Donovan ruddock v George foreman 1991 who wins ?

Did someone except Holyfield ever staggered Foreman??Nope!Tyson was beaten by Holyfield and Foreman went 12 full rounds!Bonecrusher Smith and scared Bruno??They defeated who?'

 

...and, except that Foreman smoked Rodriguez early (and Morrison actually stopped Ruddock, mid-rounds, having overcome Razor's vaunted power, in the process.)

And, of course, Foreman went on to win the Lineal Heavyweight Championship, after the decision loss to Morrison, whilst Smith never caught sight of another major title shot, after losing his WBA strap, in '87.

Different levels, entirely.


As a side note, for those bigging up Ruddock's defeat of Dokes - Foreman did better against a more seasoned, heavyweight [Lineal Champion] version of Holyfield than did Dokes - and Dokes, in any event, never really recaptured his Holyfield form or fought at that level, ever again, after the stoppage loss.

Ruddock's KO of Dokes was spectacular, but it is no benchmark, here, for levels of form or even power.

 

"Rudccok as I said was knocked by light pucnhing 40 years old Tillis"

I keep seeing this in this thread. When did this happen? Are you referring to a sparring session or exhibition? James Tillis was 40 in 1997-1998, but had no official fights in those years.

 

You're reaching.

Smith's ko of Witherspoon is better than any win Foreman had in his comeback.

Foreman fought Rodriguez years after Smith and waited until Holyfield ko'd him.

If you're talking about Morrison--Ruddock, it shows you have nothing to say because Ruddock was totally inactive by that point and still likely would've won if not for the strange stoppage.

I think most would say Dokes performed better against Holyfield than Foreman did.

 

He's a troll, likely an alt, but for some strange reason hasn't been banned yet.

 

Hahah sangria so morrison And stewart did not ran from foreman? Lmao

 

Ruddock past prime???In one year???Afzer two fights but never mentioned Foreman was 45 years old and came of retirement to chase Tyson!So young Ruddock was washed beaten by AIDS china chinned Morrison but Foreman who was 45 years old and had wars and his retirement....and he chased Morrison who didn't want to fight and run and outboxed him???Yea right!Old Foreman was in prime but Ruddock was washed after two fights?Ruddock would never won and stop making excuse because his hook would allways kill Ruddock weak chin!And that was AIDS Morrison!Ruddock would never won and deal with that!Foreman chased Tommy around who knocked Ruddock!Ruddock even young could not be a champion but old Foreman did tells that even older version was better than Ruddock!
I do not know how stupid can someone be to wrote that Ruddock was washed after two fights and beaten by weak chinned Morrison who was on AIDS but never mentioned Foreman age and his comeback and his wars!

 

Does it seem to anyone else that some people here are taking this way too seriously? So there are differing opinions...things would get boring quickly if there weren't.

If someone doesn't agree, big deal. We're all here to have fun bullshitting around. The idea is to have fun, and even maybe learn something every now and then. I could be wrong.

 

You’re the one who made the comparison between James Smith with George Foreman.

I am just adding more information to your select list of examples and, given the starting position you have established, it would be difficult to reach further than you already have.

That’s funny - in your post previous to this^ one, you described Smith’s win over Witherspoon as "Flukish" and made it comparable to Foreman’s over Moorer. Now, it’s better than ANY win achieved by Foreman, during his comeback.

Seems that you have felt the need to move the goalposts and damaged the credibility of your original argument, as a result.

By the way, whilst credit should be given to Smith for taking his opportunity when it presented itself, every man and his dog knows that Witherspoon’s mind and his boxing were out to dinner that night (even Smith acknowledged this). There’s no way it compares to Foreman’s win over Moorer.

By "years after", you mean less than three years, with Rodriguez having gone 10-1... ...OK.

Ruddock was "totally inactive"?? Less active, maybe.

Anyway - I’m not sure it really matters, in relation to the argument you’re trying to push. You decided to use Morrison’s UD win over Foreman in one of your Smith comparisons, probably forgetting that Morrison gave your boy a spanking, eating any powershots Ruddock had to offer.

But, Morrison played it safe against Big George and wise he had been to do so.

It was a great Heavyweight fight. But, Dokes realistically only won a few rounds and was brutally stopped by Holyfield, who’d not long been competing in the Heavyweight division, at that point. Foreman also won a few rounds, but went the distance against the more seasoned, Lineal World Heavyweight Champion Holyfield.

Of the two, Foreman earned more kudos from his effort, having achieved the better outcome against the better version.

 

1. Smith’s flukish win over Witherspoon is better than Foreman’s flukish win over Moorer because Witherspoon was better than Moorer.
2. You’re being totally dishonest about when and why Foreman fought Rodriguez. The wind was out of that balloon.
3. Ruddock was totally inactive before Morrison and he still outperformed Foreman.

 

It's crystal clear to me you didn't watch these fights. If ya did, than you had no idea what you were looking at

 

You have a habit of deferring to the overall record/reputation of a boxer to cover over the cracks in the arguments you make, relating to specific, individual fights; whether they be speculative head-to-head match-ups or contests, which actually took place.

That Witherspoon rates higher than Michael Moorer, historically, is reasonable to suggest. That, as such, this makes Smith's defeat of him a better win than Foreman's over Moorer, by default, is not.

I'm not sure you understand this and so I would not be surprised if you can't accept the underlying flaw in what you have stated above.

If anyone is being dishonest, it is you, with yourself.

You don't deal with actual facts all too well and what I stated about the timing between the Smith/Rodrigues and the Foreman/Rodrigues fights was actual fact. And, I never mentioned "why" Foreman fought Rodrigues so, I'm not sure you are following the thread of the discussion all that cleverly, either.

Rodrigues was a solid KO victory for Foreman and clearly a better result against him than Smith's Decision Loss to the same. This point is really not debatable.

Ruddock's ability, in your opinion, to outperform other boxers, even in bouts where he was stopped within 6 rounds, is a source of much mirth to me.

Indeed, your whole 'James Smith comparison with George Foreman' is not something I can take too seriously and the position you are taking really has no legs. You can keep it up, if you like, but adding any more of a skewed perspective to that, which you have already presented on this topic, would be nothing short of fatuous.

I certainly have nothing else to say on this particular matter.

Have a good evening.

 

We get it. You're a Foreman fanboy.

 

You don't (but that's ok).

 

So they all danced around the ring like Ali in his prime? Dude, I just got finished watching Stewart pummel Foreman at will. How did he land so much? Did he summon his ancient boxing skills that have never been seen before out of the blue? Of course he didn't walk Foreman down but he landed straight rights, straight lefts, hook and uppercuts while standing in front of George. How else would he have landed so many bombs?

I watched every single one of these fights live when they happened and rooted for George throughout his entire second career. The facts remain that he carefully selected opponents who were either chinny or had been KO'd in their previous fights. He did happen to land on Moorer and accomplished one of the most amazing achievements in sports history. Incredible what he did, but let's not get carried away with his fictionalized superman powers.

Ruddock had advantages in youth and speed with power being equal and durability being slightly on Foreman's side because he paced himself better. After seeing what Stewart did to Foreman tells me that a bigger, more powerful and more durable heavyweight in Ruddock would probably finish Foreman off where Stewart couldn't.