Donovan ruddock v George foreman 1991 who wins ?

Yeah Lewis, Holmes, Holyfield and maybe a few others like Wlad definitely accomplished more as far as title reign defenses and what not. But my rankings take in to account accomplishments and h2h so...., Foreman has went up my list over the years and in all honestly other than Louis and Ali the whole list could be reconfigured. I had Holmes at #3 forever.

 

May have, but we'll never know. What we do know is that Foreman came back after that 10-year hiatus and did what no one else has done before or is likely to ever do again - won unified World Heavyweight Title straps, 20 years after losing the title, at the age of 45. Perhaps one of the single greatest achievements ever in heavyweight boxing.


Wlad has lots of "defenses"; or, a string of nondescript bore-fests, against nondescript fighters. And, the one opponent, against whom a great performance would have not only broken the monotony but also could have made him, was Povetkin.

But, Wlad blew it; opting for an accelerated Jab 'n' Grab strategy, which was a disgrace, even by his usual standards, in as blatant a disregard for boxing I have ever seen in a world championship ring. Such an obviously grotesque survival tactic, the bout can in no way be stood up as an example of a good win, when it was more worthy of eliciting a disqualification.

Foreman was a far worthier champion and greater than Wlad.

 

I agree but I’d add not just one of the greatest achievements in boxing but in Sports period!!

LEGENDARY STUFF by big George.

 

[QUOTE="Bonecrusher, post: 20331031, member: 70"I had Holmes at #3 forever.[/QUOTE]

Larry couldn't be beat, for over seven years. The fighters people thought he was ducking (Page, Thomas) got beat by far lesser fighters. Only Ali and Louis were greater imo.

I have trouble placing Wlad over Iron Mike only because Mike was a more spectacular champion/fighter. During his 80s reign he was creepily ferocious. But Wlad did hold the title longer, fought the best of his time...and I daresay had more heart than Mike.


1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Holyfield
5. Lewis
6. Foreman
7. Marciano
8. Frazier
9. Wlad
10. Tyson

 

Rudduck was allot quicker than this version of Foreman, both his feet and hands. Foreman has straighter punches. I'd lean towards Rudduck being too quick for Foreman at this stage.

I do also think Foreman was cherry picking at this stage in his career. He didn't go after the divisions big punchers, he targeted smaller guys. The only punchers he targeted had previously being stopped in Morrison and Cooney.

 

He one punched Michael Moorer, the guy who Tua demolished in 30 seconds.

 

I have a difficult time believing he didn't go after big punchers, when Gerry Cooney (according to him) hit him harder than Frazier (or anyone else). And Morrison had one hell of a left hook, practically anyone who lost to him can tell you that.

Cooney blew out Lyle, Norton, Young...how big a puncher can you be to do that? I will be fair, all three were past their prime, Norton by a good margin.

 

Yes, but look at who Moorer beat. He held the lineal title...plus.

 

Great win for an old guy. But Moorer was among the weakest lineal champs of the last 30 years along with Briggs and Foreman himself.

20 defenses is way better.

 

Cooney was an alcoholic who hadn't fought for 3 years after being ko'd by Spinks and by Holmes before him. Morrison had been brutally ko'd by Mercer a couple of years before.

He could have made fights with Lennox, Bowe, Tyson, Rudduck but didn't. He was offered a Lennox fight when Lennox had the WBC title:

[url]https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/boxing-lewis-offers-dollars-8m-to-fight-foreman-1480386.html[/url]

 

How much worse can your arguments get?

Sure, Tua KO'd a past prime Moorer, in a non-title affair... ...7 and a half years after Foreman had beaten him.

Foreman KO'd an undefeated Moorer, for World Title honors... ...when Moorer was in his prime and only 7 months after Moorer had defeated Holyfield.


There's absolutely no comparison and you are now grasping at straws.

 

Yes, Larry was certainly the greater champion than George (20 successful defenses). It's just hard for me to put Wlad above George because, objectively, George did something that no one ever did before or since (25 years later). He won the title at an age fighters are generally considered elderly. And he did it in consummate fashion.

 

But objectively, he fought a guy who is considered a great puncher (Cooney). And if you watch that fight again, there aren't many who would have taken that left hook from Cooney in ANY era of heavyweights and kept standing. Cooney still had a great shot, and he wasn't as slow as Foreman with it. I seriously doubt Lewis, Holyfield, or Bowe could have taken that shot and stayed up (of course, I'm sure they would have got up and won the bout). That says a lot for Cooney's legitimacy at the time.

Maybe watch that fight again. Cooney never had the world's best chin...but he did have one of the most crushingly devastating left hooks (and uppercuts) the division ever saw, before or since. He had that puncher's chance...correction, that GREAT puncher's chance.

Frazier caught Foreman flush in their second fight, anyone could see George got rocked (even if he came back extraordinarily well). And Lyle knocked the hell out of George. Foreman said Cooney hit harder than either. Wow.

 

True. However, George beat the much younger, fresher undefeated championship version of Moorer. Tua beat an older (35), inactive (over 1 year) and passive Moorer.

 

Moorer was never that good and his chin was even worse, regardless of whose poster is on your wall.