Originally Posted by Flea Man
Well he's underrated I find, so if he had the title he'd be more well known I imagine.
If the Rose fight had been anywhere other than Melbourne he might well have won. I have it 8-7 either way whenever I've scored it.
That was a shark tank of a bantamweight division. If Harada and Rose couldn't hold the title for long, Rudkin might well not have either.
He'd have been too strong down the stretch for Caraballo, no doubt. Medel was so sneaky but Rudkin a more consistent worker, so if his (usually very reliable) chin held up I'd take Rudkin via decision there.
But then Olivares would come along anyway....
I think what makes boxing so fascinating is how so much history hangs on a little bit of luck. With that bit of luck Rudkin could be in the top 4 or 5 UK fighters like Ken Buchanan rather than a forgotten contender known only by the hardcore fan. I agree he could have held the title until Olivares after 3 or 4 defences, he may have even done better against Ruben with the confidence of being champion, although I doubt he could ever have beaten him.
Boxing is also an unusual sport in that losing to a great fighter can do more for your reputation than winning against mediocre contenders. I think Rudkin is on a par with champs like Hope and Hamed despite never having the title.