Significance of Ruddock fights for Tyson?

tyson was on the decline but i luv watching those 2 under rated fights ....ruddock claimed he was never the same after those 2 bouts

 

I thought they were solid wins against a dangerous contender with left hook from hell.

There are positives and negatives to take from these fights. On one hand, Tyson showed again his neglecting of his head movement, not jabbing enough to set up his punches, loading up too frequently. Before the Ruddock rematch, Sports Illustrated had a cover article about Tyson questioning his desire and talking about how he neglected a lot of his skills. Manny Steward said in the article that he never expected Mike to be successful past 25 or 26 years old. This made the cover over Michael Jordan winning his first NBA title, which goes to show you how big of a star Tyson was at the time.

Tyson did throw a lot of low blows and shots after the bell. It wasn't like Golota against Bowe though. As someone once said about Marciano's hit on a felled Walcott, there's a "go **** yourself" foul. Tyson fouled a lot often times I think just to be an *******. Other times he did it out of frustration and desperation. Some of the low blows in the rematch may have been frustration, other times he was just being a **** (like the low blow at the end of the fight). Some low blows was just the result of Ruddock having a high cup.

Tyson showed some signs of technical decline here, but he also showed a terrific chin and vicious body punching. When people talk about him getting lazy post-Rooney, sometimes lack of body punching is brought up. This is utter bull****. Lack of head movement and a jab is true, but Tyson dished out a brutal body attack.

Tyson went a solid 12 rounds in a grueling fight. He became a 3 round fighter or so post-prison but he had solid stamina in his younger days.

I credit Ruddock an awful lot for his toughness in the rematch. In the first fight he actually seemed to shell up a bit, probably because of the incoming from Tyson. The rematch he suffered a broken jaw, badly swollen eye, broken rib, and lasted 12 with Tyson. It's because of performances like this that make me biased about boxing especially when it comes to talk about toughness. Sports articles and stories marveling about a baseball player's bloody sock or Jordan playing while sick. My mentality is that while that is impressive, none of these guys, due to the nature of the sports involved, need to show the toughness that Ruddock displayed that night.

No list about "gutsiest sports performances ever" should not be filled with that of boxers (and other violent sports). Try suffering a ****ing broken jaw and having Mike Tyson trying to break more bones in your face.

 

They were good wins for Tyson, slightly sloppy performances.
Ruddock was hyped a lot at the time. A lot comes down to how good you think Ruddock was really.

 

It was a great win that encompasses how much more Tyson could have been imo. He was already in decline, which actually started the moment Don King got him to sack Rooney. Rooney used to spasmodically run with him in camp to make sure he was doing the 3 or 4 miles. He also kept him away from parties and crumpet in camp. That all went to hell, and fast.

You could see his structure, style and skills deteriorating but he was still very determined and dangerous.

I'm not convinced he ever would have beaten Lewis and Holyfield but he would have had a better shot early on, that's for sure.

 

This is exactly what the lazy minded ignorant holyfield ball suckers are too blind to recognise.

These 20 rounds of hell with the worlds most dangerous heavyweight ,a rising star ,who was physically far bigger,who holyfield ,foreman and bowe were avoiding, offer conclusive evidence that Tyson 85-91 had the fight all nite ferocity and will of a dempsey. Look at him at the end he wanted to go another 12 rounds.....everytime 85-91 he was hit hard eg bruno,bonecrusher,tucker,tillis,he fought back furiously........what came in 95-2005 means nothing in tysons career.

 

Yeah right, ruddock was just a floosy swinging away one shot and couldnt finish? He was leagues above holyfield at this time as a puncher.not just the variety of left hooks but his right uppercut and straight. Your holyfield of 87-92 didnt have enough power to hurt tyson.eh developed his power at hw during 94-95 when he had that layoff to train.tyson 91 is light yrars ahead in grit,will,workrate and ferocity than the shot disheartened man beaten in 96. This tyson would outwork holyfield crush him or get caught rushing in

 

Another excuse from Tyson, nothing new there. Tyson was very lucky to not get disqualified in that fight, he was hitting Ruddock low out of desperation. Holyfield of that period would have given Tyson a real beating IMO.

 

He was a one trick pony, all he had was the smash. If you were fighting Ruddock in New York you would see it coming from Las Vegas. Holyfield would have battered Ruddock and would stop him late on, he couldn't carry Holyfield's jockstrap. Holyfield of 91 didn't have the power to hurt Tyson? You don't have a clue about boxing I'm afraid.

 

Holyfield was a far superior fighter to Ruddock. It's not even close.

Ruddock was a dangerous opponent but overrated at the time, based mainly of a one-punch KO of a past-it Dokes (who Holyfield had really softened up anyway). Ruddock beat some other names and minor names but they were all past it and out of shape.
Ruddock was better than most Tyson opponents though, basically because he was in his prime and he was brave.

 

Excuse for what? He still beat the guy fair and square. You can't blame him if ruddock wore his shorts up to his chest.

 

Absolutely :good

Ruddock is ridiculously overrated by many people.

On paper his resume is good, but Weaver, Dokes, Page and Smith were all shot or (and) out of shape.

He never had as good win as say 45 y.o. George Foreman who KO'd undefeated prime lineal HW champion, or 42 y.o. Holmes who beat prime undefeated WBO beltholter who was TOP-5 at that time.

Ruddock lost all fights against TOP-5 opponents when he fought them, and of course never won the belt.

 

It's easy to talk in hindsight but the fact of the matter is that ruddock at the time was feared.

In fact holyfield at the time even commented that Tyson was taking a huge career risk by agreeing to fight ruddock.

 

Yes I know it, I think Ruddock was underachiever in some way, he could've won the belt if he was more lucky like Bruno or Seldon (who was of course worse than Ruddock) but he was never close to being great HW and some people pretend him to beat great HWs from his era which he never came close to achieve in his real career.

 

You"re not just clueless about boxing ,you need to resort to insults as you"re weak and foolish views dont stand up to scrutiny so u must insult.well u are a clown.

Some of us were around boxing at the time and dont just bleat revisionist **** like sheep.

Ruddock had several varieties of the smash not just one and until tyson ruined him an incredible chin. Holyfield of 1991 would have been beaten down just like he was with bowe in 95. Ruddock had a pretty good right to at this point sonny boy,perhaps u should watch the bonecrusher and weaver fights or the rouse fight .idiot try to learn to respect other viewpoints on a forum.

 

No boy you're the sheep, you fall for all the bull**** excuses for Tyson's demise.

He lost 500lb in 2 weeks....

He fcuked 25 Ladyboys the same day of the Douglas fight.....

Douglas was knocked down for 48 hours......

Cus wasn't there to be his Daddy.......

Robin Givens was an evil lying *****......

Don King brainwashed poor Mike......

Washington wasn't ****d by Mike himself, he used his own whizzer....