prime razor ruddock vs 42 yr old george foreman???

Ruddock by TKO in the late rounds after the ref rescues a bleeding and battered Foreman from further punishment. Unlike Gerry Cooney, Razor Ruddock was big, strong, durable AND active! The type of opponent George didn't care to meet!

 

Don't know if it was possible to TKO George.

If the damage Stewart did to him didn't have the ref stop it, could Ruddock manage worse?

Ruddock wasn't always active due to his breathing problems. Asthma?

 

Ruddock hit a lot harder than Stewart did, so I think his punches would cause much more damage to George. George had a great chin, so he would no doubt take a beating. I can see George scoring with his jab, and he would be competitive for the first few rounds. But I think Ruddock would be too strong, too fast, and just too good. Ruddock hit harder than Foreman did; Foreman couldn't throw and land hard combinations; he would do his one punch at a time thing. Ruddock stood up to the fast, powerful punches of Mike Tyson, so I don't think Foreman's occasional blow would bother him too much.

 

Hate to say it, but the prime Ruddock would beat a 42 year old George.

 

Foreman let Stewart off the hook in the first round and paid for it later. He knows Ruddock is a dangerous fighter and would not make that mistake again.

Foreman at 42 KO 3 Ruddock

 

Old Foreman fought nobody of note in his second carreer other then Holyfield and Moorer.

90s Foreman would NEVER have taken the Ruddock fight.

90s Foreman gets overrated.

 

A voice of reason! My thoughts exactly. Foreman had to be forced to take the Alex Stewart fight, and we all saw what happened when George fought a "decent" fighter as opposed to all of the Jimmy Ellis's and Bobby Crabtree's of the world. And I don't recall Foreman letting Stewart off of anything. He jumped all over Stewart in the second round and was throwing bombs at Stewart, but Stewart escaped! Ruddock was light years ahead of Stewart in just about every category, but George would KO him! I just don't get it!

 

Exactly other then Holyfield Moorer and Morrison Foreman fought nobody of note in the entire 90s era.

90s Foreman is a clear example of myth forming hiding the fact what a fighter actually did in his era.

 

"Other than Moorer and Holyfield" - so, just two of the best prime heaveyweights of the era? Jeez.

 

Shannon Briggs & Axel Schulz weren't bad fighters, either.

Same with Cooper, Coetzer, Stewart and Qawi.

 

I don't know, I think Foreman fought more than just Holy, Moorer, and Morrison but those were the best that he did face. Briggs, Shulz, Savareese, and Stewart wasnt a bad group of fighters. Far from some sort of murderers row but still respectable.

As for a Ruddock-Foreman bout, I remember actually hoping that one would have come off. I always thought that would have been a fairly exciting fight. I thought Ruddock would have won by decision then and I still do today, but Foreman would have been a live underdog. Especially if Ruddock would have tired or gotten careless.

 

He got whipped handily by both of those guys! He just landed a lucky punch on Moorer to win a fight that he was losing badly.

 

In boxing, to me there is really no thing as a lucky punch. It is your responsibility to keep your hands up for the duration of the fight.

If your opponent Big George, places a 900 psi right hand on your jaw, then you can only look at yourself to blame.

 

I like the 42 y/o Foreman to win on points...Ruddock had potential, but in the Tyson fights, he demonstrated toughness and courage...but no fight plan whatsoever...George's jab is the difference in this fight...Razor may rock him a time or two...but never comes close to getting George in real trouble...It's possible George rocks Ruddock too...I like Foreman to win the majority of the rounds. Foreman is much the greater fighter...even at 42...No question.