What was the bigger decrease in Skill that you notice in Tyson post-prison?

[BUDW]

heart

[PetethePrince]

Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki

He got hit a lot by a whole bunch of really crap fighters. Part of it was style(He was coming for the KO from bell to bell, so he was gonna walk into a couple), part of it was that the peekaboo is an overrated, ineffective method of defense.

He was no defensive wizard, just an offensive hurricane and possibly the fastest heavyweight puncher ever.

Care to share your thoughts on this statement Magna? I'm curious of your take on the peekaboo and why it's overrated. Certainly it's not risk-averse, but can you elaborate?

[MagnaNasakki]

Originally Posted by PetethePrince

Care to share your thoughts on this statement Magna? I'm curious of your take on the peekaboo and why it's overrated. Certainly it's not risk-averse, but can you elaborate?

The gloves aren't in position to defend. It can be easily pierced. It's movement patterns are predictable, as is it's offense; Tyson and Patterson were monsters, and made it work wonderfully with their unreal explosiveness and speed. Lesser fighters who try it just get tagged, timed, and axed.

It's also, as a rule, incredibly vulnerable to the jab, because it doesn't adjust, and focuses as much on the torso as the feet, which makes it easier to key in on.

It was the perfect style for Mike Tyson, but even he, with all his gifts and his animal intensity, couldn't overcome it's weaknesses. His skill and style failed him against Douglas and the like, not his heart or his competitive drive, both of which were always exemplary.

[hookfromhell]

Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki

The gloves aren't in position to defend. It can be easily pierced. It's movement patterns are predictable, as is it's offense; Tyson and Patterson were monsters, and made it work wonderfully with their unreal explosiveness and speed. Lesser fighters who try it just get tagged, timed, and axed.

It's also, as a rule, incredibly vulnerable to the jab, because it doesn't adjust, and focuses as much on the torso as the feet, which makes it easier to key in on.

It was the perfect style for Mike Tyson, but even he, with all his gifts and his animal intensity, couldn't overcome it's weaknesses. His skill and style failed him against Douglas and the like, not his heart or his competitive drive, both of which were always exemplary.

Ever try the peekabo style during your formative years?off subject Is parrying
even realistic under modern rules in the heavyweight division?

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki

The gloves aren't in position to defend. It can be easily pierced. It's movement patterns are predictable, as is it's offense; Tyson and Patterson were monsters, and made it work wonderfully with their unreal explosiveness and speed. Lesser fighters who try it just get tagged, timed, and axed.

It's also, as a rule, incredibly vulnerable to the jab, because it doesn't adjust, and focuses as much on the torso as the feet, which makes it easier to key in on.

It was the perfect style for Mike Tyson, but even he, with all his gifts and his animal intensity, couldn't overcome it's weaknesses. His skill and style failed him against Douglas and the like, not his heart or his competitive drive, both of which were always exemplary.

Winky Wright's peekaboo was rarely opened, although he applied very differently, you can add a B class type like Rochiagiani to a peek a boo who was rarely pierced, again a different application

I also think Tyson is 1 of the best come forward jab slippers I've seen

So disagree, as for Douglas, great performance by him, I'd argue Tyson's height and reach failed him more than anything

[MagnaNasakki]

Originally Posted by hookfromhell

Ever try the peekabo style during your formative years?off subject Is parrying
even realistic under modern rules in the heavyweight division?

No, I didn't. I was fast enough and explosive enough to give it an honest try, but fortunately, I was tall and long enough to try other avenues. Probably for the best, I didn't have a ton of foot speed and I never developed it.

Parrying is a viable defensive technique, yes. Just not one I use very often, so I can't tell you much about it, it's been 20 years since I've ever practiced them beyond padwork. Just the simple jab and counter stuff.

And I can't get Tyson eating jabs from Tillis, Ferguson, and others like pez out of my mind. I don't even consider him a great anything slipper. His movement was entirely offensive in nature, to get him off to his angles and to open up the following salvo. He was possibly even more pure an offensive fighter than Joe Louis. And he got hit. Rather often, even when he was crushing outmatched competition. His speed and intensity kept him with Douglas round after round, right in front of him, moving and throwing, but Douglas wasn't missing punches, and that goes down to defensive flaws. Douglas hit him too much, Ruddock hit him too much, then, after prison, EVERYBODY was hitting him too much. His head movement was merely adequate in his prime, a compliment to his dynamic shifts in positions and exquisite jackhammer combination punching.

[MagnaNasakki]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

Winky Wright's peekaboo was rarely opened, although he applied very differently, you can add a B class type like Rochiagiani to a peek a boo who was rarely pierced, again a different application

I also think Tyson is 1 of the best come forward jab slippers I've seen

So disagree, as for Douglas, great performance by him, I'd argue Tyson's height and reach failed him more than anything

I don't call that the peekaboo; Thats a high guard, very textbook, very compact. The peekaboo style I'm referring to was taught by Cus D'Amato. The hand's being further out in front, the style of movement, the tendency of the elbows to flare, prompting overcorrection, etc.

[PetethePrince]

Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki

The gloves aren't in position to defend. It can be easily pierced. It's movement patterns are predictable, as is it's offense; Tyson and Patterson were monsters, and made it work wonderfully with their unreal explosiveness and speed. Lesser fighters who try it just get tagged, timed, and axed.

It's also, as a rule, incredibly vulnerable to the jab, because it doesn't adjust, and focuses as much on the torso as the feet, which makes it easier to key in on.

It was the perfect style for Mike Tyson, but even he, with all his gifts and his animal intensity, couldn't overcome it's weaknesses. His skill and style failed him against Douglas and the like, not his heart or his competitive drive, both of which were always exemplary.

Particularly agree with this. It takes explosiveness, coordination, reflexes, speed, etc in order to pull of the style. That's why it's crazy when people ponder what if LaMotta or Marciano tried to employ that style. That would almost never work. It's not a risk-averse style but it's very much a reward based style. The entire concept of it is to slip and put yourself in positions to attack. It's almost offense through defense but it's not a very defensive based style in terms of stance/position (For a lack of a better wording).

Ali made the comment about its predictability in terms of the head-movement in regards to why he felt he would edge Tyson in a fight too.

The Douglas comment is an interesting one. Not sure if I necessarily agree or disagree but I'm sure it is a polarizing one perhaps. Almost all styles have a style foil to some extent to be fair. The jab part is also intriguing because I don't think people view Patterson and Tyson as having been vulnerable or deficient against the jab & jabbers. Although many have pointed at specific intervals of Tyson against Biggs, Holmes, etc and pointed as to why Ali would be able to move & jab effectively since those fighters had sporadic success with it (And they were no Ali).

How exactly do you rate the peeka boo style or compare it to the more conventional bob & weave style? I mean Frazier, Armstrong, & maybe even Qawi's more conventional bob & weave style type? Is it more effective and versatile and less one note since it brings the gloves and feet better positioned (Even with some cross-armed blocking technique employment), and maybe less squared and upper-body dependent? While perhaps better against jabbers, vulnerable to the uppercut? Interested in hearing your take between the two styles, though and which you consider superior.

Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki

I don't call that the peekaboo; Thats a high guard, very textbook, very compact. The peekaboo style I'm referring to was taught by Cus D'Amato. The hand's being further out in front, the style of movement, the tendency of the elbows to flare, prompting overcorrection, etc.

Agreed, I hate when Arthur Abraham's & Clottey's style gets reffered to as the peekaboo. Cus would be rolling in his grave. It's use is the very opposite in nature to the function of a true peekaboo. I would consider a high guard far too much in the defensive direction to be an effective style IMO. It can work for some fighters (Wright), but it is defeatist to the very objective of boxing. Hit and not get hit. Attack, parry, slip, counter, etc. Going into a turtle shell is completely giving up the initiative. It's like an E3 pawn opening for white in chess.

[KernowWarrior]

Testicular fortitude

[MagnaNasakki]

Originally Posted by PetethePrince

Particularly agree with this. It takes explosiveness, coordination, reflexes, speed, etc in order to pull of the style. That's why it's crazy when people ponder what if LaMotta or Marciano tried to employ that style. That would almost never work. It's not a risk-averse style but it's very much a reward based style. The entire concept of it is to slip and put yourself in positions to attack. It's almost offense through defense but it's not a very defensive based style in terms of stance/position (For a lack of a better wording).

Ali made the comment about its predictability in terms of the head-movement in regards to why he felt he would edge Tyson in a fight too.

The Douglas comment is an interesting one. Not sure if I necessarily agree or disagree but I'm sure it is a polarizing one perhaps. Almost all styles have a style foil to some extent to be fair. The jab part is also intriguing because I don't think people view Patterson and Tyson as having been vulnerable or deficient against the jab & jabbers. Although many have pointed at specific intervals of Tyson against Biggs, Holmes, etc and pointed as to why Ali would be able to move & jab effectively since those fighters had sporadic success with it (And they were no Ali).

How exactly do you rate the peeka boo style or compare it to the more conventional bob & weave style? I mean Frazier, Armstrong, & maybe even Qawi's more conventional bob & weave style type? Is it more effective and versatile and less one note since it brings the gloves and feet better positioned (Even with some cross-armed blocking technique employment), and maybe less squared and upper-body dependent? While perhaps better against jabbers, vulnerable to the uppercut? Interested in hearing your take between the two styles, though and which you consider superior.

Give me the more traditional bob and weave any day. It works, and has worked, for thousands of fighters across a century. The D'Amato peek-a-boo has worked for like three guys. Easy to see which is superior, and you nailed early in your post why.

Qawi was extremely difficult to hit. Mike Tyson and Floyd Patterson weren't. They were more of an offensive threat, but I'd personally be more intimidated fighting a prime Qawi; I'd REALLY have to use my jab, my feet, and set up my spots and my turns, or I'd be getting hit too much. Patterson and Tyson probably overwhelm me with speed and firepower, but I'd be landing back, and I hit like a howitzer, so at the very least, I'd be in with a prayer. I think it'd be straight difficult to fight Qawi and Frazier, who wouldn't be as apt to give me room(Tyson cared more about HIMSELF having room to throw than limiting an opponent. He just got tied up whenever he drifted to close to somebody), and would present off-rhythm, off line, varied dodges, which are harder to time. Both are vulnerable to the uppercut, but even still, gimme the bob, because it reacts off-rhythm. D'Amato Peekaboo is herky jerky, and got it's fighters hit with tons of uppercuts anyway.

Yes, I consider Qawi and Frazier better defensive fighters than Mike Tyson. That don't have his offensive firepower, though. Mike didn't fight dumb; He knew EXACTLY what made him successful, and he shoved it down your throat. When you aren't a high calibre athlete/fighter, that much ammunition is just gonna make you freeze and pray for deliverance.

That, too me, is the most UNDERRATED part of D'Amato's training. Watch Tyson and Patterson throw hooks. It's immaculate. The form is literally perfect. The combinations? Scintillating, fully leveraged, just gorgeous. Those guys just aren't worrying much about defense while doing it, for obvious reasons.

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki

I don't call that the peekaboo; Thats a high guard, very textbook, very compact. The peekaboo style I'm referring to was taught by Cus D'Amato. The hand's being further out in front, the style of movement, the tendency of the elbows to flare, prompting overcorrection, etc.

Fair enough, I used to define it the same way as yourself and saw different definitions

Part of the D'Amato Peekaboo, is setting yourself to punch, which will always create countering opportunities for your opponent

Still I think you're off base on Tyson 86-90s defensive ability, he wasn't hit too much and he was facing all the top competition

It's physically very hard to maintain that style too, I'm sure you'll agree

[MagnaNasakki]

Originally Posted by PetethePrince

Particularly agree with this. It takes explosiveness, coordination, reflexes, speed, etc in order to pull of the style. That's why it's crazy when people ponder what if LaMotta or Marciano tried to employ that style. That would almost never work. It's not a risk-averse style but it's very much a reward based style. The entire concept of it is to slip and put yourself in positions to attack. It's almost offense through defense but it's not a very defensive based style in terms of stance/position (For a lack of a better wording).

Ali made the comment about its predictability in terms of the head-movement in regards to why he felt he would edge Tyson in a fight too.

The Douglas comment is an interesting one. Not sure if I necessarily agree or disagree but I'm sure it is a polarizing one perhaps. Almost all styles have a style foil to some extent to be fair. The jab part is also intriguing because I don't think people view Patterson and Tyson as having been vulnerable or deficient against the jab & jabbers. Although many have pointed at specific intervals of Tyson against Biggs, Holmes, etc and pointed as to why Ali would be able to move & jab effectively since those fighters had sporadic success with it (And they were no Ali).

How exactly do you rate the peeka boo style or compare it to the more conventional bob & weave style? I mean Frazier, Armstrong, & maybe even Qawi's more conventional bob & weave style type? Is it more effective and versatile and less one note since it brings the gloves and feet better positioned (Even with some cross-armed blocking technique employment), and maybe less squared and upper-body dependent? While perhaps better against jabbers, vulnerable to the uppercut? Interested in hearing your take between the two styles, though and which you consider superior.




Agreed, I hate when Arthur Abraham's & Clottey's style gets reffered to as the peekaboo. Cus would be rolling in his grave. It's use is the very opposite in nature to the function of a true peekaboo. I would consider a high guard far too much in the defensive direction to be an effective style IMO. It can work for some fighters (Wright), but it is defeatist to the very objective of boxing. Hit and not get hit. Attack, parry, slip, counter, etc. Going into a turtle shell is completely giving up the initiative. It's like an E3 pawn opening for white in chess.

Abraham and Clottey demonstrate the weakness: It's hiding behind long, big arms and large, puffy gloves. It's a fortress. Smart fighters, if they can, will make sure you stay behind it and just outwork you. Manny Pacquiao decided very early on against Clottey he wasn't going to land many punches, so he just got off first and moved to his right, and it worked with laughable ease.

Winky Wright did it correctly. He kept the guard high, but he kept his lead foot active in firefights, inching forward. He wasn't depending on it; In the Taylor fight, for example, watch how he always ends up in Taylor's chest when Taylor starts throwing with both hands. Wright also jabbed and worked constantly; Very high workrate. He used his high guard for protection, and it never interfered with his own high volume jab and peck attack, AND he used it as a bit of a battering ram to close the distance with bigger guys and to pressure smaller guys by forcing them onto the back foot. Either way, in either scenario, the attacker loses leverage, and thus, speed and power. Totally valid. Winky Wright made it work, Abraham and Clottey can't against a certain calibre of fighter.

[MagnaNasakki]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

Fair enough, I used to define it the same way as yourself and saw different definitions

Part of the D'Amato Peekaboo, is setting yourself to punch, which will always create countering opportunities for your opponent

It's physically very hard to maintain too, I'm sure you'll agree

YES. Exactly.

It is defense through CONSTANT offensive motion. The goal is NEVER not to get hit. It is ALWAYS to put yourself in position to hit. Getting out of the way of a shot is a secondary bonus. D'Amato himself would regularly shout out, in sparring, "Fuck his jab, then!", meaning, its okay if you can't get out the way, just eat it and keep getting in position to unleash hell.

You hit the nail on the head, man.

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki

YES. Exactly.

It is defense through CONSTANT offensive motion. The goal is NEVER not to get hit. It is ALWAYS to put yourself in position to hit. Getting out of the way of a shot is a secondary bonus. D'Amato himself would regularly shout out, in sparring, "Fuck his jab, then!", meaning, its okay if you can't get out the way, just eat it and keep getting in position to unleash hell.

You hit the nail on the head, man.

I was referring to the style as being very taxing stamina wise, it takes allot of energy and doesn't let you take a breather or hustle for time. I think that's why Tyson let himself get pushed around in the clinches, getting a breather between the intense work he was doing

BTW I'm pretty sure if punch stats were around in their time, Tyson would have far better defensive stats than Frazier

[MagnaNasakki]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

I was referring to the style as being very taxing stamina wise, it takes allot of energy and doesn't let you take a breather or hustle for time. I think that's why Tyson let himself get pushed around in the clinches, getting a breather between the intense work he was doing

BTW I'm pretty sure if punch stats were around in their time, Tyson would have far better defensive stats than Frazier

Oh, certainly, but any style that invokes a ton of movement is draining. Tyson's style was also punishing.

And I simply disagree. I'll collect some videos to illustrate my point when I have some time. Might as well figure out how to use the embedding feature.