Tysons ''vunerability'' to the jab.

I didn't say Holmes beat a better crop in the 80s than Tyson did. I agreed with the points slicksouthpaw made in the parts of the post I quoted.
He's right, Tyson folded like newspaper when he fought Douglas and Holyfield.
Whereas Holmes proved his grit plenty of times.

 

Tyson was brought up to overcome one of the best jabs of all time in Larry Holmes'. And he perfected his craft.

Tyson's shortness would naturally make him vulnerable to a tall stylist's polished jab, but no heavyweight slugger of his dimensions did a better job negating his own physical shortcomings.

I remember Ken Norton commenting on Frazier being unable to do anything in the middle of the ring against Ali in Manila because he was "too short". Well, the center of the ring saw Tyson do some of his best work against tall, skilled fighters such as Holmes, Berbick and Thomas, on the strength of his unique supple, explosive athleticism.

It was not exactly a shocking surprise to Tyson that he had to get around the jab. Quite often, in fact, he was not shy about employing his own excellent jab to engage in instances of jabbing contests against much taller men. This was his bread and butter: using effective head movement to avoid the jab and countering sharply, particularly with the sweeping left hook, and a composite follow-up.

Had Tyson been "vulnerable" to the jab, we would have never heard of Michael Gerard Kirkpatrick.

 

Tyson wasn't as vulnerable to the jab as this thread suggests. I remember a young Mike Tyson dipping his shoulders and slipping jabs while returning his own hard jab. What made Tyson so dangerous early in his career was the fact that he didn't always throw a jab off a slip in his prime. Many times I remember Tyson coming out of a slip with a hard left hook to the body or left hook to the head. In fact, Tyson was one of the few shorter fighters that used the double slip effectively, slipping to his left than immediately to his right and finishing the move with a hard body shot. Like Frazier, Cus D'Amato made Tyson's height disadvantage an advantage by accentuating a low attacking style and working the body.

 

I think there is a big difference between folding and simply losing to the better man.

There is nothing that would indicate that Tyson folded in the Douglas fight. He was getting beat from pillar to post. He came in flat not at his best and Douglas took advantage of it rightfully so. Tyson didnt seem to have an answer for Buster but when he finally found an opening he took it. The uppercut in the 8th round wasnt a lucky shot. Watch the end of the round, Tyson landed a right uppercut moments before he dropped Douglas. Buster seemed to have walked into the first one. Then he timed him again and landed again this time he landed a cleaner blow and down goes Douglas. This is a man fighting to save his titles, not a man "mentally crumbling" or "folding."

Look at Tyson Holyfield I there is nothing to indicate that Tyson was folding in that fight. Look at round 10, with the exception of the last 30 seconds, Tyson was winning the round. Granted his legs werent really under him but he was nonetheless doing what a fighter should do, fight until the end.

Truthfully, I never took much stock in Larry Holmes getting up from a KD and winning the fight. To me everytime Larry Holmes was in a circumstance where he was dropped and he got up to win the fight- it was in fights he was already winning. It was never a situation where he's getting beat from pillar to post- he gets dropped and it looks to be all but over and he turns it around. No Against Shavers he was ahead,
against Snipes, he was ahead. Holmes (in his prime) has never been in a fight where his legs were gone from a prolonged beating, suffered a knockdown and got up to win.

 

Douglas and Holyfield beat the living crap out of Tyson, that's the bottom line.

Tyson's "fighting back" was rendered almost totally ineffective. Sure, knocking down Douglas was a good instant, but the rest of the fight was a fairly one-sided beat down, a painful beating. And Tyson ended up KO'd.

As for Tyson "winning the round" for the majority of the 10th against Holyfield, that's funny because Holyfield responded by knocking Tyson about so bad in the last 30 seconds that Tyson didn't know where he was. That qualifies as "folding" IMO. Also, Holyfield had flat-out bullied Tyson the majority of the fight, just straight busted him up. Tyson was hanging on hopelessly and getting pushed back and battered whenever Holyfield asserted himself.

Larry Holmes had tough fights with Ken Norton, Tim Witherspoon, Carl Williams, and others - guys who's styles and spirit proved competitive against Holmes - and Holmes sucked it up and rallied late to take the fight, he adapted, refused to be dominated. Holmes didn't fold, he didn't end up getting beaten pillar-to-post with no let-up, battered so bad he needed to be rescued by the referee. He was only TKO'd once, way way past his prime, and rusty, not when he was in his prime and champion.

 

What is your definition of folding?

Is is Joe Louis faltering against Max Schmeling in their first fight?

What about Jack Dempsey against Fireman Flynn, or Gene Tunney?

George Foreman against Muhmmad Ali or Jimmy Young?

Perhaps its Joe Frazier against George Foreman or Floyd Patterson against Sonny Liston?

What you appear to be doing knocking Tyson's effort in those affairs. What I'm sensing from you, is that you view the fights in a certain light which emphasizes Tyson losing moreso than Holyfield winning. If I recall you've stated categorically in other threads that Holyfield should rank higher along the ATG list than Tyson. If that is the case shouldnt Tyson be given a pass for losing to a greater fighter than himself? Because if you view Tyson as the greater fighter then I will concede that the loss against Holyfield was indeed a blemish on his record as it was a fighter he should have beaten. Irregardless, he didnt fold. He showed the toughness of a champion.

 

That's a damn good read.

 

Don't worry, there's a few around here who just can't give Tyson his fair go (no matter how much they try to camoflouge) and of course others who go too far the other way. It's not hard to spot both parties in here and sift to the fairer appraisals.

 

Yes, I was wrong. Tyson was great.

"Fold" is an ambiguous term.
Tyson got beat, that's it. Other great fighters got beat too.

He got the **** beat out of him by Buster Douglas, barely won a round and ended up a mess. In his prime. Got similarly dominated by Holyfield.

Holmes never suffered such a humiliation in his prime and fought off some extremely fired-up challengers.

I guess that's the point that resonates with me.

 

For a brief moment in time, Tyson had a good defense. But Tyson's activity level slowed down as the rounds went on. When he stopped moving his head and keeping his hands high, the short Tyson could be hit by jabs. I think fighters with a good jab who were not affriad of Tyson could get to him.

I would not say fighters could not miss Tyson with their jab, but I would say the better jabbers could land on Tyson.

 

Reality is that Douglas on that night and Holyfield were far superior fighters to an old Norton (who was still a great fighter) and Witherspoon and Williams, Holyfield is an ATG and Douglas's performance was worthy of an ATG.
Very few fighters, especially underprepared ones, could defeat Holyfield or Douglas.

 

And when did this happen at his best (87-88 )?

Tyson wasn't at his peak when he fought Douglas.

Wasn't in his prime when he fought Holyfield.

Sorry but if this is "prime for prime", or the best version of Tyson vs. the best version of Holmes, then lets be fair. The Tyson that fought between 87-88 was NOT the same fighter in 1990 when he fought Douglas, and even 1989. Watch any footage and the differences are obvious.

To all those who claim that Tyson couldn't deal with adversity or fighters who weren't afraid, with good jabs, etc, then watch the Tucker fight. Perfect example of a PRIME Tyson dealing with adversity and a tall, jabbing fighter who isn't afraid. Oh and check out how "vulnerable" to the jab Mike was in that fight.

 

Douglas was no better than Witherspoon or Williams. He fought the fight of his life against Tyson, but so did those two against Holmes. Holmes adapted and saw off their challenges. The decisions are disputable, but Holmes certainly didn't get humiliated and KO'd like Tyson did.

The "Douglas was one of the greatest ever on that night" argument is only "true" because Tyson failed to adapt and beat off his challenge.

Guys like Joe Louis and Larry Holmes sometimes get criticized for "struggling with" X amount of challengers, because they WON against fired-up incredible-for-one-night versions of various men. But Tyson LOSES and gets given the pass that "Douglas was an ATG that night".
Well, maybe Tim Witherspoon was an all-time great for one night, maybe Billy Conn on his best night woulda competed with any great heavyweight. But they were denied by greater fighters.

It's no shame for Tyson to lose to Douglas.
But it IS a loss, a bad loss, ended by KO, it wasn't really close.

Holyfield was an all-time great, yes, and there's no shame Tyson losing to him. But, again, it was a domination. An old 42 year old Foreman went the distance with Holyfield, Bowe beat him twice. Lots of guys gave ATG Holyfield a tougher fight than Tyson seemed to be capable of. And remember, Holyfield was over-the-hill already, at least as far gone as Tyson.

Holyfield and Douglas beat the crap out of Tyson and knocked him out, that's a simple point that I'm making. Holmes never suffered such a humiliation in or near his prime.

 

While I see your point sonny's jab.......Many of tysons skills were gone by 1989......post michael spinx fight he looked like a different fighter vs frank bruno. Tyson had a certain head rythm he would do with his peek a boo, it consisted of 3 different rythms that he would do in the course of the fight switching every single time depending on how the opponent attacked. You knew it was coming, but you couldnt stop it because tysons had the rythm and timing down to perfection. He mixed his combos to the head and body like peanut butter and jelly mix back in 86-88, but he all but abandoned his combinations and his peekaboo head movement. in 1989, He became a stationary head hunter... he was no longer unpredictable Slick Mike.....

.His personel problems had caught up to him. Cus Died.....its ok he still has jimmy johnson and rooney. Jimmy johnson dies, its ok he still has rooney. King comes in after johnson dies convinces mike to part ways with cayton and rooney.......and now that rooneys gone mike's head is in a world of mess. The only true men who cared and loved him Cus, Jimmy, rooney.....they were gone. He did not know how to react.


in 1990 for tokyo tyson showed up with the softest body on a great fighter i have seen on a fighter since oscar stepped foot in the ring vs sturm. tyson barely trained, he spent the days catching pigeons with his hands for the japanese people and enjoying party life. He was on his way to disaster. Mike was still great in 1990, but everything that had made him supernatural unbeatable had long since left him.