George Foreman 1990 vs Razor Ruddock 1990

B-but Rudock beat up James Smith who was coming off of 2 losses and a draw, and Smith is just as good of a fighter as Foreman! And Ruddock showed how tough he was getting his ass kicked by Tyson 0-2 getting dropped multiple times in both fights! Holyfield and Foreman ducked Ruddock, the division was terrified of him!

 

That's funny

 

Foreman showed more as a fighter in his loss to a prime Holyfield than Ruddock did getting bounced off the canvas by a half interested Tyson.

 

You can take it a step further. Foreman showed more heart against Holyfield than Tyson did. Tyson got stopped in the 1st fight and resorted to biting in the 2nd fight. And against an even more shopworn, older version of Holyfield at that.

Since these guys love abc logic so much: holyfield>foreman>tyson>ruddock.

Foreman beats Ruddock even according to their own logic.

 

Some of these fellas spend a lot of time watching boxing video old films but don't seem to understand what their watching. So sad.

 

We can play that game if you want: Foreman got his face completely rearranged in winning a gift decision over the same Alex Stewart that Tyson blew out in seconds. Nevermind that Foreman spent his entire comeback being very vocal about avoiding big tall punchers. The only way hes setting foot in the ring with Ruddock is if Bob Arum bribed Ruddock to take a dive.

 

What does Alex Stewart have to do with Ruddock? Wasn't Alex Stewart 6'4 with a 90% KO ratio?

The thread says 1990 George Foreman, can you read?

Briggs and Cooney were both big tall punchers. Morrison hit hard too. Where do people keep coming up with this idea Foreman avoided guys who could hit?

 

Here's some more brilliant abc logic.

Ruddock brutally KO'd Smith. Tyson couldn't even drop him.

Ruddock's power>>>Tyson's

 

If both Ruddock, or James Smith for that matter, hit a measuring unit full force, I wouldn´t bet seeing a bigger number with Tyson. 10x left hooks from Tua and Tyson with a punch force tracker, or a professional unit, I´d go with Tua on the higher avarage score. But I´d bet on MT to hurt Byrd, who Tua failed.
The typical "functional power" vs. "full power" debate.

Now thats Sauhund style

 

The same thing Holyfield and Tyson have to do with Ruddock in a fight with Foreman, which was referenced in the thread I was actually responding to. Can YOU read? Briggs, like Stewart, had a padded KO record (and beat Foreman btw). Cooney was shot. And Morrison, a guy who was known for having horrible stamina, outboxed Foreman and made him look like he was wearing cement shoes. People come up with the idea of Foreman avoiding guys who could hit because he frequently stated "Im not fighting Bowe, hes too big and hits too hard." "Im not fighting Lewis, hes too big and hits too hard." and so on. Foremans comeback was the biggest sideshow fraud ever put over on the boxing world and its remarkable so many people buy into it, especially after everything that came out about it in the IBF trial.

 

Reading comprehension. The reason he even brought up Hoylfield and Tyson was to point out how flawed abc logic is but you were apparently too dense to realize why we even went there.

Morrison, once again, has nothing to do with 1990 Foreman so I guess you CAN'T read. But I'll humor you. Morrison had bad stamina? So did Ruddock. Morrison also beat Ruddock since we're looking past 1990 which is the date used in the thread.

Ruddock would never in a million years outbox Foreman. He can't fight backing up. He abandoned his jab, had poor defense, no lateral movement, no right hand, terrible ring IQ, barely threw any combinations.

No one was pretending like Briggs had some amazing record but he did hit hard. Are you saying guy with a high KO% and the highest number of 1st round KO's didn't have power? Are you saying a guy who was 6'4 wasn't tall? You said Foreman avoided tall guys who hit hard. You were wrong. And stupid.

Stewart was 6'4 and had a 90% ko ratio. Another guy Foreman fought.

No one said Cooney wasn't shot, but he was a tall guy who hit hard. That was the point. So that's 3 opponents who were tall and hit hard. Your statement is factually incorrect.

And NONE of this bull **** has anything to do with 1990 Foreman vs 1990 Ruddock. Any moron can pick someone's resume apart, use abc logic, and shift the goal posts. Not one of you have addressed the actual matchup h2h for 18 pages. That has to be a record. Could it be you know this is a bad matchup on paper and that's why you keep bringing up all these side conversations? Because common sense should tell you a guy with poor defense, a shaky chin, and 1 arm who loaded up on one shot over and over is a bad matchup for an iron chinned 2 fisted guy with a good jab and good defense. A guy who went 1-4 (3 KO losses) against the best punchers he faced and even the 1 win he had was a 36 year old who nearly knocked Ruddock out. Ruddock even in his prime went up and down on the canvas like a yo yo, had no head movement, leaky defense, and telegraphed his shots.

 

What was said in the IBF trial?

 

Nothing relevant to the fantasy fight in question.

 

Three guys who were tall (btw. Stewart was 6'3") and hit hard:

Briggs MD12 (loss, arguably better)
Stewart MD10 (94-93.33 on three cards)
Cooney KO2

Lets say two of them were > 6'3", thats tall. Briggs was definately young and upcoming. But are these three men who could hit hard at the time, on higher opposition? Cooney and Stewart ?

How do you see that fight going from round 1 into round x ?

 

How about we discuss 1990 Ruddock vs 1990 Foreman? Is this impossible for you to do?