Donovan ruddock v George foreman 1991 who wins ?

I'd agree; particularly, in regards to Foreman. No one, but Lyle, ever did that to Foreman.
Re Shavers, I doubt we'd have seen Ruddock mount a recovery against him like Lyle did, following the second round KD.

 

Yeah - I see trends in respect to Lewis' power. Sometimes he's being lauded for it and, other times, not so much (with an emphasis on his broader armory and skillset in its stead). Either way, Lewis has to be up there with the hardest punching heavyweights of all time, surely?

 

Ruddock fell off after Lewis. He was a top contender until that point.

 

Agree he relied on the right too much first version, he was a flawed fighter and a bit one dimensional.

If Ruddock landed first on Shavers it would also be all over. He was a bit of a glass cannon against better punchers. Quarry had him out of there in no time at all. Mercado also turned the trick.

It's entirely possible Shavers gets in first tho, absolutely.

 

Absolutely. The ring put him at 33 in their 100 greatest punchers of all time. That put him inside the top 10 for heavyweights. A good argument could be made to put him above a couple of those too.

 

Absolutely. I look at it this way:

One shot power: Shavers and Wilder on the first tier, Lewis and Tua (among others) on the second. Ruddock somewhere around there, perhaps skirting the third tier (I'm sure I've left out people).

Overall power: Foreman on the first tier (Liston not far); second tier: Frazier, Lyle, Louis,

This content is protected

arciano. Norton on the third...though not far away.

 

Foreman himself admits that it can be a big mistake trying too hard to take someone out early and making a guy scared of his power. He explains that he got tired of guys getting hurt and then refusing to engage him and getting on their bike the rest of the night. It's for this very reason he took such a slow and steady approach with moore to lure him into a false sense of security to engage with foreman.

With Stewart, he had him down badly twice early and stewart became more cautious and unleashed flurries while moving laterally.

George was also like 47 I believe. Funny how the thread title specifically said 1991 George but people cherry pick his worst moments across an entire decade. But if someone take a bad moment from Tyson's career they will grab pitchforks and will be happy to write a 20 page thesis explaining that wasn't a prime Tyson.

 

Nothing jumps out as being unreasonable there^, I'd say.

Another aspect worth looking at is the scale of the armory. How many different ways can a fighter hurt their opponent?

At it's simplest level, I remember Holyfield being asked about his prediction for the Lewis/Ruddock bout and he said words to the effect that he favored a two-handed fighter (Lewis) over one-handed fighter (Ruddock).

Ruddock's high risk 'Smash' punch, which he fell in love with, made up the considerable majority of his genuinely dangerous armory.

Foreman had a more versatile armory, in that he could deliver game changing power, with either hand, at both long and short-range.

 

Absolutely! I watched Foreman-Briggs last night and was stunned by how great George's jab could be. I think he would have won at least a couple of his losses had he relied on that punch a LOT more...even to a Holmes extreme. It's a wonder he went all out so much, when his jab could have won many of his fights practically by itself.

It's a shame about the decision in that fight, but anyone who knows anything about Boxing knows Big George went out a winner in his "defeat". I used to have my ATGs at (in order) Ali, Louis, Holmes, Holy, Lewis, Foreman. But I'm wondering if George's achievements ultimately superseded even LL's amazing feats.

 

We have the same top 5 if you insert Foreman just a different order.

1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Foreman
4. Holmes
5. Holyfield.

 

To me George and Larry are tough to put one over the other, especially since Larry never knocked out fighters the caliber of Frazier or Norton. I put Larry above mostly because he held the title so long...and because I personally believe the same Larry who beat Ernie Shavers the first time would have beat prime George.

But that's just me, as I mentioned it's hard for me to put either man ahead of the other, they're both so amazing.

 

I wouldn't have Frazier, Lyle and Bowe on Louis's tier. Norton might be more on a fourth or fifth tier for me. Respectable puncher but no banger.

 

No one ducked Ruddock because he was a joke and he could not knock China chinned Morrison!Ruddock was never in top 10 fighters!

1. Evander Holyfield
2. Riddick Bowe
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Michael Moorer
5. Michael Bentt
6. Oliver McCall
7. Ray Mercer
8. Phil Jackson
9. Tommy Morrison
10. Mike Hunter

And about Ruddock...he was knocked by almost everyone!Morrison,Tillis,Lewis..
Ruddock is the most overrated guy in history. He built his name with 2 loses with tyson. He got destroyed by any prime puncher that he fought like morrison and lewis( i know i know the excuse will be that he was in his peak in 1991 and then he was shot in 1992. Laughable).
Until 1984 he weighed under 200 pounds even in the 180s . he not just lost to a bum like david jaco but he could not stop him in 8 rounds .
He won a ****PY SD AGAINST A 35 YEARS OLD WEAVER.
All he did was beating A SHOT MICHAEL DOKES( IN HIS PRIME WAS NOT A GREAT THING).
And Beating a fat 36 years old James smith Who was very very close to knock
Him the **** out. A prime smith destroys him no question about it.
Ruddock was nothing special. He is built up by Tyson fans to make it seem like Tyson beat somebody good in his prime. That being said he fought all heavyweights and I mean true heavyweights
He could not even KO china chinned Morrison but Tyson fans live in delusion that he would knock Iron chinned Foreman!
Rudccok as I said was knocked by light pucnhing 40 years old Tillis, and he could not beat Morrison!
Imagine Foreman catching Ruddock!
It would be just like Foreman Cooney fight!

 

Foreman by ko

 

what?