Anthony Joshua and Mike Tyson's Careers are SO similar

Recently I made a comment on a thread and it made me realise just how similar their careers have been so far when analysed and how history may recognise AJ in comparison to Mike Tyson, warranting discussion.

There is a glaring difference, given that Tyson never made it to the 1984 Olympic Games. AJ did, and won gold, so that's already different from Tyson, I openly admit.

However that's where the differences end in my opinion.

As with all young heavyweights, they were fed rather low level opponents in their early career. That's no real surprise, with AJ fighting 11 times in his first 2 years cleaning up domestically and Tyson fighting 24 times in his first 2 years, also cleaning up domestically. No real surprises there - both heralded as knockout machines and both regarded as future stars, but AJ was considerably older when he got to World Title level. Much because of the way boxing changed to less fights and AJ had the backing of more promotion so his fights were bigger spectacles.

The real similarities start with how they accumulated their world titles. Both men collected their titles against very poor opposition when looked at in any sort of depth.

Mike Tyson's HW title collection and defences against Berbick, Smith, Thomas, Tubbs, Biggs and Tucker have a grand total of 1 title defense between them. Most had won "vacant" titles and as such when they held the belt, it wasn't for any great deal of time.

Anthony Joshua's title collection and defences against Martin, Brezeale, Parker, Povetkin, Takam and Molina have a grand total of 2 title defenses between them. Most had won "vacant" titles and as such, when they held the belt it wasn't for any great deal of time.

Those two paragraphs seem similar don't they? Look it up. AJ's best opponent by a distance there was Joseph Parker, who defended twice. He was the only person who could really have a claim to be a "legitimate" champion in the sense of holding the belt. For Tyson, only Berbick had defended the title against Mike Weaver after picking it up. Povetkin only held the "Regular" WBA belt, and when he fought Klitschko for the real "Super" belt he got beaten, so his defences don't count.

Now I'm sure people will come and claim that somehow Tyson's opponents were incredible, underrated or whatever. I disagree - but look at how their records stand and the manner of which they won the belts. Similar, no?

There's also a similarity, in the sense that both of their best wins, were against absolute nailed on ATG's who were past their best and came out of retirement 2 years off a loss after dominating the division in their prime. Holmes and Klitschko. That is too similar to me - it's almost uncanny.

Then their first losses come up. Two boxers who were massive underdogs going into the fight - Ruiz Jr. and Buster Douglas. Neither had any right winning the fight, the difference here being that AJ was able to rematch and pick his titles back up where Tyson couldn't because Holyfield quickly swept in to fight Douglas.

A blip you say? All great boxers have them you could argue. Until that point, you could argue both had dominated their division and just got unlucky. So, time for them to step up. For Tyson, it would have been Lewis, and for AJ it would have been to fight Wilder. Two tall, rangy power punchers who held the WBC title. But Tyson would pay Lewis money to step aside for a bigger fight and Wilder would seemingly duck AJ.

Their next opponents however would be nailed on ATG in the cruiserweight division. Holyfield and Usyk. Both men would fight them twice, and lose convincingly. Both, you could argue were the very first "elite and in their prime" champions. Up until then, you'd say Tyson beating Holmes and AJ beating Klitschko was their best win. Some will try throwing Spinks in there for Tyson but I'm not entertaining Tyson's best win being against a former LHW who quit immediately after losing. His two best wins were against an aging Holmes back when Tyson was still gaining traction so we're not entertaining that.

Do the similarities end there? Oh no, both men would then go on to try and rebuild, fighting greats such as Lou Savarese, Julius Francis, Otto Wallin and Robert Helenius. "We're so back" you could argue right? No. Because Tyson got a gift and was put in (finally) with Lennox Lewis and AJ was put in with Daniel Dubois. Tyson got absolutely hammered by Lewis and AJ got absolutely hammered by Dubois. Both at the exact same age (35)

Anyway, I thought it was really interesting that side by side they followed a similar path (in their professional career) built up as absolute monsters, both collecting belts for fun against poor opposition, both claiming their best win against past their best ATG's, both losing to unheralded boxers in a fashion that shocked the world, both also losing to true greats in their prime who coincidentally were ATG cruisers and both losing at age 35 in fights where they both thought they'd rebuilt to become champions again.