Razor Ruddock vs Max Baer

Ruddock is the most overrated guy in history. He built his name with 2 loses with tyson. He got destroyed by any prime puncher that he fought like morrison and lewis( i know i know the excuse will be that he was in his peak in 1991 and then he was shot in 1992. Laughable).
Until 1984 he weighed under 200 pounds even in the 180s . he not just lost to a bum like david jaco but he could not stop him in 8 rounds .
He won a ****PY SD AGAINST A 35 YEARS OLD WEAVER.
All he did was beating A SHOT MICHAEL DOKES( IN HIS PRIME WAS NOT A GREAT THING).
And Beating a fat 36 years old James smith Who was very very close to knock
Him the **** out. A prime smith destroys him no question about it.

 

Rudduck is much quicker and bigger, you'd pick him to land first

 

Ruddock is bigger? Lmao are you ****ing kidding me? At 21 in 1984 he weighed 189 pounds.
Baer despite he was from a much older era at 21 in 1930 weighed 201 pounds
and he weighed 226 pounds in 1936 at 27 and ruddock at the same age fought tyson at 228 and smith at 227. Training weights ,taking suplements, better and more food.
Baer was clearly naturally "bigger"
Baer has by far better credentials beating better men than ruddock did

 

Baer did what he had to do to land his right hand. It was very hard to box and counter him when he chose to be aggressive.

Baer also could fight off the back foot, staying at range like he did against Carnera. He also used a cross armed I,side to block uppercuts.


Ruddock waited and with his non existent defense usually got himself in trouble early. He was nearly stopped by Tyson and Smith in the early rounds, and blew out by Lewis.

 

baer kills the razor off despite getting outhustled early on.

 

Not really.

Their listed height and weight is near identical.

Baer may actually have quicker hands. Also the more durable guy.

 

There's no such thing as 'naturally bigger', yes Rudduck had loads more muscle, was stronger and was far faster. He was more skilled and far more explosive and quicker.

As for your weights comparison, you're cherry picking and wrong Rudduck was 182 at the start of his career, his first fight aged 21 he was 201lbs where as Baer was 191 at 21.

But that's all irrevelant as he was a very solid 230lbs. Baer was bloated at 220 and was in his best shape at 210. Rudduck could hold 250lbs, it didn't make it his optimal weight.

Baer also lost to allot of average fighters and Carnera isn't better than the guys Rudduck beat because he wasn't very good. Schmelling is but Schmelling was a small man.

 

Rudduck has slightly more height/reach but my point was he is clearly carrying loads more muscle and Baer isn't near as quick, nowhere near.

 

Being heavier doesn't make you land first as you implied.

Near equal listed height and reach for these two.

 

Landing first comment was based on speed/explosiveness

 

Holyfield weighed 215 and 218 for the tyson fights and he was all muscle. However at 22 he weighed 178 pounds and Ali weighed 210-212 in his peak shape.foreman weighed 217 for the frazier fight in 1973 and tyson weighed 221 for the berbick fight despite being a lot shorter than foreman.
Please... Make me laugh and tell me who was naturally bigger.
And tell me if there is no such thing like "naturally bigger".

 

Bonecrusher landed first and put Ruddock on his back with a right hand slower than anything Baer ever threw in most washed up later stages.

Ruddock is a sucker for long right hands, Baer's money punch.

Baer in conatrst actually used a cross armed defense inside and picked off uppercuts.

And if you do an actual side by side, Rud**** just does not look that much quicker. Look at the right hand counter that put out Comisky.

 

Agreed. You don't even see amateurs fighting like that anymore. The Tyrell Biggs who fought Renaldo Snipes would have schooled Bear.

 

if anything size slows you down

 

Ruddock beats Baer in an arm-wrestling contest.
Baer by KO in 7