Dont agree on the Golota factor, he could hit pretty hard. Were talking 9 years ago with Evander (fight after the Lewis fight). Ibragimov fought him in 2007 or 2008. Big difference. The fact that Evander could get close enough to hurt guys was a game changer in the fight just as it was in all his others, especially considering how Wlad acted when he got hit. Is David Haye an established heavyweight with a big punch? I dont think he's established anything more than he has a big mouth at this time, just as these other guys have established they are all pretty similar in the skill level department, which in my opinion is weak.
Yeah he had to be ranked given the fighters he beat now that I look at his record. Going back to the discussion, I still just dont put too much merit into either Klitschkos competition especially Vitali's. Chris makes a good arguement that both Klitschkos have established themselves as solid fighters in this era, but I dont think it eclipses Ruiz by leaps and bounds by any means. Theres a little difference in willing to fight anyone in this era as compared to the late 90's and early part of 2000 in my opinion when the competition was a bit better.
On what basis was Golota a bigger hitter? And Ruiz avoided him. Ruiz fought a washed-up Golota at the end of his career who had come out of full retirement a few years earlier, after quitting against Tyson. Do you think Golota was a better win for Ruiz than Sanders was for Vitali? If so, then beating Golota in 2000 (as Tyson did) must have been a very good win for Tyson, right? Better than anyone Ruiz beat until when he fought Holyfield for the WBA title? Then, contrary to a claim you made a while back, Lewis was right to fight Tyson rather than Ruiz. No-one is disputing that Holyfield was an ACCURATE puncher. The issue is: was he a "pretty big hitter", as you claimed? Mercer and Bowe were both dropped by a huge accumulation of punches, while Tyson was dropped by a (brilliant) left hook to the chest/neck while he was off-balance.
Hell yeah I would say that it was a better win than Vitali over Sanders. I would say his KO percentage is up there to prove hes a pretty good puncher. I would say that Golota was a good win for Tyson as well. I would disagree about your asessment of Holyfield, both Mercer and Bowe were not dropped from an accumulation of shots, Tyson as well, but I would also say Holy rocked Tyson pretty good in the first round of the second fight as well. Holyfield was an awesome puncher. Speed and accuracy can be just as devastating as raw power, just ask Roy Jones. I guess what Im trying to sum up is, heavyweight boxing has changed extremely in the last 9-10 years, mostly in the fact that it went from guys having to be able to fight a little more and not rely solely on their boxing skills. You saw contenders moving up the rankings fighting a bunch of different styles, including savvy veterans and former champions that offered an array of styles. You dont see that on either Klitschkos resume, and thats why they're so inconsistent when they get in there with a fighter that can bring it. To me thats what boxing should always be about, and that dimension has left the heavyweight class, leaving these guys to face a bunch of passive boxers that they have a massive advantage over. Just my opinion.
Just goes to show: Lewis didn't duck Ruiz. :good Ok then, which were the two big single punches that caused the knockdowns? Do you disagree that the Tyson knockdown was a balance shot? Buster Douglas rocked Tyson at times during their fight. Was Buster Douglas a "pretty big hitter"? Roy Jones's KO percentage: 67% Evander Holyfield's KO percentage: 50% Spot the difference. A brief range of styles on Wlad's resume (just wins)- Ruslan Chagaev, Calvin Brock, TOS, Derrick Jefferson: a range of boxer-punchers of varying sizes who could all counter-punch well. Danell Nicholson and Hasim Rahman were savvy vets who could punch hard when necessary; Rahman was a former linear champion. Ray Mercer, Samuel Peter and Lamon Brewster: short strong brawlers. Ray Mercer was a savvy veteran and a former champion. Chris Byrd and Sultan Ibragimov: short southpaws with a lot of skill. Tony Thompson and Ray Austin: tall awkward boxers. What kind of boxer did Ruiz fight that Wlad did not? How many top 10 southpaws did Ruiz fight? Wasn't John Ruiz inconsistent against opponents who could "bring it"?
Ruiz in the top 25-30?? He doesn't belong anywhere NEAR it!! This is a guy who violated the basic rules of boxing - which explicitly ban "excessive holding" and "wrestling." Ruiz repeatedly used these illegal tactics to "win" fights he could never win using his mediocre abilities. Ruiz is easily the least talented fighter I've seen hold a HW belt in 30 years of following boxing. The only reason he ever got a shot at a title was because of his connections with King, and this also allowed him to get away with his illegal tactics. Not only that, he had a rather shameful tendency to overact to get "low blow" calls, a stunt he pulled in several fights - Thunder, Holyfield II and Johnson - to get crucial point deductions or, in the case of the Johnson fight, a shameful DQ "win." The only list Ruiz belongs on is that of worst beltholders of all time. At #1.
John Ruiz? A top 25-30 heavyweight? I'll give you my honest opinion. As a boxer, John Ruiz may crack the top 75, no that's too generous, perhaps he makes the top 100 all time. As a wrestler with limited boxing skills, he easily cracks the top 20. As the most boring and excuse laden fighter, I'd say he's close to #1.
Ruiz shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as Bonavena or Zora Folley. Maybe I'm being a little to harsh on Ruiz but I don't think he deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence as Joe Hipp, Frans Botha, Buster Mathis Jr or even Danny Williams. Maybe Ruiz can be mentioned in the same sentence as Butterbean as longstanding novelty acts within the squared circle. Ruiz is a disease that needs to be retired permanently.