Who had More Elusive Headmovement in their Prime, Chris Byrd or Mike Tyson?

Byrd's headmovement was a lot more crucial to his style than Tyson's. Without it he would have lost the large majority of his big fights since he wasn't especially durable or aggressive enough to keep fighters at bay. Tyson's head movement was primarily for offensive purposes, which doesn't necessarily make it inferior, but it was not the absolute crux of his style. As his post prison fights showed, he still had a degree of success without it. Byrd without his head, upper body movment really had nothing to fall back on.

 

Tyson, no doubt IMO...and this comes from a fan of Byrd....

 

which ****** voted for byrd?

 

I did. I mentioned my reasons above.

To elaborate, Byrd only really got badly hurt the first time he fought Ike. Before that he was almost impossible to hit which is partly, I think, the reason he reacted so badly to the shot (it was also a monster of a punch). Byrd was a fighter limited by his physical traits. Avoiding punches was the primary thing he focused on since he lacked the power, workrate or chin to be anything else. He more or less made his career on his ability to hit and not be hit.

Tyson was excellent at slipping punches but he wasn't as elusive. It would have been very difficult at any rate given his come forward style which put him in harm's way, but it was also not in his makeup to just avoid punches for rounds on end. Why would it be when he could end it with a good shot of his own?

 

kevin rooney says being elusive was crucial to tyson's d'amato style:

"he's not doing his style the way he's supposed to, his style was to be elusive, he's just a puncher now"

 

Head movment was a very important part of Tyson's skillset and his success, don't get me wrong, but he was primarily an offensive fighter who didn't ultimately rely on any one trait to do well. Punching power, endurance, explosive hand and foot movement and the ability to withstand countershots were just as important. Take away any of those things and Tyson became a lesser fighter. But he wouldn't have become totally useless either.

Byrd on the other hand was a defensive counter fighter, with little power and an average chin. He could afford to get by on less, and by and large had to since he was so badly outgunned in so many of his fights.

Ask yourself this: How much success would Tyson have had against Bruno if he'd have had the punching power and chin of Byrd but was otherwise stylistically the same? This is the type of fighter Byrd routinely fought throughout his career.

 

Very Well Put. :good

Though I should point out that defensively Tyson benefitted significantly from his head movement. Once he abandoned it he was easier to hit but he still was an offensive juggernaut that he can compete successfully.

 

Tyson didn't really use his head movement defensively as such, because he was very rarely on the back foot. He used it too start of his offence which is why IMO it is slitly overrated. Had Tyson been a slick counter puncher then his head movement would have been above average at best, as people would have thrown proper combinations of 4-5 punchers at him rather than a telegraphed jab and maybe a straight too follow.

 

byrd uses footwork to get out the way alot and when he was on the ropes he covered up and slipped. mike was more prone when he was slipping it was to get in and combo.

byrds head movement wasnt the crucial part to his defense. where for mike it was.


so byrd more elusive in general, mike better head movement.