BoxRec

It's ridiculous how some people estimate these two fighters. When I read somewhere that Ruddock was a monster and Douglas was one-hit wonder I understand that those people, who wrote this, either know nothing about boxing or are extremely biased. When you compare resumes of Douglas and Ruddock, it's quite easy to say Douglas was much more accomplished fighter:

1) Douglas was undisputed heavyweight champion of the world, Ruddock never won any major titles;

2) Douglas beat a dominant, undisputed, undefeated champion, future HOFer in Mike Tyson, Ruddock never come close to beating anyone of this caliber. In fact, he fought Tyson twice after Douglas beat him up and knocked him out, and Tyson dominated both fights;

3) Ruddock beat 4 HW champions of the world (Weaver, Smith, Dokes, Page), but all of them were clearly past their respective primes. Douglas also beat 4 HW champions of the world, but only one of them was past it (Berbick).

i take it you never seen both guys fight at the time ...records can be misleading ruddock was the the most fear heavy weight at one time and douglas was a lazy fighter that had one great performance

stevedoc wrote:i take it you never seen both guys fight at the time ...records can be misleading ruddock was the the most fear heavy weight at one time and douglas was a lazy fighter that had one great performance

Being considered the most fearful HW means nothing. Michael Grant was considered as a "next great HW" by some people, for God's sake. It's just people's opinions. Undeniable facts shows as that James Douglas had much, much better career and was superior fighter comparing to Donovan Ruddock.

Boxing Writer wrote:

stevedoc wrote:i take it you never seen both guys fight at the time ...records can be misleading ruddock was the the most fear heavy weight at one time and douglas was a lazy fighter that had one great performance

Being considered the most fearful HW means nothing. Michael Grant was considered as a "next great HW" by some people, for God's sake. It's just people's opinions. Undeniable facts shows as that James Douglas had much, much better career and was superior fighter comparing to Donovan Ruddock.

take away the tyson fight douglas was a average heavyweight at world level he lost to david baye ,mike white ,jesse fergerson and tony tucker where if i remember right he bottled it and gave up , i see no evidence that douglas was better .i see ruddock fight live about 25 years ago and he was a brilliant boxer .the douglas that beat tyson was a great fighter but that was just one fight his surrender vs holyfield was a terrible performance .
ruddock and tyson both finished each other i think 2 brutal fights and neither fighter was the same after

Ruddock has the more spectacular KO's out of the 2 with Douglas only having the one. It was the most spectacular of all time mind! but I think Ruddock would have Knocked out Douglas though and overall he was a better fighter.

Both were a bit overrated IMHO.

In respect of Ruddock, once he abandoned his good boxing skills, he became a predictable one dimensional slugger who was drunk on his power & did not have the stamina nor resilence to adopt such a style.

In respect of Douglas, I have heard a good few people say that the Douglas that beat Tyson would have beaten anyone in history & that is something I disagree with massively: he wasn't even the best heavyweight of 1990, let alone in history.

People forget he was knocked down heavily in the 8th & there was some dispute as to whether he was down for longer than 10 seconds, although I fully accept he beat the referee's count, which is all that matters.

As for head-to-head, I would concur that Douglas was superior & more accomplished than Razor.

Syntax Error wrote:Both were a bit overrated IMHO.

In respect of Ruddock, once he abandoned his good boxing skills, he became a predictable one dimensional slugger who was drunk on his power & did not have the stamina nor resilence to adopt such a style.

In respect of Douglas, I have heard a good few people say that the Douglas that beat Tyson would have beaten anyone in history & that is something I disagree with massively: he wasn't even the best heavyweight of 1990, let alone in history.

People forget he was knocked down heavily in the 8th & there was some dispute as to whether he was down for longer than 10 seconds, although I fully accept he beat the referee's count, which is all that matters.

As for head-to-head, I would concur that Douglas was superior & more accomplished than Razor.

Tyson's was a long count as well.

In a case like that you can't separate a fighter's rise from the speed of the ref's count, as the former is influenced by the latter; if someone is timing a count so they maximize their recovery time, they are probably going to stay down longer if the ref counts slower.

I don't think either of these guys is overrated or underrated. I think they're remembered pretty much correctly who was the better between the two is debatable, but doesn't matter much. I think they're about the same level of skill. A motivated Douglas is the better boxer of the two, and Ruddock is the harder hitter of the two.

how do you think they would cope with todays lot ?

littlepug wrote:how do you think they would cope with todays lot ?

They'd both be solid contenders. Ruddock could knock out Wilder or Fury I figure, not sure about Charles Martin still haven't seen enough of that guy to know for sure what he's got or doesn't got.

A motivated Buster could beat just about everybody in the division today, but most of the time the motivated Buster isn't the one that showed up. So I'd say in this era he'd have been capable of winning the title and maybe defending it a time or two before he wound up getting outboxed or knocked out by somebody.

Id disagree totally.

Douglas had one once in a lifetime performance over the worst tyson we saw 85-91. The tyson ruddock lost to twice was twice the beast plus .that tyson would have stopped the tokyo douglas easily.

Otherwise ruddock has a far superior record.dokes was rated a top 3-4 heavyweight, smith and weaver were less gone than berbick and page when ruddock met them.

In a head to head razor is far superior knocks him out or makes him retire

Judah Ben Fur wrote:Id disagree totally.

Douglas had one once in a lifetime performance over the worst tyson we saw 85-91. The tyson ruddock lost to twice was twice the beast plus .that tyson would have stopped the tokyo douglas easily.

Otherwise ruddock has a far superior record.dokes was rated a top 3-4 heavyweight, smith and weaver were less gone than berbick and page when ruddock met them.

In a head to head razor is far superior knocks him out or makes him retire

All Buster ever needed to retire was a big paycheck. His heart was never really in Boxing it seemed to me.

Judah Ben Fur wrote:Id disagree totally.

Douglas had one once in a lifetime performance over the worst tyson we saw 85-91. The tyson ruddock lost to twice was twice the beast plus .that tyson would have stopped the tokyo douglas easily.

Otherwise ruddock has a far superior record.dokes was rated a top 3-4 heavyweight, smith and weaver were less gone than berbick and page when ruddock met them.

In a head to head razor is far superior knocks him out or makes him retire

I think Tyson wasn't any better in both his fights against Ruddock fights than he was in Tokyo when Douglas knocked him out.

Buster Douglas was the better boxer. Great talent that didn't maximize his potential. He never wanted to be a fighter in the first place. That Douglas that beat Tyson would've beaten any other great heavyweight that night, or at least give a great performance in defeat. He was in all cylinders and had a quick jab. It was one of those days that he decided to really prepare for the fight of his life. He was a one night wonder in my view, that could've been an all time great if taken the sport seriously.

Buster could be likened to Page and maybe Dokes.

What they all have in common is that their talent was very high, but none of them lived up to their god given potential.

Buster might have had the greater potential of the three, potential that went even more unrealized than the other two.

Except for one very very good night.


Ruddock lived more up to his own personal potential. What you saw, is what he was capable of.

He was a fair to good gate keeper I suppose.

Rexob wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:Both were a bit overrated IMHO.

In respect of Ruddock, once he abandoned his good boxing skills, he became a predictable one dimensional slugger who was drunk on his power & did not have the stamina nor resilence to adopt such a style.

In respect of Douglas, I have heard a good few people say that the Douglas that beat Tyson would have beaten anyone in history & that is something I disagree with massively: he wasn't even the best heavyweight of 1990, let alone in history.

People forget he was knocked down heavily in the 8th & there was some dispute as to whether he was down for longer than 10 seconds, although I fully accept he beat the referee's count, which is all that matters.

As for head-to-head, I would concur that Douglas was superior & more accomplished than Razor.

Tyson's was a long count as well.

Both counts were identical in length, around 13 seconds if you time them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHcbFUTIslI

Buster Douglas had many good nights. Tyson, Page, McCall, Berbick, Cobb, M Williams etc, was boxing well against Tucker. He had a big fat bag of talent and often used it.

BoxBuzz wrote: Ruddock lived more up to his own personal potential. What you saw, is what he was capable of.

He was a fair to good gate keeper I suppose.

Ive never heard such errant slander!

When was Ruddock ever a trial horse or gate keeper in his career?

87-90 a steady rise to the most dangerous hw in the world along with tyson.

1991 20 brutal rounds with tyson and neither man was ever the same.....ruddock was a decent way done at 27....seemed a shell v lewis in 92.

Rest of his career ,was meaningless nonsense apart from the Morrison fight where he showed flashes of his peak and his weaknesses as well....namely the worst boxing IQ in living memory at world class ,a recklessness........and the nitty gritty......a total total neglect of his early career skills,the superb jab and mobility and movement,the right hand he showed early on such as in the sparring with holmes in 1986.....if he could have allied those attributes with his 1990-91 peak attributes of the smash,the chin,power and heart....with a boxing IQ.....man oh man we would have had something special on our hands.......razor no where near fufilled his potential .....despite beating 4 former heavyweight champions

Judah Ben Fur wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote: Ruddock lived more up to his own personal potential. What you saw, is what he was capable of.

He was a fair to good gate keeper I suppose.

Ive never heard such errant slander!

When was Ruddock ever a trial horse or gate keeper in his career?

87-90 a steady rise to the most dangerous hw in the world along with tyson.

1991 20 brutal rounds with tyson and neither man was ever the same.....ruddock was a decent way done at 27....seemed a shell v lewis in 92.

Rest of his career ,was meaningless nonsense apart from the Morrison fight where he showed flashes of his peak and his weaknesses as well....namely the worst boxing IQ in living memory at world class ,a recklessness........and the nitty gritty......a total total neglect of his early career skills,the superb jab and mobility and movement,the right hand he showed early on such as in the sparring with holmes in 1986.....if he could have allied those attributes with his 1990-91 peak attributes of the smash,the chin,power and heart....with a boxing IQ.....man oh man we would have had something special on our hands.......razor no where near fufilled his potential .....despite beating 5 former heavyweight champions

Oh Yeah? Says who? I say he operated at about as good as could be expected of him.

And I'll say it again.

And yeah...I would agree not a bad career.

so....How many HOF's did he beat? We might just want to have a look at that list of "champion" he defeated.

...

The point I"m advocating is....on paper ....he beat 4 former hw champions.....many of them he brutally kayoed.........dokes,smith,page,weaver ....he was better than all of them on talent and physical attributes imo.....but they won titles he didnt......all of them beat weak champions (a witherspoon throwing a fight equals a weak champ too)....razor though fought a formidable tyson twice b4 the title before fighting a hof"er lewis..... .if he had displayed intelligence with his,physical attributes......yes i could have seen him beat a foreman ,a holyfield or lewis during the 90s.....but he didnt....and he didnt win a world title so imo he underachieved in line with the talents and gifts he had going all the way to the amateurs when he beat lewis..........hell, add to that first round kayoes of broad,and ribalta and the morrison fight which he threw away after the knockdowns....this guy on paper ,already did a lot...he had poor management and a large entouragewhich contributed to his fading away after 1991

For me with boxing IQ installed he beats all the moorers,witherspoons,mercers and beats even a lewis mk1 or old holmes and foreman circa 92

It's funny Mugabi, I think we agree more than we disagree on this topic.

However I mirror all the minutia in the opposite direction....but I admit it's minutia.

He really never beat a champion, but yes, he beat a few contenders that had belts. Dokes and Page true underachievers in my book.
I see that as an agreement actually.

Probably disagree on the Foreman, Holyfield or Lewis statement. With some room to debate on the Foreman aspect I suppose.
And the Morrison fight, well I think that's just underestimating Morrison, who managed to come back from a pretty good deficit to stop Razor.

We both agree he was very good. Maybe Tyson's equal.....since I'm not overly sold on Mike...though he took Mike the distance twice in losses.

As far as saying "IF he had a high BIQ".....it's just something he didnt' have. And yes IF he had it he would have done better.....but it's just as measurable an attribute (to my way of thinking) as any other deficit or gift.......he didn't have a strong BIQ......and that's that. IF Hearns had a granite chin, Saad and I could both argue that he may have been the best fighter that ever lived....(I'm not kidding here) But.....he didn't, and he had to use his offensive and defensive arsenal to keep that deficit in check. And man did he have plenty of both.

But I digress.

I think he was very good, and he gave it just about all he had.....so in my mind, he lived up to his potential.....and was not the waste of talent that say Page or Dokes were.......both guys with great talent that were either lazy, or too dumb to stay out of the way of life's distractions.

All in all, I'm complimenting Razor.....he parlayed his gifts to some very good outcomes. And yeah, I think he outperformed everyone of those "Beltholders". that he beat. But none (in my mind) were champions.....and IF they were....then so was he.

Not sure there's all that much space between our opinions. Save the fact that you think he really had a storage room of talent that he somehow didn't tap. Where as I think he just about tapped all he had.

Its Ben....boxbuzz

I agree with most of what you say ,however the fact, you suggest,if i read it right that ruddock may have been tysons equal im afraid that may be where our paths seperate on the road of agreement.but im guessing its sermantics.


As an aside on the issue of BIQ...imo there is no comparison between physical attributes like power,speed and chin and BIQ (boxing iq)......the first 3 a fighter can do very little about once they reach a certain level of training/deveopment...BIQ on the other hand is something a fighter has total control over throughout his career.

Most boxers develop BIQ as they start the sport.Some like hopkins and mayweather have consistently maintained and improved BIQ even as their physical gifts (speed ,chin) deterioted.

I respect your argument ,that Ruddock did all he was going to do ......and most might agree with you.

But my opinion... Ruddock was a clever,mobile and measured boxer early in his career who had a superb jab ,a right hand,and boxing ability (take a look at him sparring a inshape last vestige of a peak Larry Holmes in early 1986)........than take a look at the reckless,stationary, left hook crazy slugger post 1991 ..........who hardly threw a right had terrible balance and often got floored off balance when he was throwing his smash.

Ruddock chose to neglect his boxing skills and most of his arsenal to rely on power and wade in recklessly once he became overrelient on the smash......consequently his BIQ went awol.

Take a look at him early on....he didnt even have the SMASH which led him to just about stop using his right hand.

Another case ,of a fighter who suddenly went from defensively adept highly skilled boxer to reckless low BIQ brawler was another jamaican Lloyd Honeyghan

But i agree on the salient points we are in tandem

Razor ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,overrated