by KO 1 against Clifford Etienne. In the losses to Danny Williams and Kevin McBride, I think Tyson was at about 25% of what he was in his prime. I think he always tried his best when he fought, but not as much effort for training except in the '80s when he was at his best. I think it is amazing that in spite of the fact that he did not fulfill his potential for most of his career, he is still considered a top 20 heavyweight of all time and top 10 depending on people's opinions. BoxRec lists him at No. 9 all time heavyweight. I remember there were discussions and articles about whether Tyson would even be inducted into the boxing hall of fame because some people thought he didn't deserve it. He fought from 1985-2005, so 20 years, but for 15 of those 20 years, he was not great. However, he was usually good enough to beat everyone but the elite during those 15 years. Would Tyson have beaten Holyfield if Tyson did not get convicted? I don't think so. I think Don King knew that Tyson could lose to Holyfield and King seemed to be trying to delay the fight even when Holyfield was No. 1 contender in the WBA, WBC, and IBF. Finally, because the public wanted it, Tyson vs. Holyfield was going to happen in '91 and then Tyson unfortunately got arrested. Now I see Tyson as rejuvenated, motivated, and mentally stronger for what he went through in his career. I don't think he could beat the best heavyweights today at his age, but I think he will easily beat Roy Jones Jr. in the upcoming exhibition. Jones has a lot of wear and tear and he's not really a heavyweight.

[Onetimeonly]

Tysons biggest problem is his low ring Iq and his average in fighting skills as a result of it.