How good was Mike Tyson´s jab ??

Lefthook were you trying to make a point with the Tubbs Williams footage of Tyson's early jabbing? Just wondering...

 

If you are a boxer you only have to watch that first round to see Tyson had a good stiff jab that allowed him to get close and offset a mobile slickster type fighter like Tubbs who had a very good jab himself. It was so effective Tubbs got nailed towards the end of the first round and completely abandoned trying to box at range in the second.

 

The jab can also offset an opponent who has a good one as well. Tubbs was known to be slick and mobile and work off his jab. Tyson jabbed and moved with him. The jab is almost always used to set distance and power shots, his post really didnt make sense. Tyson almost put guys down with is jab when it was used and well timed.

 

You say a lot of nice things about him, but in what sense do you think he's "overrated as a boxer and a fighter" ?

 

I mean in the sense that loads of people seem to have him rated up there with the elite great heavyweights at his peak, and imagine him blowing away all these great fighters in head-to-head discussions. In one thread, not only did most of this forum have him KOing Joe Louis in short time, but he was being praised with having better skills and attributes than Louis (eg. Footwork, defence, balance), for an example. To me, I think that's crazy. But I'm nt saying Louis wasn't human too. Louis just has a better record in just about everything.

Tyson never impressed me much with boxing ability nor with pure fighting ability. The Tyson hype was ridiculous at the time, and still is. That's all I mean. It's not like he was a bad fighter or a lousy champion but he doesn't stand out as a great one ether. He sits around the middle : he was good champion who fell short of the expectations heaped on him because of his success at an early age.

 

atsch
How many "good" champions were as dominant in the same way against the level of opposition Tyson was? Tyson was good enough to be in the elite class historically speaking of great champions.

 

When I started coming to this forum there were a couple here who massiveley overrated Tyson and made the familiar excuses for him, but now I think he starts to get more and more underrated.

He absolutely destroyed many decent condenters, even when he was in decline (after prison). The losses to an aging Holyfield are damaging, but they shouldn't hide the fact that he had many impressive wins and was quite the force in his prime. He didn't have any win over a prime (or even near prime) ATG, but few have so easily demolished as a good fighter as Spinks as Tyson did.

By the way, his jab was very good. But, as Boxed Ears touched upon, those supporting Tyson make it seem like he consistenly used it to set-up combinations under Rooney only to suddenly lose it. Fact is, that Tyson even at his peak seldom was consistent with jab, combinations and head movement. He was more on and off with it. Was pretty consistent in the first 3-4 rds only to drop off markedly if the fight was longer than that.

The notion that he ever was as his consistent with these things as for example Frazier was with his bob-and-weave and body punching is wrong.

 

I think what a lot of people forget is that Tyson was very young when he peaked as a well disciplined fighter, which in my opinion, was his last fight under Rooney against Spinks. He was still improving as a fighter too.

Rooney in the Spinks documentary said Tyson was showing a lot more in the gym that he hadnt yet shown in fights, so at 23, he would have continued to improve as a fighter. One thing he consistently did was win, and consistently he did it in a dominating fashion but as a fighter his jab was improving, his combination punching was improving, as well as his timing and defense.

Tyson is vastly underated on this forum by a lot of people, because he acted like an idiot and squandered his talent, and went off track, but talk to anyone who has worked with Tyson and they will tell you he had the talent to be the greatest fighter in heavyweight history and the timing was just right for him to do it had he not been such a **** up. He had a young man's style, but he peaked at a young enough age that had he stayed on track and faced and beaten the fighters that came along as he entered his peak, Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis, and beaten them, he would have gone down as the best heavyweight ever. I think he would have beaten both Holyfield and Lewis in the early 90's and probably had the most problems with Bowe who was peaking himself as a fighter in 92.

 

when you have a one two like tyson does who needs a jab:think

 

Perhaps. It could be so. I still find his loss to Douglas an obstacle in fully believing this, though. No one is claiming he was in great shape in that fight (or even in particularily good shape), but great champions have come in as bad or worse shape many times without getting their asses handed to them like that.

For example, Ali was 34, badly faded and in terrible shape when he faced Young, but whatever you think of the decision he made it competitive. In that light, poor training and lacking motivation rings pretty hollow as an excuse for a Tyson at his physical peak against someone like Douglas. He was dominanted almost from the opening bell by someone who wasn't even a top contender. It wasn't that he started bright and then faded because of bad conditioning. He was never in the fight.

It would take something spectacular for me too look past that and say he had the potential of being the greatest HW ever. If he came that unstuck against someone like Douglas he'd come unstuck sooner or later anyway, even if he kept his discipline and motivation. That he was so well beaten by a Holyfield as faded as he himself was later on only confirms this.

 

Ali was mentally always strong, regardless of his condition. Tyson was unfocused and in poor condition going into the Douglas fight. Thats what it took to make him great. Mental focus was more important to Tyson than physical condition. Tyson was physically in good enough shape to beat Douglas had he been focused and mentally prepared, even though he wasnt in tip top shape. He took a horrendous beatdown.
The opposite could be said for Ali. The Foreman fight is another good example for Ali.
Look at Tyson towards the tail end of his career. Regardless of the shape he was in, he still basically quit or looked to quit in a lot of the fights.

 

Fair enough. This could well be, but then that is the missing ingredient that eventually would have seen him beat even if he kept away from King and stuck around with Rooney et al.

At the very least it is. It's easy to feel that Tyson wasn't really tested before and when he finally was he came up short. It could be that it was just him that was good, but many of the guys he beat seemed like deer frozen in the headlight and at best could give a couple of good/decent rounds before going for survival (Tucker) or eventually succumbing (Thomas, Holmes), and at worst just never showed up (Biggs, Spinks).

Douglas was the first quality opponent that seemed to really go for it and use his box of tools to the fullest, Holyfield the second. Look at how Bruno and Seldon (especially) froze against even post-prison Tyson and then at how a supposedly washed-up Holyfield engaged him in a professional manner. It's like night and day, even though few things pointed at Holyfield being that superior to them quality wise at that time in his career.

This will of course always be a question of "half full" or "half empty". Was it Tyson that was poor when he lost or was it his opponents that was poor (or rather petrified) when he won? Probably the truth is somewhere there between. The bottom line is that I don't think even a focussed and disciplined Tyson would have gotten past all three of Holyfield, Bowe and Lewis. Neither of them would have been scared. They would have given it their all and for at least one of them that would have been enough to win imo.

 

He didn't even dominate the field of mediocre fighters of his era because he lost to one of them. Beaten up and knocked out badly.
"Good champiom" is not a bad thing at all. How many ELITE GREAT heavyweight champions got KO'd in their primes by a mediocre contender ?
Tyson beat some joke "champions" then beat the real champion Spinks, and there his impressive peak ends. He came back to beat a few other contenders but was never the champion again.

He's in the same tier as Ezzard Charles as a heavyweight, a good champion. Perhaps I'm being too generous to Tyson with that. Still, I'd put him clearly above Floyd Patterson