How Skilled Was Mike Tyson?

[Mintcar923]

Early Tyson using Peek-a-boo technique was a beast he had everything combinations, defense, head movement, power, speed and discipline. This Tyson would have beaten Ali, Foreman, Liston, Marciano and anyone else you want throw into the mix.

If Cus did not drop dead and Don King got involved Tyson would have retired undefeated.

Yep.. In another dimention he'd not have lost his first team, would not have have those stints in jail and would have probably retired undefeated. As much as a fan I am of his, I'll be the first to admit he was a definate underachiever...

[jabsRstiff]

What do you mean with great? Like I mentioned, all time great or just generally great?

If a 5'11 guy with a 71" reach can outjab guys like Toney Tucker then it's a great jab. It's unreasonable to expect a man of that stature to use his jab as his biggest weapon when he has so many other tools.

Not great in any way. A great jab is one that controls a fight, punishes a guy, keeps him from getting off.

While being impressed that such a stubby dude could jab as well as he could, it doesn't make his jab more effective than it actually was. I'd rate his jab as good/decent.

I seriously doubt any Tyson foe trained to find a way to deal with or around Mike Tyson's jab.

[BKM-]

Not great in any way. A great jab is one that controls a fight, punishes a guy, keeps him from getting off.

While being impressed that such a stubby dude could jab as well as he could, it doesn't make his jab more effective than it actually was. I'd rate his jab as good/decent.

I seriously doubt any Tyson foe trained to find a way to deal with or around Mike Tyson's jab.

Why would Tyson use his jab as effectively as Larry Holmes? Like I said, you're comparing his to tall lanky fighters who would use it as their main weapon which doesn't make any sense. His jab had its own goal and he accomplished it. He used it to set up his attack, so without it he would never have been as effective. When he had to use it on the outside(against guys who kept moving like Biggs and Tucker who he outjabbed) it was very effective as well. Looking at Tyson's physique and design a plan to make his jab the most effective it can possibly be, Tyson proved that he was able to do that.

[BKM-]

[jabsRstiff]

Why would Tyson use his jab as effectively as Larry Holmes? Like I said, you're comparing his to tall lanky fighters who would use it as their main weapon which doesn't make any sense. His jab had its own goal and he accomplished it. He used it to set up his attack, so without it he would never have been as effective. When he had to use it on the outside(against guys who kept moving like Biggs and Tucker who he outjabbed) it was very effective as well. Looking at Tyson's physique and design a plan to make his jab the most effective it can possibly be, Tyson proved that he was able to do that.

You keep misreading what I am saying.

Did he have a surprisingly good jab for someone of his stature? Yes. Was it a great jab? No, it wasn't effective enough or used enough to fit that standard.

Was Chris Byrd surpisingly effective as a heavyweight given his natural size? Yes. Was Chris Byrd a great heavyweight? Not even close.

[BKM-]

You keep misreading what I am saying.

Did he have a surprisingly good jab for someone of his stature? Yes. Was it a great jab? No, it wasn't effective enough or used enough to fit that standard.

Was Chris Byrd surpisingly effective as a heavyweight given his natural size? Yes. Was Chris Byrd a great heavyweight? Not even close.

It was effective enough when he decided to use it against certain opponents. Like I said, he has outjabbed quite a gew bigger men. It's your opinion that something can only be great if it's used all the time or as a main component, not mine.

As for Byrd, you are aware that he is one of the most succesful heavyweights of his time?(regardless of the era)

[Da Boxer]

Enough to terrorize the HW Division!

[jabsRstiff]

It was effective enough when he decided to use it against certain opponents. Like I said, he has outjabbed quite a gew bigger men. It's your opinion that something can only be great if it's used all the time or as a main component, not mine.

As for Byrd, you are aware that he is one of the most succesful heavyweights of his time?(regardless of the era)

In boxing, an underused weapon (especially a jab) isn't great. How many fighters throughout history do you think had more attributes than they had shown but didn't use them as much because they focused on other aspects? I'd say a lot. That said, even when Tyson did use his jab I saw nothing special. When he bobbed, weaved, made a guy miss, and unleashed combos....very special indeed.

Byrd was successful, to an extent. He beat some good guys and got beat by others. A very good fighter, yes. A great fighter he was not.

[BKM-]

In boxing, an underused weapon (especially a jab) isn't great. How many fighters throughout history do you think had more attributes than they had shown but didn't use them as much because they focused on other aspects? I'd say a lot. That said, even when Tyson did use his jab I saw nothing special. When he bobbed, weaved, made a guy miss, and unleashed combos....very special indeed.

Byrd was successful, to an extent. He beat some good guys and got beat by others. A very good fighter, yes. A great fighter he was not.

It wasn't underused though, not at all. That's where we disagree. Like I said he needed the jab desperately for his combinations and outside game to work and he has outjabbed several bigger men. You simply don't feel as though he used the Jab the way you wanted him to and are making special rules. Same for the word "great". It seems like you keep confusing the term "all time great" with the general word great. Yes I believe Chris Byrd was a great fighter or he wouldn't have attained such world class accomplishments. Do I think he is an ALL TIME great? No.

[jabsRstiff]

It wasn't underused though, not at all. That's where we disagree. Like I said he needed the jab desperately for his combinations and outside game to work and he has outjabbed several bigger men. You simply don't feel as though he used the Jab the way you wanted him to and are making special rules. Same for the word "great". It seems like you keep confusing the term "all time great" with the general word great. Yes I believe Chris Byrd was a great fighter or he wouldn't have attained such world class accomplishments. Do I think he is an ALL TIME great? No.

If I am "making special rules" then so are you. I don't see how me thinking a jab that was underused and never a big factor isn't a great one is any more rule bending than you thinking it is a great jab.

Chris Byrd was not a great fighter. He was a very good fighter, and a unique one. "Great" is used too loosely.