Ruddock vs Lewis - 24yrs ago tonight, what are your thoughts on it?

The only one in the Ring's top 10 was Dokes, the other 3 absolutely weren't. They weren't in the title picture either, a lot can happen in a year or two as seen by a couple of these guys.

 

No-one has said Ruddock didn't deserve his ratng. Some have said he was overrated, and they are talking from an ability perspective not a rating one.

Someone can be the best Heavyweight on the planet and be overrated.

Ruddock was indeed a bit overrated as seen by what transpired. Lewis prior to their bout was perhaps underrated so a combination of the two may have come together.

 

The "Ring's" top 10 doesn't have anything to do with who is in the title picture. The ratings body rankings do.

Weaver was the third-rated contender four months before he fought Ruddock and he fought for the WBC belt the year before. Smith was the WBA heavyweight champ in 1987 and lost one fight after his unification, a split decision to Rodriques, who became a top WBA contender off that controversial win. They were very much in the title picture.

Shannon Briggs isn't rated in the RING ratings now. Lucas Browne isn't in the Ring ratings right now. They're fighting for the vacant WBA title next. RING HAS ZERO SAY in the matter.

And Bryant Jennings is in the RING ratings now, and he hasn't won a fight going on THREE YEARS.

The RING ratings don't mean squat. No fighter alive ever got a mandatory title shot because of RING. They carry no actual weight in the sport.

 

If he was overrated, then tell me who you would've rated above him before the Lewis fight?

That's the definition of overrated. Name all the fighters you'd RATE above him before that fight?

He wasn't OVERRATED going in. He was rated just fine. He earned his spot. Then Lewis earned his spot by beating Ruddock. Lewis didn't deserve to be rated above Ruddock BEFORE he beat him.

Get it?

 

Exactly.

 

No-ones buying it. The Ring ratings are a great gauge for the credibility of a fighter and three of your 4 had very little despite your best efforts to iant only the positive part of the picture.

Champs defend against guys not overly good all the time, you don't have to be a top fighter to get a shot.

Ruddock was smashing damaged goods and to cut to the chase even Dokes was rated overly high based more so on a good loss than any win he'd had in recent years.

Trying to build most of these guys up into much better wins than they actually were won't get much fanfare in here.

 

You fail to grasp a very simple concept. Overrated need not have anything to do with ratings.

It's not rocket science.

 

No one is buying it?

Name someone who got a title shot based on their RING rating and not a sanctioning body rating? Name one?

Because I could fill up a thread on guys who got title shots based on sanctioning body ratings.

Fighters get title shots based on sanctioning body ratings. Not RING ratings. That's it.

If you haven't grasped that yet, that's your problem.

 

It is a simple concept.

Overrated LITERALLY has to do with where you rate something. If something is overrated, then you mistakenly should've had something rated higher.

People in this thread said Razor Ruddock was overrated. Not his jab. Not his chin. RAZOR RUDDOCK was. Meaning the man was overrated. But he wasn't. With Tyson gone, he was the top contender. He was fine in that spot. He earned it by beating the guys he beat.

 

Thick as a f'n brick

 

="Dubblechin, post: 18229958, member: 107480"]Well, you seem to agree with me that Ruddock deserved his rating ...(which is all I'm saying - Ruddock wasn't overrated ... he deserved his rating).

I agree that he deserved to be one of the top three rated. But the hype about his abilities going into the Lewis fight was getting out of hand and largely hinging on him going 12 rounds with Tyson and a win over an aging Dokes from 2.5 years earlier.


On the other, you seem to be saying you think Tim Witherspoon deserved to be rated higher because he beat many of the same guys earlier? (Witherspoon was in the title picture back then, too. In fact, he was in line for a WBO title shot with Moorer in 1992 ... until he lost to Bigfoot Martin.)

No.. I didn't think he deserved to be ranked "higher." only that he was doing very similar work and wasn't getting hyped to shlt the way that Ruddock was. The fact that he beat many of the same guys in the 80's had no relevance in the 90's, but even back then when he was beating PRIME versions of those guys, wasn't getting much hype at all.

Timing is important. Ruddock giving Tyson two tough fights back then was considered a badge of honor. Witherspoon stinking out the joint against Bigfoot Martin certainly hurt his career.

Witherspoon losing to Martin in the spring of 1992 ended his run as a serious contender yes. But as of 1990-1991 he was doing very similar work to that of Ruddock.. Beating guys of similar stature and even fighting more actively. Ruddock surviving the distance against Tyson was fine.. But Tyson was no longer the reigning unbeatable force that he was in the 80's.. He had lost to Douglas. And while going the distance with him was still impressive it shouldn't have made Razor the next coming of the savior. Hell Tony Tucker went 12 with a prime Tyson and never even kissed the canvas the way Donoven did.. Nobody thought much of it.

Then again, if Ruddock had beaten Witherspoon like he beat Dokes and Smith, I'm sure some would just say Spoon was well past it, too. Tim was pretty hot and cold during that time period.

Agreed. Tim would have been viewed as finished and I'm sure I probably would have been one of the people who said this if it happened. But contrast the fights he was having, his activity levels and compare them to those of Smith, Dokes, Broad, Page, etc, at the time Ruddock fought them.. Tim was the best of that bunch in the early 90's.

And yes, I do think if someone knocked out Shannon Briggs right now, it would mean more than didly squat.

To you perhaps.. But to most it wouldn't mean squat.. Briggs is so far over the hill he's practically buried under it, and hasn't done anything meaningful in years. Most people said it meant nothing when Vitali Klitschko beat him and that was way back in 2010.

And if that same guy knocked out Briggs and Stiverne and Haye, and let's say outpointed Browne, I think people would be pissing their pants over what a stud he was. (Until that guy lost ... and then people on here would say he was overrated - because they don't seem to know what the word means.)

First of all Lucas Browne is no world beater.. He's just another WBA concoction with a padded record. Bermane Stiverne is 38 years old and his best win is Areola who he beat years ago. Similar arguments can be made for Haye who's 36 and who's heavyweight resume was always thin to begin with. Who has he beaten recently? Like you said, timing is everything.

Former champs have cachet. Beating them matters. It always has. And when Ruddock scored wins over those guys, it mattered.

It depends on which ones of his wins you're talking about and to what degree it mattered. Beating Dokes with one punch in the fourth round was a devastating KO over a guy who was still highly ranked and not all that old. This was a very good win. beating a 250 lbs out of shape 36 year old Smith who hadn't recorded a win in years wasn't.. Get my drift?

 

I know. I can't believe anybody is actually trying to make a case that beating Briggs in 2016 would get someone anything but criticism.

 

="Dubblechin, post: 18230344, member: 107480"]The "Ring's" top 10 doesn't have anything to do with who is in the title picture. The ratings body rankings do.

And most of the guys you're giving Ruddock credit for beating weren't ranked that high by even the alpha organizations and in some cases not at all. Dokes was the only one who had any significant rating. I believe the WBA, WBC, and IBF all had ranked somewhere between 3-5. The rest were either on the fringes or unranked.

Weaver was the third-rated contender four months before he fought Ruddock

Except for one slight inconvenience.. Just a few months before he fights Ruddock He got KTFO in ONE round by a guy who had lost four of his last 6 fights.. So there goes his rating.


and he fought for the WBC belt the year before.

And likewise got KTFO. Weaver was losing fights and showing his age.. Ruddock goes and scores a split decision over a man who others are beating far more convincingly and for some reason it means he deserves a rating.

Smith was the WBA heavyweight champ in 1987 and lost one fight after his unification, a split decision to Rodriques, who became a top WBA contender off that controversial win. They were very much in the title picture.

Irrelevant.. Smith beat Tim Witherspoon in December of 1986. Loses to Tyson in March of 1987. Loses again to Rodriguez in August of that same year... He takes a FULL year off only to come back and face Mike Rouse which resulted in a technical draw... He takes ANOTHER full year off.. By now he's 36 years old.. Takes the Ruddock fight on a few weeks notice with no time to train and tips the scales at 249 lbs.. By the time he enters the ring in july of 1989 he's been off for a whole year and fought only once in TWO years and hadn't recorded a single win since 1986.
Shannon Briggs isn't rated in the RING ratings now. Lucas Browne isn't in the Ring ratings right now. They're fighting for the vacant WBA title next. RING HAS ZERO SAY in the matter.

And likewise there are ZERO who give fvckall about it..

And Bryant Jennings is in the RING ratings now, and he hasn't won a fight going on THREE YEARS.

Precisely why he's ranked down at #21 and not in the top 10 or " In the title picture" as you've tried so vehemently to argue that Ruddock's challengers were.

 

i agree ron lipton stopped the ruddock v morrison bout way too soon

 

Well, it'll get Lucas Browne the WBA heavyweight title. So I guess the case is made.