Why Ruddock gets more credit for losing to Tyson than Douglas for beating Mike?

Even more baffling is Tyson/Ruddock II was one of Tyson's worst performances prior to the Botha comeback. He looked so sluggish and sloppy in that fight, and it wasn't exactly Ruddock's doing. He was also clearly going over the deep end mentally with all the weird interviews and such leading up to it.

 

Douglas did far better than Ruddock. Ruddock gets credit for taking all those body shots and not wilting.

 

Ruddock did it twice after Douglas came out of nowhere to blindside Mike once, and did it before Tyson's incarceration. He also proved in their rematch the veracity of the claim that their first match was stopped prematurely.

Donovan went the distance with him the second time at a moment when it still mattered, and did well enough to raise a real question about how well he would have done if he'd traded places with Buster in Tokyo, Douglas being the guy who matched Tyson twice after.

He did better against a young veteran ATG in the rematch than he did the first time. Did anybody do that against Louis, Jeffries or Marciano?

It's a pretty impressive contrast to Tyson-Bruno I & II, at the very least. How many people who actually stepped in the ring with the "Baddest Man on the Planet" before his incarceration wanted him a second time? Ruddock did it, and not with a world title to be won or defended if he prevailed. [Mitch Green did do Razor one better though, rematching Mike on the street, and successfully f ucking up Tyson's hand.]

 

I don't know anyone -- with the possible exception of the poster above, but I can't really understand what he's trying to say -- who credits Ruddock more than Buster.

Buster busted up Tyson. Game over.

 

I think Douglas does get credit obviously, but perhaps the reason he does not get more -fair or not - is that by many the fight is still seen as something of an anomaly; a once-off career-best performance from Douglas, who captured lightning in a bottle for one night.

Had he not shown up against Holyfield as fat as a house and actually put up an effort, people may have been more inclined to look at the Tyson fight as less of an aberration.

 

I disagree big time, Tyson's body punching was by far the best I've ever seen from him

 

I'm just trying to analyze why it might be the case that some people credit Ruddock more than Douglas for their performances against Tyson.

Oftentimes, I'm not expressing my own viewpoint, but playing Devil's Advocate to better understand what appear to be contrary opinions.

That's the bottom line here. Ruddock did have two chances, and Mike produced the toughest decision win of his career in their rematch. Without incarceration, he may well have become a more rugged and tough minded customer off this win.

 

The one thing Ruddock can be proud of is that he is the only guy who really stood in front if Tyson and traded with him blow for blow. Guys like Douglas and Holy outboxed Tyson before stopping him.

No one before or after Ruddock accomplished that. Guys that normally stood in front of Tyson were stoppd early.

in relation to the OP, i don't think ive ever seen anyone give Ruddock more props than Douglas, they both get their own deserved credit

 

i think by the time of the second fight Tyson may have had other things on his mind, namely desiree Washington.

i think Tyson did get bored during fights

 

I think it's because he's remembered for how he lost it to Evander Holyfield. It made the Tyson fight look like a fluke even though I thought it was a great performance, he was a good boxer when he wanted to be.

 

before the douglas-Holyfield fight Tyson stated Douglas was a one trick pony and Evander would take care of Douglas clearly

 

He was right....

 

Douglas was always a good fighter but he obviously wasn't funded or spoon Fed in the conventional way that most future champions are. When ever he landed himself a good win his career would lose momentum.

Douglas was good enough to fight for titles from 1984 but wound up winning one in 1990 after nine years s a pro.. He became the first non champion to beat Tex Cobb and he did it short notice, he beat Greg page right after he lost the title, neither fight did him much good because he wasn't suposed to win either fight.

Fighters like this tread water waiting for opportunities. They don't have the best backing. When they land a good win they're matched hard.

Operating under the radar buster got work on Tyson undercards winning more fights he was suposed to lose against McCall, berbick and Mike williams. In fact Douglas was not suposed to win any of his best fights. Tyson included. When ever he lost he was suposed to anyway.

this was because buster was more often the "away fighter".

Ruddock was groomed from the start. He was given a chance to win all of his fights. Donavon was always more often the "house fighter".

The short answer to the question is Ruddock was expected to be a good opponent and he was a good opponent. Douglas was not suposed to be a good opponent and he was not suposed to win.

 

Yeah, I haven't seen anyone giving more credit to Ruddock leading up to this thread, so it seems to be from left field, from my viewpoint.