George Foreman 1990 vs Razor Ruddock 1990

I haven't even suggested that Spoon took a dive, let alone stated that Smith said he did.

Are you attempting your best impression of a moron, today? If so, congrats - you've convinced me. If not, log off and take a break.

 

What are suggesting Bonecrusher said to discredit his emphatic win over a never ko’d before and after (?) Tim Witherspoon?

 

"I knew his mind couldn't be on the fight. He wasn't thinking about me. My plan was to be all over him. He embarrassed me the last time and I wanted to pay him back. I did." - James "Bonecrusher" Smith

His own opponent said his mind wasn't on the fight, but go ahead. Go crazy telling us we don't know what we're talking about. Dig your heels in and shift the goal post after being presented with facts. It's great entertainment.

 

Teo felt the same way about Lomachenko and said so. I guess we can conclude that Don King forced Vassily Lomachenko to lose on purpose, although he didn’t agree to have his teeth knocked out and take a dive.

 

old Foreman arguably lost to Alex Stewart. You didn't even have to be world class to cause him huge problems and arguably beat him.

I don't think its overhyping Ruddock to suggest at his best he was far better than Stewart.

 

Missing the point as usual.

It is possible for an athlete to not try their hardest without it being some absurd conspiracy theory. You can't tell me Adrian Broner tried his hardest to win against Manny Pacquiao.

Wait aren't you the same guy who was defending Kovalev against Canelo? It all makes sense now.

This thread isn't about Smith anyway. He wasn't as good as Foreman with the jab, nor with his defense, nor with body punches, nor accuracy, nor killer instinct or cutting off the ring. So your comparison was bad. Foreman vs Ruddock wouldn't even remotely resemble Ruddock vs Smith aside from it being 2 black guys wearing boxing gloves.

You claiming Smith got better "results" than Foreman is 100% false by any objective measure.

-Foreman was a 2x champion and only had 5 losses despite fighting way, way longer than Smith who had double digit losses.
-Smith was a punching bag whose power bailed him out when he was getting outboxed by the stiff crappy stamina Bruno (Smith's 2nd best win) and allowed him to stop an unmotivated Witherspoon who made no serious effort whether you want to admit it or not. In contrast Foreman knocked out an undefeated lineal champion who was trying to tear his head off.
-Smith failed to make adjustments and got outboxed by Rodrigues. Foreman destroyed Rodrigues in 2.
-Smith "went the distance" with prime Tyson by spamming clinches over and over every 20 seconds and rarely threw anything. Foreman went the distance with prime Holyfield in a thrilling war and earned Holyfield's respect who stated Foreman was the hardest hitter he ever faced despite being over 40.
-Smith blew a lead against Ruddock after knocking him down and proceeded to get knocked out. Foreman put on a clinic at 48 outboxing a prime Shannon Briggs outlanding him by more than 60 punches.

Anyone claiming Smith got better "Results" than Foreman either hasn't seen any of these fights, is trolling, or is a complete idiot.

 

I relatively recently started really appreciating George's performance against Briggs. i never saw him use the jab so effectively, so often. I feel that he could have succesfully defended that title more had he both been given the decision he deserved in that fight and kept jabbing the way he did. I feel he would have been FAR more convincing against Schulz if he'd done the same (instead of looking...well, pretty bad during that fight).

 

1. Ruddock is the only guy to knock out a serviceable version of Smith. That says something about Ruddock.

2. Foreman made no attempt to fight guys like Bruno and Witherspoon although both were available. (He was scared of the corpse of Tony Tucker.) These are men Smith knocked out.

3. Foreman officially lost to Briggs, unofficially lost to Schultz, and unofficially drew with Stewart. He’s also the only guy Morrison ever outboxed. Asthma posed a bigger challenge to Briggs than the Mummy.

4. Foreman beat zero fighters in the top ten if not for a well known Hail Mary against a chinny blown up light heavyweight who was so far ahead that he got bored. That guy would be iced by Tua in about 30 seconds.

 

1-it says something about Ruddock if his best knockout is a 36 year old coming off 2 losses and a draw, and he himself nearly got knocked out in the process.

2-yawn. Everyone knows Foreman did careful matchmaking in his 2nd career. He himself admitted it. Unless the fight was big money or the belt was on the line he didn't care. As the only 40 year old in the division who paid his dues as a gold medalist and ex champion he had that luxury.

Wtf would he gain fighting the poor stamina robotic Bruno who had no belts when Foreman was active (aside from when he beat McCall and then lost it immediately to Tyson)? Bruno lost almost Every time he stepped up and wasn't a big name outside the UK. Witherspoon was good when Foreman had just started his comeback. By the time Foreman was ranked and shook off the ring rust, Witherspoon was garbage and a journeyman. Your timeline doesn't even make sense. When would it have even been viable for Foreman to fight those two?

For some reason people go all in on Foreman but say nothing about Pacquiao holding the WBA belt hostage, being inactive and not pursuing fights with Spence, Crawford, etc. They don't have a problem with Golovkin fighting once a year and when he does fight it's usually a bum and he isn't fighting the Charles, Andrade, etc. Have some consistency.

3-your bias and stupidity is showing again. You ignore the official ruling of the Stewart fight and call it a draw but you go with the official verdict of the Briggs fight despite the fact Foreman dominated nearly every round and outlanded Briggs by like 60 punches. The government even investigated it because it was such a bad robbery. You are a joke.

4-correction, 2 guys in the top 10: moore who was an undefeated guy with the lineal championship and 2 belts (neither Ruddock nor Smith ever in their lives knocked out a prime ranked undefeated fighter, let alone a champion) and Rodrigues who Foreman iced in 2 and Smith dropped a decision to.

And the fact you think Foreman just landed a lucky punch and it wasn't planned tells me you either didn't see the fight or you're a buffoon who can't see any subtleties in fights. Moore's own trainer Atlas warned Moore. Foreman before the fight even said he would bait Moore into standing in front of him. There are dozens of YouTube videos breaking down the fight made by people way more intelligent and knowledgeable than your hard headed biased ass. You just don't want to give him credit. Did you lose money betting against him or something?

 

That covers everything nicely. The Moorer-Foreman fight has indeed been picked apart, and through such Foreman's plan becomes clearly delineated. Foreman didn't just get lucky, he knew he had to do what he rarely did and vary the velocity of his punches, to lure Moorer into a false sense of security and convince him to trade. Foreman's plan borrowed a bit from prime Holmes and Ali but hey...what works, works.

 

Stewart going close with Foreman has nothing to do with how Foreman and Ruddock would fare. This is boxing 101. Ruddock was a one trick pony and fought completely differently. Ruddock was limited
and extremely one dimensional and had next to nothing beside big power.

Razor doesn't have the wins on the board to be "far better" than that many people at all. Again, he's rated off two impressive brawls with Tyson much more so than any wins.

 

I can somewhat sympathize, because RR showed a level of heart and ability he never showed before or since. That Ruddock would have lasted longer with George...but let's not get crazy here. RR couldn't have taken many flush shots from George, and in 1990 GF was on the way up. Can't see George getting moved much, or even having to chase him much. Pow, lights out.

 

Many heavyweights from that era are rated on very little simply because the top fighters generally didn't fight each other.

Without the Holyfield trilogy Riddick Bowe might not crack the top 50, maybe not even the top 100.
Without the first Holyfield fight Moorer is probably not in the top 100 given how little else he has to brag about.

This isn't just an issue with Ruddock

Maybe Bowe was just a bad stylistic matchup for Holyfield and the Golota beatdowns are a better indication of his real abilities (or lack thereof). We can play that game with many guys from that era.

 

Totally agree George would get him.