The scoring of the Lewis vs Holyfield fights..

[Scott9945]

Just a bit of balance regarding the scoring of the second Ruddock fight.

Tyson was deducted three points and scored two knockdowns.

Ruddock was deducted one point.

Therefore the maximum points Tyson could have been awarded would have been 117.

If we assume that Ruddock lost every round; that does bring him to 108. However the two knockdowns plus a single point deduction would (for as long as the knockdown rounds were scored 10:8) bring him to a minimum of 105.

But could Ruddock have had a few even rounds, therefore earning him a few extra 10 point rounds to bring him to the 108 or 109 scores by the judges? Impossible! Ruddock had to have won three or four rounds to meet the actual judges score cards, or Tyson would have had 117 scores across the board.

As the judges found Tyson a winner by 113:109, 114:108 and 114:108......he had to have lost three rounds on two cards and four rounds on the other. This fits mathematically with Ruddock's cards too. The three or four won rounds brings him from the theoretical minimum of 105 to the actual 108 or 109.

It was a good fight though and it did seem to finish off Ruddock as a world class fighter......

Thanks for confirming that Sonnyboy is full of spit and a pathological liar. Or at best he is embarrassingly ignorant.

[Sugarj]

Thanks for proving that Sonnyboy is full of spit and a pathological liar. Or at best he is embarrassingly ignorant.

No no no!

I posted that for balance; I was not taking sides. You are both excellent, knowledgeable posters who were wrong in this instance. You did say in an earlier post in the thread:

'So if Tyson has less than 120 points, it means he lost some rounds since there were no point deductions in that fight'

However, there were 4 point deductions.

Hell, the fight is nearly 25 years ago....we can all make a few memory slip ups, not to mention mathematical errors.

lets get back to talking or typing boxing.

Laters gents.....

[billeau2]

No no no!

I posted that for balance; I was not taking sides. You are both excellent, knowledgeable posters who were wrong in this instance. You did say in an earlier post in the thread:

'So if Tyson has less than 120 points, it means he lost some rounds since there were no point deductions in that fight'

However, there were 4 point deductions.

Hell, the fight is nearly 25 years ago....we can all make a few memory slip ups, not to mention mathematical errors.

lets get back to talking or typing boxing.

Laters gents.....

The idea that ruddock was somehow irretrevably damaged by that fight is a possibility but it is quite suspect. First are we to assume all heavyweights who took a beating like that are toast? Well....Floyd patterson, a small heavyweight, finesse oriented against Liston, its possible. George Forman? Joe Frazier? I mean some guys were, some were not, thats a fact.

Rudock was a big strong hulk. his whole fighting style revolved around pressuring and pursuing his opponent, its why he was a succesful one armed fighter. When he fought Mike he kept coming fowards because, particularly in the later rounds, he was having success. I don't think this was his undoing so much as his way of fighting.

[Scott9945]

No no no!

I posted that for balance; I was not taking sides. You are both excellent, knowledgeable posters who were wrong in this instance. You did say in an earlier post in the thread:

'So if Tyson has less than 120 points, it means he lost some rounds since there were no point deductions in that fight'

However, there were 4 point deductions.

Hell, the fight is nearly 25 years ago....we can all make a few memory slip ups, not to mention mathematical errors.

lets get back to talking or typing boxing.

Laters gents.....

I'm sorry I used your post to stick it to the other person. You didn't deserve that. Honestly I didn't remember the point deductions, but you saying that Ruddock had to have won some rounds was all I needed to prove my point. I was never really debating that fight in particular, just the idea that Tyson won every round in both fights when it obviously isn't true.

[joseph5620]

i really do enjoy this. your agenda has been "Blown to smithereens" on a daily basis by me.. And it is so eeeasy for me to do. all i have to do is tell the truth, and by telling the truth, i win the argument hands down.

Coming from you, that is one hilariously ironic statement.

If you want to tell the truth you can start by acknowledging that Ruddock won rounds against Tyson. If that's too much for you to do then your consistent lying speaks for itself.

[sonnyboyx2]

Coming from you, that is one hilariously ironic statement.

If you want to tell the truth you can start by acknowledging that Ruddock won rounds against Tyson. If that's too much for you to do then your consistent lying speaks for itself.

Notice the back up here guys..

[sonnyboyx2]

And by the way you simp....here is a credible journalist who was writing about the scoring, the Chicago tribune is a decent paper with a great sports history and he says THAT RUDDOCK WAS BESIDE HIMSELF BECAUSE HE LOST 14 OUT OF 19 ROUNDS TO TYSON!! So obviously Tyson did not win every round of his fights with Ruddock. Tyson was indeed great and Ruddock was tough and hung in there. He took abuse because he felt he had a chance and he did rock Tyson a few times in the mix so shaddap!

Source: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1...-razor-ruddock

One cannot look at the second fight in isolation, it was a continuation of the first fight and....Ruddock did not win 6 rounds of the first fight, so...you good at math right sonny?

What a load of ****.. it has now been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever. That Razor Ruddock 31/10/1992 was "Damaged Goods"... he was a bag of duff. Just like most of the other fighters Lewis chose to fight, instead of fighting the fighters who were at the top of their game during the 90s... Let's start a new thread on "The Great Golota"... another bum who is made out to be better than Ali & Liston rolled into one. Just to make the pathetic resume of Lennox Lewis seem to look a little decent.

[sonnyboyx2]

Cutting through all your redundant Tyson worshipping babble, the fighters do NOT start a 12 round fight with 120 points. They start with ZERO. Points are awarded AFTER each round. Unless there is a point deduction, one (or both if the round is even) fighter is given 10 points. If you win every round of a 12 round fight, you get 120 points. So if Tyson has less than 120 points, it means he lost some rounds since there were no point deductions in that fight. So please explain how Tyson can win every round and not have 120 points. And skip all hyperbole about broken cheek bones and fractured eye sockets, they aren't the issue. This is basic math, and you seem to be lacking there.

yes fighters DO SET OFF with 120 points... so your wrong again

[Axl Rose]

the Holyfield who fought Tyson and rematch with Moorer had the size and speed he needed to take care of lewis i believe. against vaughn bean and lewis he looked significantly slower.

[billeau2]

What a load of ****.. it has now been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever. That Razor Ruddock 31/10/1992 was "Damaged Goods"... he was a bag of duff. Just like most of the other fighters Lewis chose to fight, instead of fighting the fighters who were at the top of their game during the 90s... Let's start a new thread on "The Great Golota"... another bum who is made out to be better than Ali & Liston rolled into one. Just to make the pathetic resume of Lennox Lewis seem to look a little decent.

Sonny saying that something is so, does not make it so. Your distaste for lewis aside....the methode employd by mr Ruddock were succesful and he employed them against Tyson with some success (regardless of the rounds)...you who like the old ways should be familiar with pressure fighters, Rudock pressured tyson and had him taking leather at times....which he tried to do with Lewis.

live by the sword die by it....rudock was not going to become a jaber and two handed hooker against lewis was he? and the perception at the time was hardly that Rudock was damaged goods...more like Lewis was going to be in trouble, so stop being a revisionist.