George Foreman 1990 vs Razor Ruddock 1990

Stewart Showed up in exceptionally good shape though for that fight. He was also quite a bit more seasoned now after facing those other guys and also applied a two fisted attack

 

You sound really triggered for some reason. Ruddock knocked off a top five contender, something Foreman didn't do, and followed it by going to war with Tyson twice, something George avoided even attempting. As for Morrsion, we both know that Ruddock wasn't a serious fighter at that point, but he still likely would've won if not for the premature stoppage.

 

This^ says more about you than it does about me.

No. Foreman just beat a Unified Champion, instead.

You don't know why Tyson/Foreman didn't happen. But, Ruddock lost to Tyson either way so, what's the big deal anyway?

Foreman did better than Ruddock, against Morrison. That's a fact.

 

Right and Holyfield had a tough brawl with Stewart that ended on a cut and then went the distance with him. How's that working out for you?

 

He's just going to keep talking about how "anyone" could have knocked out Moore and that his title was ripe for the taking, Foreman got outboxed and landed a lucky shot blah blah blah. People get triggered by Foreman's KO wins for some reason and they want to put an asterisk* on them. He'll dispute Rodrigues ranking and dig his heels in despite being #2 and #3 in two separate sanctioning bodies the year before the fight. I guess he missed the part where Foreman did exactly what he said he would do and bait Moore into a false sense of security. Or the part where Moore's own trainer kept warning him. Nope, Foreman just clenched his teeth and swung for the fences praying for the best according to some people.

Anything to avoid the fact Foreman legitimately knocked out am undefeated prime world champion. Something that not only Ruddock never did, but very few guys in the 90's did.

Noneck is not being consistent because he will ignore Ruddock's abysmal perfomances against Morrison and Lewis for being "past his prime" while ignoring the fact Foreman was nearly 50, ignoring that Moore was past it when Tua KO'd him (which doesn't make him garbage anyway given how hard Tua hits). He will ignore how Ruddock's 3 best opponents were past their physical prime, that 2 of them were coming off multiple losses and he had to go life and death and dig deep with all 3 of them to win.

Not to mention ignoring all the things Foreman does better than Ruddock such as jabbing, going to the body, defense etc whenever it's brought up.

Look, no one is saying this is an "easy" fight for Foreman. But to ignore all these factors and act as though Ruddock should clearly be favored and would win relatively easily is absurd given how often he lost when he stepped up and his lack of defense and chin even in his prime of 1990.

 

Foreman beat Moorer, who must be the smallest and chiniest lineal heavyweight champion of the modern era, by landing a big punch while down on the cards. Moorer had a singular significant win at heavyweight, which Evander emphatically avenged, suggesting that maybe the first fight was an off night for Evander. I think Ruddock would've ended Moorer early.

Ruddock lit up Dokes who was in the top 5 and just barely over age 30. I have little confidence in Foreman being able to do that and question if he'd even beat that version of Dokes.

I never discredited Lewis' win over Ruddock. Foreman simply had no interest in fighting the Tyson's and Lewis' of the world. His comeback might have ended at the hands of either one of them.

Ruddock didn't give a **** about boxing when he fought Morrison. He was totally inactive and barely trained. Ruddock's career was effectively done after the Lewis fight.

Picking Ruddock to beat Foreman is simply a majority view of anyone who knew boxing back then. I think Foreman even knew he'd lose this sort of fight which is why he avoided them.

I rank Old Foreman around where I put Bonecrusher Smith and that's totally respectable. Some are just too emotive about the capabilities of a ripe version of George Foreman.

 

All good mate. I think Mercer would have been too durable and outlasted him. Moorer was a better fighter but his average whiskers and Ruddocks power give Razor a punchers chance. Moorer also hit pretty hard and could be sharp at his best. Bruno would be favored but man could he freeze if caught right at times. Razor again with a reasonable punchers chance.

 

He used his jab better and boxed better early career (still wouldn't call him a "formidable boxer personally) but it was against quite limited fighters too. Mainstream Ruddock was all about brawling.

 

That sums it up nicely.

I think when a poster, with the knowledge that Foreman became the oldest world champion in history (at that time), then says...

"

This content is protected

"

...you know you're dealing with some serious level of denial and bias.


Another 'in bright, neon lights' example of the bias, came a few pages back when he stated...

"

This content is protected

"

You've got to really dislike a boxer to rely on official losses that were disputed, but then include your own version of results against official wins, to make one's point...

Not only that, but to also imply Briggs actually did deserve his win against Foreman is kind of a giveaway, in itself - As is calling Foreman "the Mummy".


I agree that Foreman/Ruddock would be a tough fight. Comeback Foreman was relying on the things he could execute best, from inside a 40+ year old body, increased weight and reduced movement. But what he did, he did very well, in what was a broader set of tools than a lot of heavyweights carry with them into the ring, even today. If nothing else, Foreman was able to prove their worth, even in his 3 defeats, during his comeback career of over 34 bouts, in 10 years.

 

Fair enough.

 

Your tone sounds completely different from the last few pages. You insisted Smith got "better results" than Foreman and now you're saying they're even (which even then is still a strange claim to make).

You kept repeating the narrative Moorer was ripe for the taking and Foreman just happened to land a lottery punch ignoring the fact there is undeniable evidence Foreman was breaking him down and baiting him which even Atlas acknowledged.

You questioned Rodrigues ranking for Foreman while boosting up Smith's credentials as a fighter for Ruddock despite the fact Smith was much older than Rodrigues and was coming off 2 losses and a draw.

You ignored the Stewart fight's official ruling and called it a draw and accepted the official verdict against Briggs.

Every time you type you show clear bias so you are in no position to call anyone emotional or not rationally looking at the facts.

 

When Foreman stop Moorer it was actually 4 consecutive punches. The first 1-2 froze him and the follow up assured he wouldn't be rising from the count. 1

 

1. Smith did get better wins. He has worse loses overall though. Smith did have a better run of fights than Foreman when he was beating Ferguson, Weaver, Bey and Witherspoon.

2. Moorer lost because he was a dumbass. If he circled in the other direction, he'd have won.

3. A fanboy claimed that Rodrigues was top 10 for Foreman, which was false according to Ring rankings.

4. Smith was a late bloomer and coming off an NC in a fight he was gonna win before Ruddock. He lost a SD in Brazil to Rodrigues in a fight you haven't watched and lost to Tyson by decision. You call this two loses and a draw because it hurts your feelings that Foreman never separated himself from Smith during his comeback.

5. I put the word "disputed" next to the Briggs fight although I think the controversy is mostly a figment of the imagination of Foreman's rabid fans who think Briggs' heavy breathing meant he was losing.

 

Are you a relative of BoneCrusher smith?

 

One thing to note on the argument is Evander avenged the loss years after the fact against Moorer.