George Foreman 1990 vs Razor Ruddock 1990

Yeah, I made a lot of stupid posts early on. 16 a day? Pretty funny. Can't recall ever doing more than 5 or 6 a day, and that's pretty uncommon. And although I have considered other forums, this is the only one I'm a part of.
This is just another nail on your coffin tho. This is just ad hominem. U can't defend your position anymore, so you're attacking me now.

 

Not very good at math are you ?

Do you want me to coach you how to divide 4895 posts by 10 months aka 300 days ?

I would consider it a honor if you put me on ignore.

 

What happened to tHiS tHrEaD Is AbOuT tHe YeAr 1990.



The thread's timeline is Ruddock after blasting out Dokes and Foreman after blasting out Cooney. Try to keep up son.

Also, Ruddock lost to Tyson 0-2 getting stopped the 1st time and losing by a wide margin the 2nd time getting brutally dropped multiple times. Foreman beat Stewart. I bet you thought this was a clever point to bring up?

 

• 
  
  

  ---

  
  

  Click here to register a FREE forum account and REMOVE ADS

  
  
  

Not very good at logic are you? Who the hell is going 2 post consistently?

Hey, I've got an idea! Why don't u just not talk 2 me?

 

The point was you were trying to pick apart Foreman's resume when Ruddock never beat a top contender who hit hard either. The best puncher Ruddock beat was a flabby 36 year old Smith coming off 2 losses and a draw.

Yes Ruddock was past his prime, but so was Morrison. You can't call Morrison glass jawed and then ignore the fact Rudock couldn't knock him out. Morrison was a 1 armed fighter with poor defense and stood right in front of Ruddock slugging it out yet Ruddock couldn't take him out. There is no excuse. Against Foreman, Morrison ran like Usain Bolt and decided he wanted to be a boxer all of a sudden.

Cooney, Briggs, Morrison, Holyfield, Stewart, there are several hard hitting guys who had a 70% KO ratio or higher Foreman fought in his comeback and he did beat some of them. Not sure why you're picking this hill to die on.

 

This is what it boils down to. They keep avoiding the discussion about Ruddock's lackluster resume and shortcomings even in fights where he WINS and instead decide to pick apart Foreman's resume as if everyone and their grandma isn't aware that it's very thin.

My stats

Ruddock:

Power: 8
Hand speed: 7
Foot speed: 5
Timing: 7
Accuracy: 7
Chin: 6
Recovery: 7
Defense: 4
Stamina: 7
Heart: 8

Jab: non existent
Right cross: 5
Left hook: 7
Right hook: non existent
Left uppercut: 10
Right uppercut: non existent
Body punching: 5
Combination ability: 4


Foreman (90's):

Power: 10
Hand speed: 5
Foot speed: 3
Timing: 6
Accuracy: 8
Chin: 10
Recovery: 8
Defense: 6
Stamina: 8
Heart: 10

Jab: 10
Right cross: 10
Left hook: 8
Right hook: 8
Left uppercut: 9
Right uppercut: 10
Body punching: 8
Combination ability: 7

Like you said, a boxer who sorely neglects the jab against a guy who SPAMMED jabs, a guy who isn't very durable against an extremely durable fighter, a guy with suspect stamina vs a guy who paces himself well, a guy with leaky defense vs a guy who had a tight cross arm guard, a guy who heavily favors his left vs a guy who has power with both hands, and they both hit hard and are aggressive. HMMM...this is a tough one to think about!

 

And Stewart went about one minute with Tyson but did enough to beat Foreman in a lot of people’s eyes.

Sure is a shame that Foreman lacked the testicles needed for a Tyson or Ruddock fight. He preferred blown up cruisers or has beens.

 

Right because A B C logic is flawless and the best way to determine h2h fights.

WTF does Tyson vs Stewart have to do with this thread? Did Ruddock take Stewart out in one minute? No? Then stfu!

I could care less if Foreman didn't want to fight Tyson or Ruddock at the time. He was kind of busy fighting the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world. And that has NOTHING to do with the thread.

Testicles...? Funny you should say that. This is like arguing with a woman. You are constantly shifting the goal posts, doubling down on points even after they've been debunked, avoiding the actual subject while bringing up irrelevant nonsense, and using misplaced sarcasm and a condescending tone when you aren't in any position to do so.

Ruddock is the Cleveland Williams of the 90's except he doesn't have the excuse of literally being shot.

 

Yeah, I think you're right as well. While I think Ruddock took a knockdown terribly, it's tough. It's like Shavers imo. At times Ruddock appeared tough, other times he looked God-awful.

 

You're brilliance is killing me. How many more good points can u come up w/?

 

Don't get NoNeck 2 riled. He's getting frustrated at losing so badly and might bite a piece out of your ear.

 

Cool as a cucumber over here. Ruddock lit up a top 5 contender going into 1990. Old Foreman never lit up anyone in the top ten during his entire comeback. That miracle punch while being way down does not qualify.

 

Yeah, ik, just kidding around. I don't like u, but you've never been very rude 2 anyone, and I respect that.

 

Foreman beat Rodrigues who was ranked 10th in the world. He lit him up pretty bad and brutally KO'd him.

Foreman knocking out a prime undefeated world champion doesn't count? Why? Because that's something Ruddock never did in his whole career?

You've been taking more L's in this thread than Ruddock's best opponents before he fought them.