John Ruiz - A Top 25-30 Heavyweight?

Then there is Walcott and Charles.

 

My apologies, I just saw Muchmore's list. He mentioned some of the guys I forgot. Just combine our lists, and put Ruiz behind it.

 

Arent we talking champions?

 

The op said top 25-30. Champion is a rather loose term in boxing, but Ruiz was never considered the division's top fighter. Ruiz was merely a titlist.

 

It is, but in this case I think Ruiz' resume can classify him as a "champion" certainly if your ranking the Klitschkos higher.

 

I'm not trying to simply be argumentative, and I swear I like you. I don't exactly know what you are getting at.

The op said top 25-30. I feel that some fighters have proven better than those that have won a specific title from multiple organizations. I can't justifiably put Chris Byrd on my list and not add Ibeabuchi. I can't put Dempsey on my list, and not carry Wills. Dempsey was impressive, but faced a segregated lot. If Quarry had 4 belts to go after, instead of maybe 2, then he probably would have been a titlist too.

 

Neither Klitschko is a former champion, and if you think Ruiz has better wins then you must have not followed boxing for the last four years.


I think Ruiz is top50 or so. A boring but game fighter who never avoided anyone and spent quite a long time near the top.

 

I can also think a lot of fighters probably more than 30 that were more talented, but as far as belt holders, Ruiz is up there in the 90' on era.

 

Overall I would say Ruiz has equally as good of wins as Wlad and better than Vitali. What do you think?

 

I wasn't just talking talent. Michael Grant may have been more talented. Grant's win over Golota was more definitive. I was taking resume into account. I can't rank Ruiz ahead of Tua, just because Ruiz captured a title. Tua slaughtered Ruiz, and has a resume that is on par with Ruiz.

 

What about belt holders? Would you rank a guy like Michael Dokes or Pinklon Thomas higher in the belt holder or champion column?

 

Based on his resume, he'd probably be in the realm of top 30-40 all time in heavyweights, he does have a few good names under his belt....

 

I really don't think that Ruiz's list of wins is much to write home about. A decision over an aging Golata who floored him twice, a DQ against Kirk Johnson, a hairline win over a diminished Holyfield ( who also beat him ), Hasim Rahman and Fres Oquendo does not amount to much. He may have come up short in his losses to Valuev, who some felt he won, but then a 45 year old Holyfield did too.

 

Thomas' resume isn't really more impressive than Ruiz'. Thomas defeated Witherspoon, Weaver, and Tillis. I've never judged the Witherspoon fight. I believe that Thomas is close enough in accomplishment, added with the fact that I believe Thomas would win head to head; to arrive at my decision to place Thomas ahead of Ruiz.

Dokes probably doesn't have the resume to surpass Ruiz. I guess I jumped at the gun when listing 80's titlists.

 

Im not trying to be argumentitive with you guys, just trying to make you really think about it. Were talking about a fairly small heavyweight that was forced to reinvent his style once he realized he couldnt fight like Mike Tyson against the bigger heavyweights. It wasnt pretty but effective because he could beat a lot of guys to the punch. He wasnt a KO artist, so he was at more of a disadvantage than a guy like Mike Grant who had 250+ plus pounds behind his punches which offset his overall poor fighting skills in my opinion.
I think his quickness was a little underated. He was able to drop Holyfield something Lennox Lewis and Mike Tyson couldnt do, in relatively close fights timing wise. Im no Ruiz lover, but everytime I thought someone would make him go away, he kept winning.