Originally Posted by The Mongoose
McNeely and Jackson weren't shit.
And looking great agaisnt sub par competition is what Ruddock and Tyson made a career of, unforunately. Now when they started looking average against sub par competition and there was evidence of badly diminished abilities, than we can start talking about fighters being "ruined"
A ruined fighter is "shit". If you are shit, you are going to look like shit, even if its against other shit.
And if beating Jackson in the usual manner he beat overmatched opponents isn't evidence Ruddock was still capable for you, than you are going to have provide evidence that Ruddock was ruined.
Tyson got stopped by Holyfield and Lewis was knocked out by Mcall and almost by Bruno. There's some evidence for those two that they were overated in the actual ability they realistically had at that point in their careers.
Ruddock was knocked out twice against the two better named opponents he stepped up against (after Tyson), and Lewis was overated as hell at that point. Jackson and McNeeley were not deserving top ten contenders. They were shit. As far as Ruddock being ruined, I think his own words were the Tyson fight took everything out of him. Do you think the man is lying when he says that?