why did the klitschkos avoid john ruiz?

ruiz, closer to his prime might have been awkward for wlad because he loves fighting on the inside, apart from that ruiz fits into the normal type of opponent that the klits would dominate. slow, easy to hit, come forward guys. Also i doubt don king wanted to let go of his share of the HW crown

 

I´ll answer the question in this thread, though I´ve probably been beaten to it already:

Ruiz was a protected King fighter and was usually the WBA champion or top contender for that title during the time period where a Ruiz-Klitschko fight could have made sense. King made sure to monopolize the WBA title and fights for that belt as much as he could, same as he did with then IBF champion Chris Byrd. The WBA belt fights were typically between Ruiz, Holyfield, Rahman, Valuev, Golota, Oquendo (King fighters). Occasionally a non-King fighter would become mandatory like Johnson (who lost), Valuev (who King got options on after the fight) or Chagaev (who took the belt from King and tried to unify against both Ibragimov and Wlad).

The Klitschkos never became mandatory contenders for the WBA belt and King had little interest in making a unification fight and losing "his" belt to a non-King fighter.

I think both Ruiz and the Klitschkos would have been willing to fight, had it not been for King and his politics. Ruiz, despite being a cheating huggy bear, never seemed afraid to fight anyone and I´m sure the Klitschkos were quite confident in their ability to beat Ruiz. I mean, just look at how hard it has been for a fight between Valuev and either of the brothers to be made.

 

Why would the Klitschko's bother to fight that glorified clubfighter? Like others have said, there's no money in it. Furthermore, they never wanted to deal with King, who almost certainly would have insisted on options in return for the almost-certain loss of the WBA title that would have resulted had Ruiz fought either of the Klits.

 

That's the Klitschko fans first line of defence.

"Klitschko's avoided Ruiz" is followed by "Lewis didn't fight him etiher".
"Wlad has been knocked out" is followed by "So was Lewis".
"Chisora is an awful opponent" is followed by "So was Harrison".
"The Klitschko's fight awful opponents" is followed by "So did Holmes, Marciano and Louis".

And you can make many more examples.

 

money!

 

Maybe you should check their respective KO percentages before comparing Ruiz and Wlad. Common opponent Chagaev, I guess the difference is evident. Wlad never jabbed and then grabbed, he used clinching when attacked, not more than Ali did in many of his fights in the 70's.

 

Let's face facts - prime Ruiz beats both Klits AND Lewis.

 

The Klitschko haters thing is to criticise them for stuff that you find in many other careers. So this line of defense is understandable, IF the picture is being painted that all previous HW champs never lost to a mediocre opponent, never quit in a fight, never fought a lousy opponent, never clinched.

Klitschkos avoiding Ruiz? What would Ruiz have done to either Klitschko? Have you seen Wlad's demolition of Chagaev, whose best win was Ruiz? Why have the Klitschkos avoided Toney? Why did Lewis avoid Byrd? These fights would never have been competitive, it's a non issue.

 

Lennox Lewis BLATANTLY DUCKED RUIZ!

 

Just because one guy is more successful it does not mean that there is not a similarity.
I said that Wlad perfected what Ruiz invented. Meaning that Wlad does it better. Wlad is big enough that he does not need to press forward like Ruiz, and Wlad is stronger and more powerful. Of Course, he's going to KO more people.
You seem to be getting a bit defensive about it? Comparing Wald to Ali. Heck, If clinching is the only way Wald can win fights, and if he does not get warned for it, more power to him.
But Wald cliches way more then Ali did. Ali was quick enough on his feet and knew how to use angles so while he cliched frequently, it was not nearly as prevalent as it is in Wlad's arsenal.

 

See, that's so typical. Ali clinched up to 100 - 115 times in his 15 roundersin the 70's. Wlad most clinches were against Peter, 91 in 12 rounds and he ususally clinches a lot less. Holyfield clinched 86 times against Tyson. Yet Ali and Holy's performance against Tyson are never associated with clinching. Wlad may knock someone out who was never knocked out before and the haters sayhe clinches too much.

 

The answer? Relentless is a moron wasting everyone's time.:deal

 

I definitely associate Holyfield's performance against Tyson with clinching....and a generous dose of head butting.

Also, there is a difference between clinching Mike Tyson for and clinching someone like Eddie Chambers. Holyfield has shown a versatility over his career. He used a clinch stratgey against Tyson Wlad uses it against everyone. But again, you seem to be the one hung up on it. I never made a judgemnt on it. I merely pointed out that he does it. I don't care if he clinches to win. I mean, it's boring as hell, but winning is more important than being entertaining. If Wald can't win any other way because he's scared to get stopped, then he's doing the right thing. I'll go back to Evander, who was always entertaining, but did not always win. I'd rather be the guy that wins.

 

:rofl:rofl