Joe Frazier vs Razor Ruddock "Primes"

Ruddock dipping low and throwing that smash works on tall guys who are leaning back. It's how he was able to nail guys like Dokes and Smith. The punch isn't as effective on a shorter guy whose stepping forward because pressing in reduces the power of the punch even if it connects. It's an upward arching punch with a wide start up going toward the ceiling, meaning that the full power of the shot isn't realized until Ruddock does the full motion.

Not only that, part of what makes the smash effective is that it comes at an odd angle from outside the taller fighters field of vision. A short boxer will see what Ruddock is doing immediately. This is why Tyson was able to brace for the impact and didn't get hurt as much as other Ruddock opponents. Tyson's head movement helped too, it's much harder to land the shot on a guy whose constantly moving his head.

Ruddock won't be able to get as much leverage on it as he'd like and would constantly need to reset whenever Frazier boars his way inside. He is arguably an even worse opponent than Tyson in some aspects because Tyson would Bob and weave but stop at mid range to load up his huge bombs. Frazier on the other hand, bobs and weaves to get close and then stay at close range where he's comfortable and making it difficult for the taller guy to get weight on his shots.

Ruddock's sharp jab is great tool, but Frazier was able to adapt to Ali's sharp jab and got past it many times in 3 fights. No way Ruddock just pops a jab out proceeding to outbox Frazier.

Ruddock's lack of a right hand, lack of combinations, telegraphing shots, and his leaky defense would cost him. Despite being a very large man with good power, Ruddock lacks the tools and game plan to take Frazier out. I give him a punchers chance obviously, but stylistically you'd have to actually favor Frazier to make his way inside and chop razor up with vicious combinations to the body and head.

Frazier by a clear decision 7 rounds to 5 or so.

 

Razor shook Tyson several times and he is short ,plus his chin is appreciably better than Joe's.

 

I know. I wasn't saying Tyson never got hurt. I said Tyson was able to brace himself and not take the full force of the smash because of his head movement and shorter stance. Fighters like Tyson and Frazier have most of their weight on their front foot and are usually stepping in, which diminishes how much power Ruddock would be able to deliver behind his shots.

Frazier would sometimes use a cross armed block and this would actually shield the damage from a wide looping lead uppercuts easier than a peak a boo stance. The reason Foreman was able to land his own uppercuts was because he timed Frazier with his jab and shoved or pivoted him into disadvantageous positions. He also walked Frazier into shots or timed his bobbing and weaving.

Ruddock on the other hand often abandoned his jab and didn't often use it to set up his smash uppercuts. He rarely used shoving or rough house tactics. He was pretty one dimensional. Not only that, but it's easier to see a lead uppercut than a rear uppercut, especially for a short fighter who would see Ruddock dipping low and winding up a huge shot.

 

In your mind.

Frazier didn’t get stopped by crud like Danny Williams and Kevin McBride. Hell Holyfield hadn’t scored a legit stoppage in half a decade before beating Tyson senseless and Douglas wasn’t all that as a puncher either.

The Tyson impregnable chin is a myth based off beating the limited Ruddock way less impressively than the supposedly “chinny” Lewis did.

 

I'd like you to re-read your post then read Glass City Cobra's post directly above it.
One of you knows boxing and one of you doesn't.I'll give you a clue,the one that does is not you! LOL

 

All good points that I have no problem with.Ruddock had a good jab and a decent right hand but after koing a couple with his smash,he forgot the fundamentals and went power happy Floyd Patterson gave up on him saying ,"he won't listen".
Nice exchanging posts with you.

 

Being LOL’d at in a post that isn’t remotely funny…. Ouch that really hurts.

GCC articulated his point very well.

I was responding to your sweeping statement of Tyson’s chin being “appreciably better” not the mechanics of Ruddocks “smash” being negated by shorter fighters like Tyson. A guy getting stopped 5 times including KTFO by a middling puncher in Douglas (who is overrated for based solely on this KO), punched helpless by Holyfield (another guy whose power is overstated for stopping Tyson) and floored and stopped by two ordinary boxers doesn’t show an “appreciably” better chin than Joe Frazier to me anyway.

But I don’t know boxing so maybe you’re bang on.

 

I like Frazier to win this. Ruddock was big, strong and powerful but he didn’t have the same two fisted attack that foreman had. He was also very one dimensional. Joe’s work rate, hand speed, upper body movement and stamina is what wins this for him

 

This is an excellent analyses! Since Frazier did not face many bombers besides Foreman it is a real question.
Only flaw is that to say Rudock had "good" power is a huge understatement. It was top notch.

 

You were being laughed at because you picked two stoppages of Tyson when he was finished to prove his chin was not good ,that's laughable .Frazier met two bangers Bonavena and Foremen, Oscar floored him twice
George used him a yo yo.Mike Bruce also floored him.Tyson walked through Ruddocks shots and never looked like going down he took a full flush shot from Bruno when he was coming in and remained erect.
Bonecrusher nailed him with a big shot in the last round of their fight and he never blinked,he absorbed big shots from Stewart and Ribalta,he had a very good chin.
In anywhere near his primeTyson was only stopped by an accumulation of punches over several rounds.
Frazier was bounced around from the get go by Foreman.
Holyfield floored Bowe and Mercer.Evander can PUNCH!
Yes Tyson had an appreciably better chin than Frazier.
Yes I'm bang on .
No,you don't know boxing! LOL

 

Calm down, its juvenile Griffo on Tysn Shyte Mode again. Prob the last "die hard" artillery on this place.
He believes MT would make a 0-13 for a couple of top ten ATGs plus Jerry Quarry. So much for rational debate on Mr. Tyson.

For the majority users, I believe its pretty obv: "Would we find an ATG doing worse/equal than Joe Frazier against Foreman?" Thats pretty slim chance, isn´t it ?
Staggered by "hard punching Ali" ? Floored by Bruce? And who is the next big puncher he fought after Foreman? 198 Jerry Quarry ??

 

I would leave it at "good" and I'll tell you why:

-loaded up on shots
-lacked 2 fisted power
-decent but no great KO%

Ruddock's best opponents

Tyson 2x, Morrison, Lewis, weaver, Smith, Lakusta, Alexander, Dokes, Page, Jackson

Tyson was ranked #1 and had just been champion. Morrison had put together a good string of wins they fought for a vacant minor belt. Smith didn't look so great in his last few fights but was a "name" opponent and Ruddock is the only guy to brutally KO him, Dokes was ranked #3 and still a very good HW at the time, Lakusta was coming off FOUR losses and somehow was qualified for a vacant Canadian title shot? Page was pretty past it and unranked but was named, Alexander came off a loss but was still somehow ranked #15, he had been KOd 4x previously and had 11 losses...Jackson was a prime undefeated fighter

Against this lot, Ruddock went 7-4 (5 wins by KO).

Now for context, he did hurt Tyson but never dropped him in 2 attempts. Did not drop Lewis. Dropped Morrison but got himself stopped (despite Morrison's lack of chin and stamina), did not drop weaver even though weaver has 12 KO losses, beat page but couldn't drop him.

Ruddock faced 3 opponents who were not particularly durable and couldn't KO them. Against his best opposition his KO% is 45% and his overall KO % is 63%. So above average give or take but I wouldn't be quick to label him like a top 10 puncher of all time. That's a little generous. Especially given that his best KOs were against men such as Smith and Dokes who were obese and past 30. He sorely lacks KOs or stoppages against in shape prime fighters and has a fairly thin resume against ranked men in general.

 

You analyses is as usual very good-but this time it should only apply to a question we are not discussing, his *effective power* & ability against top fighters.
If you lose because you are blitzed (Lewis) or do not land flush or stopped possibly early but bombed out (Morrison), that does not show how good your absolute power is.

Likewise it is irrelvant that he loaded up on shots & mainly had & over relied on "The Smash".
Those are good reasons to limit his rating overall.
Even KO% is, again, effective power.

Yes what is most important in this realm is how you deliver it. But literally what power is & should mean if you do not qualify it is how hard you can, & at least sometimes do, strike someone.
Shavers had mixed results against the top fighters for all the reasons related to skill you are well aware of. He still had top flight power.

Also, you say top 10 power is a bit of a stretch. It may be, or maybe in absolute force he was top 10.
But if you are anywhere NEAR being able to hit with that kind of power as a HW, among the whole history of boxing & fighting modern large guys, you have huge, 10 out of 10, power.

That is different from how good it is delivered or how good you are overall.

 

Like every stats & numers, thats really a question of perspective.

For example: James Smith was a durable guy. Was only stopped until he was stone old (including a fight with Moorer), by Larry Holmes, as well as that terrible debut (its still on YT I believe).

Lennox put him away before anything else could happen. Like Shavers "not showing" any power against Jerry Quarry. Is that really a doubt of Shavers power? I´d say its more a doubt about the quality of 90s Tyson not putting Ruddock away quicker in two meetings.

In comp. to Morrison, who I think is a good example, Ruddock should have stopped Greg Page quicker. Same for Mike Weaver (some might argue he was a bit young here).

I´d watch a list like "Tyson 2x, Morrison, Weaver, Smith, Broad, Dokes, Page, Jackson"

Lewis, who stopped him real quick, is an Shavers-Quarry like outlier. So thats:

Tyson and Morrison hurt or dropped, Smith, Broad, Dokes, Page and Jackson stopped. Which ends in 7 "signs of power" in 9 fights. Morrison wasn´t stopped, old Page going to long (believe Morrison would have stopped Page quicker, but I´m not sure he could have done it to Smith in 89).

To show this from the other side of the coin: If Morrisons list was like: "Tyson 2x, Ruddock, Weaver, Smith, Broad, Dokes, Page, Jackson", I believe we´d see Morrison stopped against Tyson and no more "signs of power" in 9 objects. Saying that he could hurt Tyson once, thats a 7 out of 9 also.

I believe both Morrison and Ruddock could really crack.

 

I guess I was moreso talking about effective power vs raw power. Yes Ruddock obviously had plenty of raw power, he was putting several 6ft+ 210+ pound men to sleep with single shots and leaving them crumpled up on the campus like a light switch turned off.

That isn't going to be enough against Frazier. Not just because of my previous analysis in regards to how a big telegraph lead uppercut isn't very effective on a short guy whose constantly stepping forward-- it also because you needed to hammer Frazier into the ground like a nail to stop him. Trying to load up for one big shot would not work,he was just too tough and determined and would get up even if he did land with the full force of the smash.

I just see Frazier wearing him down eventually. His superior stamina would kick in and the vicious hooks to the body and head would take their toll. Ruddock didn't fight like a tall man, he fought like a golf/bowling swinger who was trying to score big but didn't have the consistent long jab, mauling tactics, or combinations to keep short bullish fighters like Frazier off of him.