George Foreman 1990 vs Razor Ruddock 1990

There is not a single win on Ruddock's resume that suggests he beats old Foreman. Ruddock feasted on shot former strap holders. When he stepped up, he lost.

 

Yep, Weaver, Smith, and Dokes. His only good wins. All fit the description.

 

I thought Weaver beat Ruddock actually. He just wasnt that good.

 

• 
  
  

  ---

  
  

  Click here to register a FREE forum account and REMOVE ADS

  
  
  

I thought so 2. He was the only one who threw anything meaningful. Ruddock's known 4 his power, but you'd never guess in this fight. Weaver all but DESTROYED Ruddock in the 3rd, I think. Ruddock boxed a lot after that, but I recall him only throwing a fast and extremely useless jab that wouldn't have knocked a fly off Weaver's head.

 

We've had this conversation several times before. It's revisionist history to act like Ruddock was some world beater. A dangerous and game fighter with lots of heart? Sure, but to act as though Ruddock's on a pedestal above Foreman as though he was one of the elites of the 90's is completely false.

90's HW tier list h2h

A tier: Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis
B tier: Foreman, Mercer, Tua, Byrd, post prison Tyson, Rahman,
C tier: Ruiz, Ruddock, Golota, Morrison, Bruno, Briggs, McCall, Moorer
D tier: Cooper, Seldon, Biggs, Stewart, Hide

Unless you think prime Ruddock is as good as Holyfield, Bowe, or Lewis, he's not "leagues ahead" of Foreman h2h. Best you could argue is he was low B tier--everyone in that section has better wins than Ruddock. The whole "he was never the same after Tyson" excuse is just that, an excuse. I like how whenever there's a Ruddock thread people forget or ignore how Morrison (whom many people on the forum seem to hate) went life and death with Ruddock and how Lewis took him rather easily within 2 rounds.

He just wasn't that durable and had leaky defense which made things even worse for him. He telegraphed shots and got nailed for it in response. His balance was extremely poor which is how he would sometimes get dropped by shots that weren't even particularly hard. I mean if freaking Bonecrusher Smith can drop you and be on the verge of knocking you out, I don't think Foreman (who has excellent timing contrary to popular belief) would need to have laser like focus and precision to time you.

Ruddock is not winning a decision in a million years. Foreman arguably had the best jab of the 90's and paced himself way better than Ruddock and had better defense. He's not knocking him out either. Unless Foreman is out of shape or having a horrible off night and gets repeatedly nailed and the ref stops it prematurely, I don't see how Ruddock could possibly take this. Foreman will not only be jabbing, he'll be landing some hellacious body shots and depleting Ruddock's stamina--which will bring his hands down to his waist and leave him open for bombs upstairs. Terrible matchup.

 

You told 'em Glass City Cobra. Brilliant post, although my personal tiers are a little different from yours, but basically the same. I think it's worth mentioning that Ruddock couldn't beat any of his fellow C tier-ers, and even Biggs is kind of on a similar level as Ruddock. Beating a past it Tillis and Snipes is close 2 the same as beating past it Weaver, Smith, and Dokes.

 

Great post on this. Yea its going to be a fun fight while it lasts and Ruddock gets some shots in, but Foreman eventually is going to get his jab going and start landing his big shots. I think this is going to be a win for George but I can see Ruddock getting his fair share of punishment in as well.

 

Looking at Smith's record, the guy was 36 years old and coming off 2 losses and a draw before he fought Ruddock and still went life and death with him and had Ruddock on the canvas. For some reason I thought their ages were a little closer but Smith was only valuable as a "name" to have on your resume a this point. It's impressive he knocked out a guy as durable as Smith, but he was way past it and easy to hit.

Weaver wasn't much better record-wise being a past it 35 year old whose best day were in the 80's (where he did good, but was B tier at best even then) and having gotten stopped in 2 of his last 3 bouts before facing Ruddock. Weaver wasn't known for being paritucalrly durable yet this 35 year old journeyman went life and death with Ruddock who couldn't convincingly win and had to settle for a split decision.

Dokes put together a string of wins, but was frequently dealing with drug issues and constantly distracted by women. A spectacular KO, but not the most elite of opponents. C tier at best at this point of his career and another 30 year old.

So you do definitely have a point, Ruddock's 3 best wins aren't exactly leagues ahead of some fighters even in D tier. I think it's pretty clear where all this undeserved hype and revisionist praise is coming from, but I'm not gonna derail the thread as I know it's gonna strike some nerves. It's funny because as much as I give Rocky fans hell for his resume full of past it 30 year olds, they were at least the best opponents available. Ruddock went life and death with 30 year olds who were not only past it, but weren't remotely the best of their era yet he's supposed to be a h2h monster.

 

All three men had Ruddock at the point of a knockout, but that's where their age showed.

Actually, I would have 2 say that his fights w/ Tyson are a lot more impressive considering how few went 12 w/ Tyson. Of course, then that pulls Douglas into the debate. It seems like this thread just can't get away from Tokyo 1990.

 

The Ring Rankings 1990:
Ruddock at 3
Foreman at 10

Revisionist my ass.

 

Boy, you got some things 2 learn. Just cuz that's what the rankings said don't mean a thing. Liston was ranked highly after the two Ali fights, even tho he never beat anybody notable again.

 

Weaver would have knocked Ruddock silly back in the early 80s. TKO in 7 at the most.

 

Sometimes I wonder if Liston was ranked according to his abilities instead of his notable wins post-Ali. I honestly think a lot of really good fighters at the time ducked him...he was still really good imo.

 

Kind of hard to place Douglas in a tier since he literally put it all together for one glorious night and the rest of his career is rather mediocre.

In his own words, Douglas could be overconfident or underestimate some opponents. That's not an excuse, but outside of Tucker, he never suffered a 1 sided loss in his prime. Prime Tucker I would say is roughly between B and C tier and was a frustrating assignment h2h for his footwork and height.

I would say if we're combining his best performances and trying to figure out an "Average" for where to place douglas it would be low B tier. I just can't see how a C tier fighter could beat a prime Tyson even if Tyson wasn't exactly on fire and motivated. Douglas' jab is top 10-15 in HW history, has a nasty uppercut too. Great lateral movement and a great finisher.

I think you could argue Ruddock kind of "put it all together" for the Tyson fights. He was pumped up, full of confidence, and undefeated. Performance wise he did look impressive going life and death with the #3 HW in the world at the time despite getting repeatedly nailed in the nuts. But he still lost clearly. Tyson was outlanding him, landed the cleaner punches and combinations, had better defense, better ring IQ. Ruddock isn't on Douglas level either. Even without the Tyson win, Douglas beat Page, Berbick, McCall, and Cobb. Page, Berbick, and McCall are all C tier bare minimum or higher and Cobb is D tier. He has quantity over quality and his opponents weren't 35 year olds coming off bad losses.

 

I even thought Weaver showed significant decline since knocking out Williams earlier that year. And Williams was better imo.