The point was you were trying to pick apart Foreman's resume when Ruddock never beat a top contender who hit hard either. The best puncher Ruddock beat was a flabby 36 year old Smith coming off 2 losses and a draw. Yes Ruddock was past his prime, but so was Morrison. You can't call Morrison glass jawed and then ignore the fact Rudock couldn't knock him out. Morrison was a 1 armed fighter with poor defense and stood right in front of Ruddock slugging it out yet Ruddock couldn't take him out. There is no excuse. Against Foreman, Morrison ran like Usain Bolt and decided he wanted to be a boxer all of a sudden. Cooney, Briggs, Morrison, Holyfield, Stewart, there are several hard hitting guys who had a 70% KO ratio or higher Foreman fought in his comeback and he did beat some of them. Not sure why you're picking this hill to die on.
Your'e right William. Based on all that we saw in the full body of Ruddocks career. However just playing devils advocate here.......Ruddock of 1991 memory was considered an iron chinned warrior with tremendous heart to go with his physical gifts and power.......the poor IQ thing as coined by us on the forum hadnt really kicked in at that point.......for sure Ruddocks heart, chin and skills deterioted significantly after the Tyson wars...in the post Tyson-Desiree Washington shakeup....all the magazines like KO, World Boxing and Boxing Illustratred rated Ruddock very highly there were a lot of voices arguing he would take other the number 1 position from Holyfield..... In the Greg Page fight....the deteriotion in Ruddock were apparent.........Flloyd Patterson was trying to get him to box and jab......but he was sluggish and being outboxed by a worn out Greg Page......the Lewis fight he didnt throw 1 single smash in the 2 rounds it lasted......than after his lengthy time away he wasnt the same and the Morrison fight showed it.........perhaps the 1991 Ruddock could take all george had.....?
This is what it boils down to. They keep avoiding the discussion about Ruddock's lackluster resume and shortcomings even in fights where he WINS and instead decide to pick apart Foreman's resume as if everyone and their grandma isn't aware that it's very thin. My stats Ruddock: Power: 8 Hand speed: 7 Foot speed: 5 Timing: 7 Accuracy: 7 Chin: 6 Recovery: 7 Defense: 4 Stamina: 7 Heart: 8 Jab: non existent Right cross: 5 Left hook: 7 Right hook: non existent Left uppercut: 10 Right uppercut: non existent Body punching: 5 Combination ability: 4 Foreman (90's): Power: 10 Hand speed: 5 Foot speed: 3 Timing: 6 Accuracy: 8 Chin: 10 Recovery: 8 Defense: 6 Stamina: 8 Heart: 10 Jab: 10 Right cross: 10 Left hook: 8 Right hook: 8 Left uppercut: 9 Right uppercut: 10 Body punching: 8 Combination ability: 7 Like you said, a boxer who sorely neglects the jab against a guy who SPAMMED jabs, a guy who isn't very durable against an extremely durable fighter, a guy with suspect stamina vs a guy who paces himself well, a guy with leaky defense vs a guy who had a tight cross arm guard, a guy who heavily favors his left vs a guy who has power with both hands, and they both hit hard and are aggressive. HMMM...this is a tough one to think about!
And Stewart went about one minute with Tyson but did enough to beat Foreman in a lot of people’s eyes. Sure is a shame that Foreman lacked the testicles needed for a Tyson or Ruddock fight. He preferred blown up cruisers or has beens.
Right because A B C logic is flawless and the best way to determine h2h fights. WTF does Tyson vs Stewart have to do with this thread? Did Ruddock take Stewart out in one minute? No? Then stfu! I could care less if Foreman didn't want to fight Tyson or Ruddock at the time. He was kind of busy fighting the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world. And that has NOTHING to do with the thread. Testicles...? Funny you should say that. This is like arguing with a woman. You are constantly shifting the goal posts, doubling down on points even after they've been debunked, avoiding the actual subject while bringing up irrelevant nonsense, and using misplaced sarcasm and a condescending tone when you aren't in any position to do so. Ruddock is the Cleveland Williams of the 90's except he doesn't have the excuse of literally being shot.
Yeah, I think you're right as well. While I think Ruddock took a knockdown terribly, it's tough. It's like Shavers imo. At times Ruddock appeared tough, other times he looked God-awful.
Don't get NoNeck 2 riled. He's getting frustrated at losing so badly and might bite a piece out of your ear.
Cool as a cucumber over here. Ruddock lit up a top 5 contender going into 1990. Old Foreman never lit up anyone in the top ten during his entire comeback. That miracle punch while being way down does not qualify.
Yeah, ik, just kidding around. I don't like u, but you've never been very rude 2 anyone, and I respect that.
Foreman beat Rodrigues who was ranked 10th in the world. He lit him up pretty bad and brutally KO'd him. Foreman knocking out a prime undefeated world champion doesn't count? Why? Because that's something Ruddock never did in his whole career? You've been taking more L's in this thread than Ruddock's best opponents before he fought them.
There is nothing to suggest Rodrigues was the 10th best heavyweight in the world. I thnk that ranking can be dismissed as a severe misjudgement on the part of people ranking heavyweights. Ruddock has very little in the way of impressive wins but aside from Moorer comeback Foreman accomplished very little himself.
I would argue that ranking was wildly off then. I don't think we have to blindly accept rankings if the evidence points to them being off. Derrick Jefferson was ranked in the top 10 by Ring Magazine, I don't buy that either
