- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 139,775
- Reaction score
- 43,592
The questions about mikes heart and toughness are incredibly exaggerated. In his prime, you had to beat him senseless to stop him
Ruddock-Tyson II was pretty brutal
- Thread starter XThe GreatestX
- Start date
Yeah but name great fighter Ruddock ever beat as a pro? These supposed scalps aren't really merits at all
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Messages
- 21,171
- Reaction score
- 7,602
Never said he achieved much as a pro but he showed good here. I feel he was an underachiever. At times he could look like a really good HW like he did against Tyson but then got destroyed in 2 rounds by Lewis. But facing Tyson twice and not being destroyed was a pretty good achievement since Tyson was seen as a wrecking machine at the time. I think Bonecrusher Smith was probably his best win on paper especially since Smith had a year or two ago gone the distance with Tyson but Ruddock knocked him out.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 24,560
- Reaction score
- 11,174
The fight took a lot out both of them IMO.
Bonecruncher smith never beat anyone great either. Nor did Berbick (Parkinson Ali doesn't count) , Tucker, Briggs, Tillis, Green,Bruno etc. Tyson was lucky Lewis wasn't mature yet and that Holyfield wasn't there. Spinks was a LHW who took a dive and didn't even want to go out of his dressing room. Holmes was retired 2 years back and had 2 months to prepare... Watch Tysons fight that go the distance and he just gets stuck and is drifting, just like he did against Holyfield, only that these were worse opponents who only stalled and didn't try to win. But Yeah Bruno and Ruddock tried to win but they weren't great fighters
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Messages
- 21,171
- Reaction score
- 7,602
You mention Bruno and Ruddock in the same sentence but it's clear that Ruddock was much better. Smith KO'd Frank but Ruddock KO'd Smith. Neither were great but clearly Ruddock was better. But if you want to make out that Tyson wasn't that good either then that's up to you. Tyson beat Ruddock twice so he's obviously better.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2003
- Messages
- 27,172
- Reaction score
- 11,494
I thought the Mitch Green and the Tucker fights were good for him, he fought professionally in those against game fighters who weren't hurt by him. He needed more fights like those.
Bonecrusher was very limited but he was big, strong and had a great right hand that gave us the first look at mike being hurt. too bad he was too scared to try before the end of the fight. Mike performed a great duty, cleaning up the dregs of the division, before Mike, the heavyweights came in fat, drug addled and untrained. After Mike we got a new wave of talent in a similar but lesser fashion that Ali brought out better heavyweights in the 70's.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2003
- Messages
- 27,172
- Reaction score
- 11,494
could be, it only takes one fight to ruin a man, tyson had already been through the douglas beating and that was enough to have the best minds of the sport writing him off (futch, Dundee, Steward) but i always thought that was more schadenfreude than real opinion. I was a tyson believer all the way up to the holyfield fights and then i was only a tyson hoper, hoping he'd get it back together but not thinking he would.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2003
- Messages
- 27,172
- Reaction score
- 11,494
both were good but had poor stamina, Bruno was good enough to actually be winning or close to winning before falling apart, Neither had great chins or stamina. I'd say Bruno was a bit better just based on his skills, he was winning the bonecrusher, the Witherspoon, and more or less even with Lewis before the ends of those fights. Ruddock had a big left hook/uppercut and a lot of toughness but wasn't active enough and tyson had him down how many times?
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 19,146
- Reaction score
- 14,758
On the other hand Bruno atleast gave Lewis a run for his money but Lewis obliterated Ruddock in 2 rounds.
A lot of these second-tier guys in the 90's were pretty much roughly at the same level, they just had different physical attributes/boxing styles which made them a difficult stylistical match-up for one guy, and an easy match-up for another guy.
Ruddock looked for a while like he could've been first-tier, because of his physique and power, but ultimately he had some huge flaws that let him down as a top-end talent. He just didn't have much of a defense and career-wise his durability wasn't sustainable enough to where he could live by just eating punches on the chin. His offense also get predictable after a while, with him spamming power punches with no set-up. I'd say that he was just another example of a guy who fell in love with his power and forgot about mostly everything else.
Bruno had more technical skills but he had a tendency to gas and freeze up when under pressure. Against boxers who gave him room, he could be a pretty difficult opponent.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2003
- Messages
- 27,172
- Reaction score
- 11,494
both men staggered Tyson, Bruno came to fight the first fight and was petrified in the second because of how the first one ended, the first bruno fight is still one of my favorite kayoes by what people were starting to say was an unravelling Mike Tyson.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2003
- Messages
- 27,172
- Reaction score
- 11,494
With that chin of his, he has to be about the most kayoed guy with that great a chin in history. As I keep saying, those short dimensions really were a lot for him to deal with. That and at least the first three guys to beat him were psyched up as they would ever be for him.
True. They were better conditioned in the mid 80s than in Larry Holmes era, but Mike still had a hugely padded record against guys I would beat, and I'm probably below B-level... Complete cannon-fodder.
There was a big vacuum at the top after Ali, Foreman, and Frazier were over the hill. Larry Holmes had nobody either. It's a shame Tyson and Holmes weren't closer in age.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2003
- Messages
- 27,172
- Reaction score
- 11,494
i wonder what would have happened if larry had more time to comeback, he obviously wasn't as finished as he looked to be at the time. He could have given mike a stern test even at that age. The 80's fighters were talented, many of them and they threw it away on drugs and being undisciplined. Dokes, Tubbs, Biggs, Thomas, all great talents and all wasted on drugs. Others like Greg Page and Tony Tucker just seemed to not have their heads on right and couldn't string together 2 good fights. Then we have guys like Bonecrusher, David Bey, Jesse Ferguson, Tillis, all contenders and not devoid of talent but not guys who should be champions or even maybe not even fighting champions.
It wouldn’t have mattered. Tyson would have won. Holmes never looked the same again. Holmes was actually susceptible to big punchers even in his prime. Both Mike Weaver and Earnie Shavers knocked him down, I think others too. But he always found a way back, as real champions do..
You can see here that he's still a shadow of himself here with more preparation.
Bruno was the best fighter Tyson beat, at the time he beat him. You don't outbox Lennox Lewis without being a good fighter. Bruno also hit like a tank, even harder than Tyson. Brunos chin wasn't elite but it wasn't glass either.. It was probably around Lennox Lewis chin-level, and Lewis survived Brigg's best shots...
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2003
- Messages
- 27,172
- Reaction score
- 11,494
Ya but he beat Mercer and he had all the know how in the wotld.
Ring IQ doesn't fade but defense does.. He looked pretty shell-shocked getting tagged by shots that would have never landed in his prime.
Btw Larry Holmes thinks Anthony Joshua would have beaten Mike Tyson, and is the only current fighter Holmes holds in high regard.
I actually agree with that. People can point to the Ruiz loss but Ruiz has more ability than Buster Douglas. Anthony Joshua has a very good overall package.
