1996 - "Tyson Ducked Lewis" ?

No it wasnt. It was when he was fighting Tyson the biggest name in the sport for a mandatory spot, twice! He failed two times and had to fight a lessor known less proven fighter for the same position for less money. Wouldnt that be a bit of a let down?

Fighting Lewis was for the mandatory shot, you know that.

Because he could actually beat someone on the level of a Tommy Morrison.

 

Yes, a dominant win over an unbeaten prospect with a long KO record. How many of those does Ruddock have?

Not really, as this time he was the big name and the favorite to win. Besides which, many people already considered him the #1 contender at that time (as did the WBC) or at least even with Bowe for that spot.

He had already earned the mandatory spot when he beat Jackson. Immediately afterward, the WBC threatened to strip Holyfield if he didn't defend against Ruddock next. Holy got a court order to stop the WBC for the time being and proceeded to defend against Bowe. The "eliminator" was only arranged in response to the court order as a means of stalling Ruddock until after the Bowe fight.

That's not what I asked. Besides which, there's no one Ruddock ever beat that has a clear cut claim to being better than Morrison at the time he beat them.

 

Are you an attorney? You will argue stupid **** till the cows come home. If you dont think Tyson took a lot out of Ruddock your nuts. His jaw was broken and his face looked like the elephant man.
The Lewis fight with Ruddock was for the mandatory shot meaning he had to beat Lewis to get a crack at the title, regardless of what the chatter was before they actually fought correct?
Ill go back to my Peter McNeeley analogy regarding Jackson, he was a fighter with a long string of KO's too and only one loss, meant nothing because like Jackson McNeeley was inserted into the corrupt rankings of the WBC. It didnt take much to beat the likes of 13-43 Frankie Hines, and 14-21 Melvin Epps to maintain his status either .
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE107olC2k8[/ame]

 

That's because it's Reality, and there's no reason not to argue that, whether you deem it "stupid" or not.

So I guess in your mind, EVERYONE who followed the sport in '92 was nuts as well, right?

Same goes for Azumah Nelson after his fight with Sal Sanchez. You said yourself that such beatings aren't guaranteed ruin fighters and acknowledged your claims were pure speculation. Now you're completely contradicting yourself. You're just pushing your usual agenda-driven revisionist spin-jobs.

And Ruddock entered this eliminator as the #1 contender and the favorite to win, correct?

The WBC wasn't the only one to rate Jackson, Ring magazine did as well.

 

Everyone? Your reality is often quite different than a lot on this forum. Just like making that statement. :hi:

 

And to this bull**** statement, I never said he was ruined, I said this in response to Unforgiven which Ive maintained all along.

Your claiming Lewis took more out of Ruddock than Tyson did, I just dont believe that.

Your typical response when someone doesnt agree with you. How many times has general perception not turned out to be reality in boxing? It just takes a little more insight into the sport besides gathering newspaper clippings and reading about results and public perception of a fighter.

 

Here right from the mans mouth.

Since he Retired in 2001 when asked about his Boxing career he stated his fights with Tyson took everything out of him and believed they also finished Tyson insisting both he and Tyson were never the same after those fights.

 

My2Sense just got raped by the truth.

 

So's this:

Another question relates to the idea that Ruddock, who in the Las Vegas casinos is around 2-5 to defeat Lennox Lewis at Earls Court tomorrow, is an improved fighter. 'I know it,' Ruddock said the other day after completing an impressive work-out at a gymnasium in north London.

'I know what I am, I know what I've got,' he said confidently, wiping the sweat from his face with a large towel. 'You're looking at the man who will become the heavyweight champion.'

...But going in with him[Tyson] twice, to take his best shots and to know that I hurt him, did a lot for my confidence. ...


:hi::hi::hi::hi::hi:

 

Kalasinn just got raped by his own dumb ass.

:hi::hi::hi::hi::hi:

 

****ing brillant! Whats more credible? An honest assessment of his career after the fact when he has nothing to gain from it, or an interview hyping a fight before it happened? But I guess you'll call Ruddock a revisionist spin artist right? :rofl

 

Neither. They're both equally credible (or un-credible, perhaps is a more appropriate way of putting it).

"Honest assessment"? That's purely your own spin on it. Did you give him a lie detector test while he was saying it?

Sure he has something to gain, just like all fighters who make excuses for embarrassing losses well after the fact. He made excuses for the Tyson losses too.

Well, you just called him a bullshitting hype artist... :deal

 

What does he have to gain, selling more of his garbage cans?

Hes retired assessing his entire career in that statement, not just the Lewis loss or any losses for that matter, just pointing out that the fights with Tyson took alot out of him, and he was never the same which is perfectly reasonable considering what went down in those fights.

I dont remember using those words. I did say he was hyping a fight beforeit happened.

 

Saving face, appeasing his own ego, etc. ...the same as all the other fighters who make excuses after the fact. You've said yourself in other threads that it's customary for fighters to make excuses for embarrassing losses.

So are you saying he was lying then, or not?