Originally Posted by The Mongoose
Grasping for the point. We all know Jackson wasn't a world beater and we can say the same thing for many top 10 fighters over the years. But the issue is did Ruddock's performance against Jackson suggest he was a shot ruined fighter? He did what a top 4 Heavyweight in the world is suppose to do the type of fighter you are describing. If Ruddock struggled with Jackson, than we can talk and toss around words like "ruined" and "shot".
Most importantly, can you name a better winning Ruddock performance from the 90s?
A record is meaningless. If you look into Phil's resume leading up to any meaningful fights, its even more meaningless. Peter McNeeley had a comparable record or probably better leading up to his fight with Mike Tyson, yet we seem to put that in proper perspective. Maybe because Peter was white and Phil was black? To be honest, Phil wasnt much better than Peter.
Are we talking about Ruddock being shot and ruined now? Maybe I missed something, but I do think Ruddock had a lot taken out of him in the Tyson fights. Probably mentally more than physically. Even though Tyson didnt hold the title, he was still the top of boxing and Ruddock failed in two brutal fights. Going into the Lewis fight, I dont think he was as mentally up for them and physically I think the Tyson fights took a lot out of him. I think that type of second fight would take a lot out of any fighter. Ruddock took a lot punishment, but mentally he was very strong and thats what takes the most out of fighters afterwards.