Originally Posted by lefthook31
Ruddock landed harder accurate punches on Tyson and it did nothing. You seem to think the Tyson of 96 is the same as the Tyson of 88 or 90 again.. Holyfield didnt hurt Tyson that much in 96 until late in the fight when Tyson was pretty dam exhausted. He still couldnt get him off his feet when he was defenseless.
Ruddock threw like one, two, maybe three punches at a time, usually just one.
Holyfield beat the **** out of Tyson almost the entire fight.
I dont think Tyson was the same fighter, but the fight wasn't even close. I'm happy to ignore the fight, but if I cant reference '96 Tyson as comparable to '88 or '90 Tyson, then stop refereencing what Tyson did to his B-level opponents in regards to what he can do against Holyfield.
Your also putting too much emphasis on backing Tyson up. Noone backed Tyson up at his best. He backed up against Holyfield because he wasnt the same fighter. Douglas didnt back him up, he just beat him to the punch and kept him at distance with good footwork and jab. As much as Holyfield underestimated Cooper like you say, Tyson underestimated Douglas. You seem to give Holyfield a pass for his poor performances but Tysons were all keys to how one dimensional he was.
"No one backed Tyson up at his best" ..... maybe, but I dont rate any of those fighters up with Evander Holyfield.
Call it what you will, Douglas had Tyson stopped in his tracks and taking shots. Of course, Tyson never stops coming forward when he's on his feet, it's his style, but Douglas wasn't just "keeping him at a distance", he was pounding the **** out of him and Tyson was probably seeing stars all night. Some of the punches were knocking Tyson right back.
Holyfield beat Cooper. Even if it was a very close call, the vast majority of the Holyfield-Cooper fight was Holyfield beating the **** out of Cooper.
Tyson lost to Douglas all the way.
think Tyson was a bit one-dimensional. And I always did, long before anyone beat him.