Top 50 HW'S 1990-99

Why would physical belts not matter? So you can argue your case? Because Ruddock never won one?

He won it off Lewis and defended it against Holmes. He was champ at the same time as Moorer and then Foreman, who were lineal. He was the B side, but not by much when Holyfield got beat. You talked up Phil Jackson but he wasn't much chop at all and hadn't ever beaten jack. Undefeated sounds good until you look at who he fought. His four fights before Ruddock were against guys 10-9-0, 14-21-1, 13-45-2 and 7-2-0. As a collective group they had over 30 more losses than wins. Lets keep it real.

You talk losses, well how much do losses add really? They are still losses. Bruno put up a far better effort against Lewis than Ruddock did.

At the end of the day all Ruddock has is two good losses to Tyson in the 90's and Dokes. I've already explained Dokes hadn't beaten a top 10 fighter in 8 years. His rating was an absolute FARCE. Ruddock was whooped by Lewis and he was also stopped by Tommy Morrison. That was his chance to win a title (like Bruno won off McCall) but he failed. Morrison was hardly unbeatable, he already had KO losses behind him to Mercer and Bentt.

Bruno's title absolutely pulls him ahead of Ruddock. Where they both go can be debated but it's Bruno ahead all day long.

 

Belts don’t matter because the op hasn’t been counting them. You aren’t going against the spirit of the thread to fabricate your own argument, are you?

Lewis was green in his one fight with Bruno. Bruno lost and was less impressive than Ruddock in either of his fights with Tyson, who was regarded as the best fighter in the division.

Ruddock took the heads of a top 5 Dokes and undefeated Phil Jackson. Bruno outpounted McCall and beat Coetzee. Ruddock beat a washed up Page and Bruno beat a washed up guy or two.

Ruddock clearly was better and more significant to anyone who isn’t British.

 

Show me in the opening post where the thread starter said belts don't count?

I'm not British and i have Bruno up. I've already explained why, belts or no belts it doesn't matter. McCall and Coetzee are better than a Dokes who realistically was not top 10 and Jackson who shouldn't even be mentioned.

Dokes post Ruddock - Once conscious, a sullen Dokes was distraught, “I’m devastated. Maybe it’s time for me to start thinking about doing something else. If I can’t beat Ruddock, I can’t beat Douglas.”

 

He thought he could beat Ruddock and got put to sleep. Not sure what you're getting at there.

 

I don't think this is The Ring's list. The Ring would never write that Holyfield was a 4 time champion in the 90's, as the fourth title came in the 2000's.

 

The list is the Ring’s. The commentary is AI doing what it does.

 

It's obvious what he's getting at is Ruddock wasn't considered as good as Douglas and he considered not being able to beat him disappointing enough to reconsider boxing.

 

Call me shocked that a fighter had excuses after getting knocked out.

 

No excuse was offered. Are you ok?

 

The excuse is that he implied he was past it after getting lit up. It’s what your pal London calls “context.”

 

Tyson fans tend to pump up Ruddock, for obvious reasons. Ruddock was a one armed fighter.

 

Extremely true.

 

He says nothing about how he would have fared 5 or 10 years ago. He's saying he's not up to the level of winning the world title, of being the best, which is obviously his goal.

Maybe he's a modernist like yourself and started to think the big new heavyweights with shiny muscles were too big of a hill.

P.S. I know of no poster called "London".

 

He expressed these concerns before or after getting knocked out?

 

Who, London?