the tyson of 89-90 was arrogant and felt invincible and basically just tried to overpower his opponent(you have to really know your stuff to see the difference) he did not have a proper boxing coach under his "team tyson staff" aaron snowell and jay bright were clueless imo. I could clearly see the technical improvements he made under both giachetti and later(unfortunately too late) tommy brooks. First of all under giachetti he got rid of his WORST habit that he always had even under rooney, of just kind of just stepping into the opponents chest from the outside with his head down without any head movement and letting his opponent clinch him. that was terrible and looked almost like he didnt want to fight, he was totally vulnerable to the uppercut and most of the time when he did that, he didnt even come up with punches. he just crouched and walked in and let his opponent hold him. Under giachetti i didnt see that anymore, ruddock would have made him pay badly for it with his uppercuts. 2. he developed a new STRAIGHT right hand that he didnt use before 3. he was a more disciplined, professional and mature fighter against ruddock, that flinging himself into clinches and not working was reduced. he did more actual fighting and he was working ruddocks body viciously and consistently 4. he was in great shape, showed good stamina against ruddock in the second one. he was dealing with a huge guy who was often leaning on him. Now people may have criticized his reduced headmovement, lack of fluidity. first of all if you know boxing, you know the side to side headmovement was done to avoid and get inside the opponents straight punches. did you see ruddock snapping out a lot of jabs or 1-2s that tyson had to slip to get inside? Even worse what if tyson would have weaved right into a ruddock hook or gotten caught with one of those loaded up uppercuts if he just came in crouching? the "old" movement would have been a waste of energy and counterproductive against ruddock. The lack of fluidity and combinations? Can be explained by the fact that ruddock was mostly covering up and exploding with massive hooks a few times a round. tyson did not want to leave himself open to a counter or tire himself out against ruddocks long arms. you dont break a guy like ruddock down the same way you break down a boxer like biggs.
Tyson wasn't in great shape.He was in great shape against Berbick or Thomas against Ruddock he looked skinnier. Good new skills? Where were Tyson's brutal and effective combinations?
Good analysis. It was clear that Tyson had learned from the experiences with Smith and Tucker. He didn't get frustrated with Ruddocks clinching and waste needless energy, rather he bided his time and when the opportunity came he took it. I count Ruddock 1 as one of his finest performances. He didn't look as invincible as he did against Berbick and Spinks, but Berbick didn't use much in the way of spoling tactics but rather tried to hold his ground without the speed and skill to do so and Spinks wasn't big or strong enough to clinch and smother Tyson. Tyson needed another approach against Ruddock and I think he carried it out almost perfectly.
you dont throw combinations against someones guard. ruddock shelled up until he exploded with one hook or one uppercut.There were no openings for combinations. Remember ruddock was a dangerous puncher, tyson had to watch what he threw. you dont throw volleys at someone who can take your head off with a counterpunch He was in great shape, he fought well for 12 rouunds, and him looking "skinny" didnt matter ruddock still said tyson was freakishly strong in the clinches
I would have thought that Tyson's patented hook and uppercut combinations that went under and around his opponents' guards would have been extremely effective against a shelled up opponent.
ruddock's arms were too long, his elbows went well below his trunks there wasnt muchto hit when ruddock did that. watch the fight again, anytime tyson tried to unload ruddock would shell up and walk forward, pushing tyson on his heels making his combinations ineffective
Tyson was throwing combinations but for the most part Ruddock defended them well, the one punch that had definitely deteriorated by then was Tyson's left hook. Tyson's body punching looker better in these bouts than they did with Rooney, under his tutelage a lot of Tyson's body shots were pitter-patter shots relatively speaking.
Tyson's head movement was reactive for the Ruddock bouts, the question is would that have been the case under Rooney.
Hmm. im not sure but the walking in with his head down would have gotten him killed and he did that alot under rooney. either way i think for someone as unorthodox as ruddock, reactive headmovement was better. His left hook was usually most effective against tall jabbers, he put williams down with it, obviously he lost to douglas and didnt face any opponents of this type after that but he put ruddockdown with a nice counter hook.what makes you say his hook declined. i think he threw it less because ruddock kept his right at home mostly
He put Ruddock down with it but let's be honest it wasn't a great punch that really hurt Ruddock. I think he was missing a lot of spring in his feet that he had in his left hook in his reign. I think that was due to him being more flat footed.
