I don't understand your quesiton. Are you asking me how a jab will nullify in-fighting ability? If so, the best if rather wooly answer is that it depends on the jab, the speed at which it can be thrown, the durability of the infighter in question etc etc. But at a very basic level, all things being equal, it is by far the most significant tool for establishing and controlling range outside of footwork, and by enormous distance from the uppercut the most important punch in keeping an infighter at bay.
Dempsey had to fight in hobo and mining camps when he was young to stay alive ...Tyson knocked over old ladies in Brooklyn to show how tough he was...Tyson never got off the canvas to come back and win a fight...Dempsey climbed back into the ring after being knocked out of it by Firpo in 1923...Tyson wanted to be Dempsey...A prime Dempsey by KO...
I am asking why you think the jab is so important to a shorter fighter, that you would rate it more critical to his chances than his infighting ability.
Well i've given an answer already: no shorter fighters who like to attack have had any success without a jab. It doesn't happen. This is the strongest possible indicator that it's a real ingredient for success. Examples: Tyson, Segura, Gonzalez, Cotto etc. Examples of fighters who are superb jabbers, offensive monsters, but no real infighting has already been provided, but it included Tyson, Foreman, Lewis and Lopez. Now, what examples would you provide of fighters without a jab who are superb infighters that had great success and can be seen on film?
Tyson wasnt knocked down by someone like Firpo, nor was he knocked out in the first round by Fireman Jim Flyn
Dempsey himself was the single most successful heavyweight in history, at overcoming size disparity. It's not like we are debating whether he could have done it, because he did it. Now I would submit that the more a fighter gives up reach, the less important the jab becomes, and the more important infighting becomes.
Right, and i've acknoweldged that several times, what i'm disputing is your notion that infighting is more neccessary from a technical perspective than deploying the jab. I would disagree with the importance of the jab diminishing with reach. In fact it arguably becomes more important. A covering or approaching jab is one of the most crucial punches for every swarmer who ever boxed in colour, Segura, Tyson, Frazier, all of them. It's also enormously important for a stalker who has a reach disadvantage at the world class level. Louis-Buddy Baer II is instructive here. Louis employed his jab as a feint for the right hand. In doing so he imbued the jab with the virtual power of the right. Baer changed his entire fight plan in about fifteen seconds based exclusively upon Louis's jab/jab feint and was beaten mere seconds later. Tyson is extremely illustrative for swarmers. He basically couldn't get in without the jab. When he forgot the punch he turned, overnight, into just another fighter.
Dempsey had a pretty long reach, so that kind of defeats the argument, even if it were true, if I'm understanding correctly. Dempsey preferred to call his a "jolt" not a "jab" anyway.
So did 99% of Tysons opposition and only 3 of them actually used that reach to their advantage. Dempsey does not and will not do that.
