Tysons ''vunerability'' to the jab.

Tyson wouldn't enter the ring favourite. A very likely scenario would be even money, possibly even Holmes 6/5.

 

Does anyone else agree that for some wierd reason the version of holmes that tyson knocked out looks like a gecko?

 

Thanks for an excellent post

 

The odds would be fairly close but I still see Mike as the favorite. Even if the odds are 6/5 in favor of Tyson.

 

I am speaking with hindsight, if we put forth the best of both right now i am all but sure Holmes would be even money at worst or a narrow fave. The fight they did have means absolutely nothing. Holmes performed consistently thru-out his career and declined quite gracefully. Tyson's ugly fall opens him up to question and it is these questions i believe that would have Holmes even or a narrow fave. Peak Tyson has at least as many question marks as peak Holmes.

 

Well thought out! :good The fight they did have doesn't mean much to this discussion. Even though Holmes was perhaps the best jab guy Tyson ever faced - Holmes wasn't sticking his best jab out there.

 

I agree with JT's post on the odds...

Tyson didn't like a solid committed jab. A guy flicking and running would be gobbled up.

 

Tyson was not vulnerable to the jab.

If anything, Holmes was a sucker for right hands.

 

I don't even need to post for dicksouthpaw's dumbass to get owned. Hopefully after reading through the thread he'll realize what an ignorant douche he is and **** off.

 

Any fighter that's fresh can look good for a few minutes. Tyson was completely unmarked at the end of the fight...how is this so if Biggs was supposedly landing his jab?

 

briggs jab was not effective full stop

 

Tyson wasn't particularly open to a jab, but he could be caught with well-timed jabs.

I agree with what Floyd Patterson said about that and Clay's jab.

A peak Clay/Ali would have used the jab successfully against Tyson, IMO.
Holmes too. Then again, Tyson could trouble Clay with his left hook and trouble Holmes with his overhand right.Still, they're gonna build up a rhythmic beating with good jabbing against Tyson.

The best skillful jabbers Tyson fought who were actually in their prime were Buster Douglas & Carl Williams, IMO. Tyson slipped Williams' jab and knocked him flying with a hook, but Douglas beat Tyson's ass - largely with his jab..

 

Talking like that about Tyson wont win you many friends on this forum - and definitely seems to have riled more than a few people here - but you ARE 100% right.
:good

 

I agree.

It is commonly said (including by posters on this forum who should know better) that Tyson got outboxed by a journeyman.

Technically this is true, but Douglas on that night was nothing short of a phenomenon. I would be hard pushed to think of a better sustained example of power, grace and offensive boxing skills from any HW in history.

Consequently, the loss shouldnt count against Tyson as much as it does.

 

Yes, Douglas was great that night. But he was also in part made to look good by Tyson's one-dimensionality. I think you can see signs of this one-dimensionality even in earlier fights (and of course in later ones), but Douglas did the best job of anyone in exploiting it. But it was always there to be exploited by boxers with enough skill, and that's why I don't buy into the all the talk about a prime Tyson's invincibility.