Okay, lets forget about Stewart and Cooney could punch lol. I´d ask you about that fight! "How do you see that fight going from round 1 into round x ?" You saw? No comprende?
We all know Foreman was selective in his opposition and wouldn’t fight Ruddock unless he had to (if Ruddock was champion), but it’s a mythical matchup. We have a lot of mythical matchup threads about Floyd against guys he would never face either. Ruddock had a lot of physical gifts, he hit like a mule, but his ring IQ and skills were well below Foreman. Ruddock fell in love with his power and always wanted to launch that smash hook. He rarely jabbed, and Foreman would constantly land that jab on him. Ruddock might probably land enough to lump Foreman’s face, but loses in the process.
1. It’s a myth that Ruddock couldn’t or didn’t jab. He didn’t against Tyson but he had an explosive puncher in front of him who could counter his jabs. 2. Foreman’s jab was slow and Ruddock would look to smash counter it. 3. Mayweather fought and beat Pacquiao and Canelo while not much younger than Foreman when he was fighting the ghost of Qawi and a coked out Cooper. The comparison is absurd.
Discuss 1990 Ruddock vs 1990 Foreman. I. Do. Not. Care. About. Anything. Else. Otherwise, I will go back to ignoring you and you can keep laughing at your own poorly written posts. Comprende?
Ok I´ll help. I see this 12 rounds. Foremans chin was fine, and Ruddocks mandible was evidently better than 3 of the four names George stopped. Leaves one name out of ten: Coetzer. Yeah like it happened with Stewart, but Ruddock cleary the better, more powerful fighter. In a fight going the distance, losing a 8/10 round is a disadvantage to keep in mind.
Was it tho? Ruddock was knocked down once against Morrison. Three times against Lewis. Once against Smith. Four times against Tyson across 2 bouts. 9 knockdowns, 3 KO losses Moorer was dropped 6x by Holyfield across 2 bouts. Twice against Cooper. Once against Foreman. 9 knockdowns, 1 KO loss, 1 stoppage loss. It's pretty close. I obviously didn't include fights where they were both way pas their prime and fell out of the rankings. They both have fights where they got off the floor to win (against Smith and Cooper). So Coetzer had a better chin than Ruddock, Moorer was about even with him, and Rodrigues and Cooney were worse. I don't see anything that suggest Foreman wouldn't be able to stop Ruddock. Especially given that his defense and ring IQ was much worse than Moorer's.
This is the first place I've read someone actually believing that Briggs won that fight against Foreman. Ever. Astonished that anyone could watch that fight and call Briggs the winner. Foreman even outpunched him.
I saw that. Even I was surprised, despite the source of the claim. Then I thought, this smacks of an agenda... ...a poorly executed one. I was less surprised then.
It could be that the judges at ringside favored Briggs' flashier punches and did not score based on Foreman marching forward and Briggs catching his breath, which are not primary scoring criteria. It may have been more evident that Briggs was winning at ringside than through the eyes of an emotional fan watching on TV. The same ones crying robbery are suspiciously quiet about what happened in the Schultz, Saverese, and Stewart fights in addition to the invisible Moorer rematch.
From memory Briggs was slim (before he bulked up) for the Foreman fight, and was able to handle Foreman whenever he (Briggs) was active. Briggs' problem was his asthma and maybe a lack of confidence since being knocked out by Darroll Wilson. Briggs didn't have confidence that the asthma would allow him to stay busy, he took time off. The Wilson knockout is probably what "earned" him the fight with Foreman. I need to watch the fight again, but from memory, it seems that Briggs won whenever he was active and Foreman made it close by moving forward when Briggs took time off. For Foreman to have taken the fight, his team had probably evaluated Briggs and knew of the asthma and after the Wilson fight, they probably considered him easy to KO.
Except I admitted Foreman looked like crap in the Stewart fight and that I wouldn't be totally against someone scoring it a draw. He blew his gas tank trying way too hard to finish Stewart off after knocking him down and underestimated his ability to survive and use lateral movement. But by all means, keep doing what you do best and changing the subject over and over. Let's go for 29 pages because spending 19 pages going way off topic isn't enough.
It's not like the fight was close. No one, other than the judges (and two in particular), had the fight in favor of Briggs. Months later, you could still see comments in the papers about what a bad decision Foreman/Briggs had been. There's no sensible case to be made for a Briggs win.
That sounds pretty accurate. I watched it a couple years ago. I saw more of a sloppy fight than a robbery. I came out with Briggs by a point or two but the recording I watched was poor.
