Do you agree with the commentary style of Tyson Ruddock II?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by reznick, May 6, 2018.


  1. reznick

    reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

    15,903
    7,636
    Mar 17, 2010
    I just watched the fight again, and I have to say, if posters here analyzed the fight the way those commentators did, it would've ticked me off lol.

    I mean yeesh, it's full rounds of complaining about Ruddock not having a jab, his footwork making him look like he's "sleep walking," Tysons upright position, and throwing only one punch at a time.

    I mean it was hard to concentrate on the actual fight with these guys criticizing the fighters every two seconds. I cannot imagine a modern commentary crew going anywhere near those lengths to describe what was otherwise a wildly entertaining fight. It seems to almost be strictly a 90's thing.

    Anyways it made me realize that a lot of the language people use here to describe fighters that I typically have an issue with, is exactly the kind of language these commentators used. Like, to the tee. I thought I was listening to Seamus and Kevin talking about Willard when they described Ruddock.

    Anyways I realized that many people here probably grew up with that style of commentary. And that it probably reinforced this kind of "anything besides perfect, sucks" thinking. It gave me more appreciation for why people may use the kind of language they use when talking about boxing (not that it's right, but I understand). I mean, the way these guys were calling the fight, it's like FOTC would be too amateurish for them.

    Not to say that none of their critiques were merited, it was just too damn much. Every two seconds: "What is he doing?! What are they doing?! What is he doing?"

    What do you guys think about this style of commentary? Do you like it? I think it's horrendous. After that last Baer thread, certain things stuck out to me more. And I'm sorry I didn't fully realize the precedent commentators like this set for the way people think about boxing.
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2018
  2. ETM

    ETM I thought I did enough to win. Full Member

    13,317
    11,711
    Mar 19, 2012
    Ferdie Pacheco? I think it was frustrating to watch Ruddock use only 30% of his actual ability. I agree with his points may be he yammered on a little too much. It can be irritating to watch a guy with the gifts Razor had not have a clue of how to fight. He was an extreme example. Ferdie was colorful though I got a kick out of him.

    With Tyson remember he set the bar pretty high. He was being compared to what he had been a fee years before. People were looking for him to fight that way and was close to it at times but he couldn't sustain that energy.

    Do you feel that was a widespread theme in the 90's? To bash fighters?
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2018
  3. reznick

    reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

    15,903
    7,636
    Mar 17, 2010
    Yeah, I just think it was way overdone. You can say a little statement about how the fighters are not their old selves, but then you quickly move on to what they are actually offering in the fight that is happening in front of your eyes.

    And it was still an incredible fight with two guy with crazy punching mechanics trading crushing with snap and force.

    I dont think there was a widespread theme to bash fighters. Rather it seemed like the Ali shadow reached a fevor pitch, and everything was being subconsciously compared against this unattainable measurement from the Ali days.
     
  4. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,578
    Nov 24, 2005
    I dislike Ferdie Pachecho but the commentary was probably mostly warranted. A lot of people were saying Tyson and Ruddock were the best heavyweight boxers on the planet. They were being paid millions of dollars.
    If those criticisms were being thrown at a couple of novice prospects or journeymen then it wouldn't be warranted but those guys were supposed to be top 3 in the world.
     
  5. BitPlayerVesti

    BitPlayerVesti Boxing Drunkie Full Member

    8,584
    11,099
    Oct 28, 2017
    I think going through a fight like that can have merit for educational/analysis purposes, but judging fighters that way is daft.

    You can nitpick anyone and make them look bad, plus there are often tradeoffs, sometimes you need to leave yourself more vulnerable to be more offensively effective etc. Plus being unorthadox, even if on paper somewhat less effective, can work well if your opponent is too unfamilar with it to deal with it.
     
    reznick likes this.
  6. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,578
    Nov 24, 2005
    Well, people say Ruddock was never the same fighter again after those fights. Tyson wouldn't have lasted much longer if he'd stayed out of jail either.
    Holyfield received similar criticisms in fights where he took too many shots but somehow outlasted them both, still not a sensible approach.

    I think it's valid to criticise top heavyweight fighters for neglecting to box and just slugging. There is only so much the human body can take.
    Ruddock fought a really dumb fight. And Tyson seemed to be fighting on pure viciousness without much sense too.
     
    BitPlayerVesti likes this.
  7. Thread Stealer

    Thread Stealer Loyal Member Full Member

    41,963
    3,442
    Jun 30, 2005
    That’s true. I dislike Ferdie Pacheco as well, but Razor Ruddock was indeed a physically gifted, one-dimensional fighter, completely in love with his mule-kicking power. He worked with Floyd Patterson after this when we fought Greg Page and Showtime was continuing to take about Ruddock’s lack of a jab.

    Tyson had fallen in love with his power too and was getting flack as well for it. It was the subject of a cover issue of Sports Illustrated at the time, an article where Emanuel Steward said Tyson’s decline at a young age was predictable due to style.

    https://www.si.com/longform/2015/1985/tyson/img/cover9.jpg

    http://static.boxrec.com/1/18/91Jul.jpg
     
  8. reznick

    reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

    15,903
    7,636
    Mar 17, 2010
    I hear you.

    I just can’t imagine a modern commentary crew being like that.

    Today, I feel they would mention what they think the fighter should be doing. But after that, they would just observe and give the fighter the benefit of the doubt that he and his team are carrying out some plan, and that the commentators are humbly there to witness whether it worked or not.
     
  9. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Never wrestle with pigs or argue with fools Full Member

    18,440
    9,578
    Jan 30, 2014
    No, today's fight crews are much worse. They would spend a lot of time cheerleading the house fighter and/or going off on irrelevant tangents about a fighter's relationship with his new trainer or the prefight build-up or whatever. And they'd throw in (usually inane or vacuous) commentary from a charismatic ex-champion--Paulie Malignaggi being a huge exception
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2018
    BitPlayerVesti likes this.
  10. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Never wrestle with pigs or argue with fools Full Member

    18,440
    9,578
    Jan 30, 2014
    I was never a big fan of The Fight Doctor in general, but I don't recall having a problem with the way he called this fight, when I rewatched it a couple years ago. I don't think this had anything to do with "the Ali shadow." Tyson's loss against Douglas had shattered the invincible Tyson persona and some of his bad habits in the ring were becoming more and more pronounced. Nothing wrong with pointing that out, especially since damn near every person watching the fight was probably wondering whether or not Tyson would be able to rise back to the top and reassert his dominance in the division. If I recall correctly, Percheco did a good job of diagnosing their technical problems, from Ruddock's sloppy defense to Tyson's lack of head movement and combination punching.
     
  11. ETM

    ETM I thought I did enough to win. Full Member

    13,317
    11,711
    Mar 19, 2012
    Ferdie could be good too. I remember the night he called Azumah Nelson's KO of Jeff Fenech down in Austraila about 10 seconds before it happened. Then he went on to have One of the most entertaining interviews with Azumah Nelson.
     
    reznick likes this.
  12. ETM

    ETM I thought I did enough to win. Full Member

    13,317
    11,711
    Mar 19, 2012
    They cheerleaded house fighters in those days too. Jim Lampley is one of the most obvious. Showtime had a better boxing team than HBO
     
  13. BitPlayerVesti

    BitPlayerVesti Boxing Drunkie Full Member

    8,584
    11,099
    Oct 28, 2017
    My favorite commentator is that one guy that's been added to old loads of the old fight films.
    This content is protected


    Who is this guy?
     
  14. reznick

    reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

    15,903
    7,636
    Mar 17, 2010
    @klompton2 Has a very good take on commentary added to old fight films.

    I can’t speak for this specific example, but a lot of the voice overs were supposedly done by Jacobs team (or someone else). And the purpose of the style of that commentary was historic preservation, so there would be as little technical interpretation possible. I may be somewhat wrong as it’s been a while since Klompton explained this to me. Hopefully he can divulge.
     
    BitPlayerVesti likes this.
  15. reznick

    reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

    15,903
    7,636
    Mar 17, 2010
    Cheerleading house fighters is definitely a negative aspect of today’s commentary.