Donovan ruddock v George foreman 1991 who wins ?

Well when the opponent is Ruddock it's not like you set the bar very high for skill.

 

I could’ve sworn youth and speed of hand and foot counter for something.

 

So Tyson knew Lewis was going to beat the crap out of him in 1996 when his camp paid Lennox $4 million step aside money so he could fight Bruce Seldon and pick up an easy win and belt instead?

Its called making a business based decision. Get an easy win for good dollars before taking on the tougher challenges for huge dollars (not that Tucker was a huge challenge, he hadn’t been a factor for years).

 

No, he is not me and i disagree with him (serbian)about several threads but he is right here, you are writing troll posts and you clearly don't like George Foreman so nobody takes you seriously if you keep your biased and dumb attack

 

I don't think Foreman, at aged 46, having regained a unified title after 20 years, was all that concerned with jumping to attention at the behest of one of boxing's governing bodies. It doesn't take a lot of consideration to realize, with his second-career ambition achieved, that Foreman didn't have many more fights left in him. Why would he care?

Incidentally - Tony Tucker, himself 36 at the time, was not employing a lot of movement by then and took a lot of punishment, in losing to Bruce Seldon - Tucker would go on to lose his next two bouts, after Seldon. It's not inconceivable that Foreman would have beaten Tucker at this point - if he'd been inclined to do so, at that stage of his career.

 

Very coherent post

 

George Foreman said on the air back in the day that Don King was on his way to being the Saddam Hussein of boxing.

In all honesty that more than anything is the reason why he never bothered with Tucker. He didn’t want to deal with King. And as another poster stated Foreman had already reached his goal by reclaiming the title, so at that point he didn’t care if he was stripped or not he only had a few fights left anyway.

 

He'd already accomplished so much. That said, he did look bad against Schulz, and his problems with Saverese were a little mystifying imo.

I must say, however, off-paper George's win against Briggs did at least put him among the best in the world at that time. Briggs was imo a quite legitimate contender, without question the best of his 2nd reign defenses, and his use of the jab was almost unequalled in skill and restraint in his career record. I think Big George knew what an uncharacteristically artistic job he did against Briggs, had it planned that way, and in the end knew the boxing purists would appreciate his effort, bs decision or not.