Best B-tier Heavyweight of the 2000s

[DrDuke]

We had a similar thread about the 90s, let's take a look at the next decade.

The 2000s started with the 90s elite, which included Lewis, Holyfield and Tyson, being on the first plane, while by a mid-part of the decade our favorite Klitschko brothers took that spot.

In this thread let's chose the best guy after the mentioned fabulous five.

[gilgamesh]

I'd say Povetkin, Byrd, Peter, and Haye. Possibly Ruiz at 5. Hard to say.

Ruiz and Byrd were fairly accomplished in spite of routinely being dull to watch.

[DrDuke]

I'd say Povetkin, Byrd, Peter, and Haye. Possibly Ruiz at 5. Hard to say.

Ruiz and Byrd were fairly accomplished in spite of routinely being dull to watch.

Byrd was OK to watch. He could box in contrast to Ruiz. I'd place the sh1thouse Ruiz further from the top. The same with Peter. Yet I agree about Povetkin, Haye and Byrd being somewhere at the very top.

Povetkin clearly was the best. The most consistent, even in the next decade. Although it's easier to pick him retrospectively, with knowing how long he'll last.

[gilgamesh]

I'd say Povetkin, Byrd, Peter, and Haye. Possibly Ruiz at 5. Hard to say.

Ruiz and Byrd were fairly accomplished in spite of routinely being dull to watch.

Byrd was OK to watch. He could box in contrast to Ruiz. I'd place the sh1thouse Ruiz further from the top. The same with Peter. Yet I agree about Povetkin, Haye and Byrd being somewhere at the very top.

Povetkin clearly was the best. The most consistent, even in the next decade. Although it's easier to pick him retrospectively, with knowing how long he'll last.

If you're talking strictly about his work in the 2000's then Povetkin is on the back end of this Top 5 if he makes it at all, but for his overall career, yeah he's the #1 guy on this list.

[HomicideHenry]

In no particular order: Byrd, Toney, Tua, and Haye. Those four were the best of the bunch. Honorable mention, Ruiz.

[DrDuke]

In no particular order: Byrd, Toney, Tua, and Haye. Those four were the best of the bunch. Honorable mention, Ruiz.

What's honorable about Ruiz? He lost to the declined Holyfield in the third bout and then to the quite shabby version of Golota with a couple of ex-middleweights.

[HomicideHenry]

In no particular order: Byrd, Toney, Tua, and Haye. Those four were the best of the bunch. Honorable mention, Ruiz.

What's honorable about Ruiz? He lost to the declined Holyfield in the third bout and then to the quite shabby version of Golota with a couple of ex-middleweights.

He went 1-1-1 with Holyfield. He was robbed twice against Valuev. He beat Hasim Rahman. He did, whether we like it or not, beat Golota. He lost to Jones and Toney, yes, but both of those names are A-list names so it's not like he lost to grade B opponents. He was 2x WBA champion. Whether we like Ruiz or not but he was consistently a top 5 heavyweight for much of the 2000s. Hard to deny him a #5 position overall in the 2000s.

[DrDuke]

In no particular order: Byrd, Toney, Tua, and Haye. Those four were the best of the bunch. Honorable mention, Ruiz.

What's honorable about Ruiz? He lost to the declined Holyfield in the third bout and then to the quite shabby version of Golota with a couple of ex-middleweights.

He went 1-1-1 with Holyfield. He was robbed twice against Valuev. He beat Hasim Rahman. He did, whether we like it or not, beat Golota. He lost to Jones and Toney, yes, but both of those names are A-list names so it's not like he lost to grade B opponents. He was 2x WBA champion. Whether we like Ruiz or not but he was consistently a top 5 heavyweight for much of the 2000s. Hard to deny him a #5 position overall in the 2000s.

One robbery counts, the other doesn't.

[Perseus]

Ruiz gets too much flak for being boring.
Based on level of opponents fought and overall results the Quiet Man had a solid, respectable career and belongs in the top five on this particular list.

[524046]

I have to say Chris Byrd because at his best he was a cut above everybody else on this list and on the same level as the elites of his era. Tua and Sanders are my personal favorite fighters listed but Byrd beat Tua pretty comfortably and I would probably favor him to beat Corrie as well. He was at one point viewed as the #1 heavyweight in the world(Ring Magazine 2005 rankings), which to my knowledge was not true of anyone else here besides Rahman after he upset Lennox. If Wladimir Klitschko wasn’t a thing he probably has a solid few more years as champion, unless age just catches up to him that badly.

[DrDuke]

Ruiz gets too much flak for being boring.
Based on level of opponents fought and overall results the Quiet Man had a solid, respectable career and belongs in the top five on this particular list.

Not only for being boring, but also for being aided by judges, referees and other officials on many occasions. He was an undeserved challenger, whom Don King helped to parazite on the WBA for years.

[Flump]

Just looking at that list reminds me of why I stopped watching Heavyweights in that era.

I'd like to see a stat on whether there were more clinches than punches thrown collectively by these guys. Depressing.

[HomicideHenry]

Ruiz gets too much flak for being boring.
Based on level of opponents fought and overall results the Quiet Man had a solid, respectable career and belongs in the top five on this particular list.

Not only for being boring, but also for being aided by judges, referees and other officials on many occasions. He was an undeserved challenger, whom Don King helped to parazite on the WBA for years.

Let's be fair.... This business has always operated that way no matter who the promoter was. You don't think referees and judges and timekeepers don't get impartial? If it's not King, it was Duff and others who made sure the fighters they promoted got all the breaks. Period.

That being said completely unrelated I wish boxing had somebody like Don king again. Say whatever you want about the man but there would have been an undisputed heavyweight champion by now, and multiple tournaments set up.

[DrDuke]

Ruiz gets too much flak for being boring.
Based on level of opponents fought and overall results the Quiet Man had a solid, respectable career and belongs in the top five on this particular list.

Not only for being boring, but also for being aided by judges, referees and other officials on many occasions. He was an undeserved challenger, whom Don King helped to parazite on the WBA for years.

Let's be fair.... This business has always operated that way no matter who the promoter was. You don't think referees and judges and timekeepers don't get impartial? If it's not King, it was Duff and others who made sure the fighters they promoted got all the breaks. Period.

That being said completely unrelated I wish boxing had somebody like Don king again. Say whatever you want about the man but there would have been an undisputed heavyweight champion by now, and multiple tournaments set up.

The thing is, by the 2000s everybody without questions knew, that King was a b!tch, so almost nobody among the elite wanted to work with him. That's why he picked up the sh!thouse Ruiz, made a deal with the corrupt WBA and was tracking Ruiz desperately, until he found the new cash cow in the circus freak Valuev.

The Huggin' Man was a one of the most corrupt fighters ever. Yes, there are often robberies and the biased refereeing cases, but mostly those are occasional. With Ruiz the corruption was taking place time after time.

Was he a real #1 challenger for Lennox Lewis' championship in 2000?

Had he really been hit low in the second bout against Holyfield?

Did he deserve at least a draw in the third bout with Holyfield?

Has Kirk Johnson fouled more than him?

Did he deserve a win against Golota?

Why had he never been warned for the excessive holding?

Why Toney was found guilty of using PEDs, while even Roy Jones wasn't?

John 'The Huggin' Man' Ruiz has always been aided by the third parties.

[HomicideHenry]

Not only for being boring, but also for being aided by judges, referees and other officials on many occasions. He was an undeserved challenger, whom Don King helped to parazite on the WBA for years.

Let's be fair.... This business has always operated that way no matter who the promoter was. You don't think referees and judges and timekeepers don't get impartial? If it's not King, it was Duff and others who made sure the fighters they promoted got all the breaks. Period.

That being said completely unrelated I wish boxing had somebody like Don king again. Say whatever you want about the man but there would have been an undisputed heavyweight champion by now, and multiple tournaments set up.

The thing is, by the 2000s everybody without questions knew, that King was a b!tch, so almost nobody among the elite wanted to work with him. That's why he picked up the sh!thouse Ruiz, made a deal with the corrupt WBA and was tracking Ruiz desperately, until he found the new cash cow in the circus freak Valuev.

The Huggin' Man was a one of the most corrupt fighters ever. Yes, there are often robberies and the biased refereeing cases, but mostly those are occasional. With Ruiz the corruption was taking place time after time.

Was he a real #1 challenger for Lennox Lewis' championship in 2000?

Had he really been hit low in the second bout against Holyfield?

Did he deserve at least a draw in the third bout with Holyfield?

Has Kirk Johnson fouled more than him?

Did he deserve a win against Golota?

Why had he never been warned for the excessive holding?

Why Toney was found guilty of using PEDs, while even Roy Jones wasn't?

John 'The Huggin' Man' Ruiz has always been aided by the third parties.

1-There has always been outrageous rankings even today. There is no way in hell to my mind that Daniel Dubois is worthy of the #1 spot in the WBA. Neither should Deontay Wilder be #1 in the WBC. Etc. Ultimately, Ruiz is not a guilty party for what an organization does.

2- The Holyfield fights were bad to watch. But, from my point of view, if the fights were competitive or close, then you gotta figure more times than not the decisions will go to the younger guy than the older guy. I'm reminded of Pazienza getting a win over Duran and it was obvious Duran should have gotten it. My view on it, too, if you know personally that you are up against a stacked house against you and cannot knock out or convincingly win over the house guy then you figure you're going to lose or get a draw. So Holyfield underperformed.

3- I'd have to rewatch the Johnson and Golota fights. Golota did get three back to back shots at the title, and from my point of view if he was ever screwed it had to have been the Byrd fight more than the Ruiz fight.

4- Holding or clinching in and of itself is not against the rules. And it's really up to the discretion of the referee as to what is excessive or not. Usually a referee will tell you to fight out of the clinch, or to just separate, and you might be penalized if you don't fight out of the clinch but continue to clinch. Historically many good or great fighters forced clinches with nearly or the same regularity as Ruiz. Jack Johnson comes to mind.

5- Do you suspect Jones of PED abuse? Or are you implying that James Toney was set up? From my perspective from the moment he was busted in the Ruiz fight, Toney's abilities seemed to decline. So it should always be questioned Just how much did drugs benefit his career.

Always? Again, I don't know of any fighter who did not benefit from 3rd parties. I don't care if it's Anthony Joshua or if it's Oleksandr Usyk or Tyson Fury or Ray Leonard or Marvin Hagler, etc whoever is the promoter always makes sure they have the right judges and right time keepers, etc to benefit their guy. So for me the criticism towards Ruiz is kind of redundant.

[DrDuke]

Let's be fair.... This business has always operated that way no matter who the promoter was. You don't think referees and judges and timekeepers don't get impartial? If it's not King, it was Duff and others who made sure the fighters they promoted got all the breaks. Period.

That being said completely unrelated I wish boxing had somebody like Don king again. Say whatever you want about the man but there would have been an undisputed heavyweight champion by now, and multiple tournaments set up.

The thing is, by the 2000s everybody without questions knew, that King was a b!tch, so almost nobody among the elite wanted to work with him. That's why he picked up the sh!thouse Ruiz, made a deal with the corrupt WBA and was tracking Ruiz desperately, until he found the new cash cow in the circus freak Valuev.

The Huggin' Man was a one of the most corrupt fighters ever. Yes, there are often robberies and the biased refereeing cases, but mostly those are occasional. With Ruiz the corruption was taking place time after time.

Was he a real #1 challenger for Lennox Lewis' championship in 2000?

Had he really been hit low in the second bout against Holyfield?

Did he deserve at least a draw in the third bout with Holyfield?

Has Kirk Johnson fouled more than him?

Did he deserve a win against Golota?

Why had he never been warned for the excessive holding?

Why Toney was found guilty of using PEDs, while even Roy Jones wasn't?

John 'The Huggin' Man' Ruiz has always been aided by the third parties.

1-There has always been outrageous rankings even today. There is no way in hell to my mind that Daniel Dubois is worthy of the #1 spot in the WBA. Neither should Deontay Wilder be #1 in the WBC. Etc. Ultimately, Ruiz is not a guilty party for what an organization does.

2- The Holyfield fights were bad to watch. But, from my point of view, if the fights were competitive or close, then you gotta figure more times than not the decisions will go to the younger guy than the older guy. I'm reminded of Pazienza getting a win over Duran and it was obvious Duran should have gotten it. My view on it, too, if you know personally that you are up against a stacked house against you and cannot knock out or convincingly win over the house guy then you figure you're going to lose or get a draw. So Holyfield underperformed.

3- I'd have to rewatch the Johnson and Golota fights. Golota did get three back to back shots at the title, and from my point of view if he was ever screwed it had to have been the Byrd fight more than the Ruiz fight.

4- Holding or clinching in and of itself is not against the rules. And it's really up to the discretion of the referee as to what is excessive or not. Usually a referee will tell you to fight out of the clinch, or to just separate, and you might be penalized if you don't fight out of the clinch but continue to clinch. Historically many good or great fighters forced clinches with nearly or the same regularity as Ruiz. Jack Johnson comes to mind.

5- Do you suspect Jones of PED abuse? Or are you implying that James Toney was set up? From my perspective from the moment he was busted in the Ruiz fight, Toney's abilities seemed to decline. So it should always be questioned Just how much did drugs benefit his career.

6- Always? Again, I don't know of any fighter who did not benefit from 3rd parties. I don't care if it's Anthony Joshua or if it's Oleksandr Usyk or Tyson Fury or Ray Leonard or Marvin Hagler, etc whoever is the promoter always makes sure they have the right judges and right time keepers, etc to benefit their guy. So for me the criticism towards Ruiz is kind of redundant.

Man, you bring separate examples for all these points, while Ruiz is in the discussion of all these criterias!

Talking about the holding, it's a foul, when it's excessive. Lewis vs Akinwande is a blueprint of how it's necessary to deal with the excessive holding.

[HomicideHenry]

The thing is, by the 2000s everybody without questions knew, that King was a b!tch, so almost nobody among the elite wanted to work with him. That's why he picked up the sh!thouse Ruiz, made a deal with the corrupt WBA and was tracking Ruiz desperately, until he found the new cash cow in the circus freak Valuev.

The Huggin' Man was a one of the most corrupt fighters ever. Yes, there are often robberies and the biased refereeing cases, but mostly those are occasional. With Ruiz the corruption was taking place time after time.

Was he a real #1 challenger for Lennox Lewis' championship in 2000?

Had he really been hit low in the second bout against Holyfield?

Did he deserve at least a draw in the third bout with Holyfield?

Has Kirk Johnson fouled more than him?

Did he deserve a win against Golota?

Why had he never been warned for the excessive holding?

Why Toney was found guilty of using PEDs, while even Roy Jones wasn't?

John 'The Huggin' Man' Ruiz has always been aided by the third parties.

1-There has always been outrageous rankings even today. There is no way in hell to my mind that Daniel Dubois is worthy of the #1 spot in the WBA. Neither should Deontay Wilder be #1 in the WBC. Etc. Ultimately, Ruiz is not a guilty party for what an organization does.

2- The Holyfield fights were bad to watch. But, from my point of view, if the fights were competitive or close, then you gotta figure more times than not the decisions will go to the younger guy than the older guy. I'm reminded of Pazienza getting a win over Duran and it was obvious Duran should have gotten it. My view on it, too, if you know personally that you are up against a stacked house against you and cannot knock out or convincingly win over the house guy then you figure you're going to lose or get a draw. So Holyfield underperformed.

3- I'd have to rewatch the Johnson and Golota fights. Golota did get three back to back shots at the title, and from my point of view if he was ever screwed it had to have been the Byrd fight more than the Ruiz fight.

4- Holding or clinching in and of itself is not against the rules. And it's really up to the discretion of the referee as to what is excessive or not. Usually a referee will tell you to fight out of the clinch, or to just separate, and you might be penalized if you don't fight out of the clinch but continue to clinch. Historically many good or great fighters forced clinches with nearly or the same regularity as Ruiz. Jack Johnson comes to mind.

5- Do you suspect Jones of PED abuse? Or are you implying that James Toney was set up? From my perspective from the moment he was busted in the Ruiz fight, Toney's abilities seemed to decline. So it should always be questioned Just how much did drugs benefit his career.

6- Always? Again, I don't know of any fighter who did not benefit from 3rd parties. I don't care if it's Anthony Joshua or if it's Oleksandr Usyk or Tyson Fury or Ray Leonard or Marvin Hagler, etc whoever is the promoter always makes sure they have the right judges and right time keepers, etc to benefit their guy. So for me the criticism towards Ruiz is kind of redundant.

Man, you bring separate examples for all these points, while Ruiz is in the discussion of all these criterias!

Talking about the holding, it's a foul, when it's excessive. Lewis vs Akinwande is a blueprint of how it's necessary to deal with the excessive holding.

With Akwinwande, he was doing it strictly for survival purposes rather than as a fight tactic. With John Ruiz he punched his way to clinch you so he could maul you on the inside. Akinwande wasn't doing that.

[DrDuke]

1-There has always been outrageous rankings even today. There is no way in hell to my mind that Daniel Dubois is worthy of the #1 spot in the WBA. Neither should Deontay Wilder be #1 in the WBC. Etc. Ultimately, Ruiz is not a guilty party for what an organization does.

2- The Holyfield fights were bad to watch. But, from my point of view, if the fights were competitive or close, then you gotta figure more times than not the decisions will go to the younger guy than the older guy. I'm reminded of Pazienza getting a win over Duran and it was obvious Duran should have gotten it. My view on it, too, if you know personally that you are up against a stacked house against you and cannot knock out or convincingly win over the house guy then you figure you're going to lose or get a draw. So Holyfield underperformed.

3- I'd have to rewatch the Johnson and Golota fights. Golota did get three back to back shots at the title, and from my point of view if he was ever screwed it had to have been the Byrd fight more than the Ruiz fight.

4- Holding or clinching in and of itself is not against the rules. And it's really up to the discretion of the referee as to what is excessive or not. Usually a referee will tell you to fight out of the clinch, or to just separate, and you might be penalized if you don't fight out of the clinch but continue to clinch. Historically many good or great fighters forced clinches with nearly or the same regularity as Ruiz. Jack Johnson comes to mind.

5- Do you suspect Jones of PED abuse? Or are you implying that James Toney was set up? From my perspective from the moment he was busted in the Ruiz fight, Toney's abilities seemed to decline. So it should always be questioned Just how much did drugs benefit his career.

6- Always? Again, I don't know of any fighter who did not benefit from 3rd parties. I don't care if it's Anthony Joshua or if it's Oleksandr Usyk or Tyson Fury or Ray Leonard or Marvin Hagler, etc whoever is the promoter always makes sure they have the right judges and right time keepers, etc to benefit their guy. So for me the criticism towards Ruiz is kind of redundant.

Man, you bring separate examples for all these points, while Ruiz is in the discussion of all these criterias!

Talking about the holding, it's a foul, when it's excessive. Lewis vs Akinwande is a blueprint of how it's necessary to deal with the excessive holding.

With Akwinwande, he was doing it strictly for survival purposes rather than as a fight tactic. With John Ruiz he punched his way to clinch you so he could maul you on the inside. Akinwande wasn't doing that.

Throwing a jab before holding an opponent to make him unable to box doesn't make it legal, especially if it repeats time after time. Add holding and hitting in the mix and you'll only get another foul in the list.

[HomicideHenry]

Man, you bring separate examples for all these points, while Ruiz is in the discussion of all these criterias!

Talking about the holding, it's a foul, when it's excessive. Lewis vs Akinwande is a blueprint of how it's necessary to deal with the excessive holding.

With Akwinwande, he was doing it strictly for survival purposes rather than as a fight tactic. With John Ruiz he punched his way to clinch you so he could maul you on the inside. Akinwande wasn't doing that.

Throwing a jab before holding an opponent to make him unable to box doesn't make it legal, especially if it repeats time after time. Add holding and hitting in the mix and you'll only get another foul in the list.

We agree to disagree. Fighting in and out of the clinch, mauling while clinching, etc is as old as the sport itself. People who complain about it and call it fouling are those who only appreciate the punching aspect of boxing. It is a perfectly valid tactic in the sport of boxing no matter how many people dislike it.

If it wasn't then why did so many champions hire wrestling champions like William Muldoon, Martin Farmer Burns, Ernest Roeber, etc in their training camps? There are plenty of pictures of champions all the way to the time of Joe Louis where they are practicing clinches and upperbody holds.

Regardless, no matter how you want to downgrade John Ruiz one has to admit that for him being "average" he was able to consistently stay in the top 5 or 10 for a decade and made a lot of perfectly capable boxers look like complete dog crap. I'm in the minority but I was always a fan.

[DrDuke]

With Akwinwande, he was doing it strictly for survival purposes rather than as a fight tactic. With John Ruiz he punched his way to clinch you so he could maul you on the inside. Akinwande wasn't doing that.

Throwing a jab before holding an opponent to make him unable to box doesn't make it legal, especially if it repeats time after time. Add holding and hitting in the mix and you'll only get another foul in the list.

We agree to disagree. Fighting in and out of the clinch, mauling while clinching, etc is as old as the sport itself. People who complain about it and call it fouling are those who only appreciate the punching aspect of boxing. It is a perfectly valid tactic in the sport of boxing no matter how many people dislike it.

If it wasn't then why did so many champions hire wrestling champions like William Muldoon, Martin Farmer Burns, Ernest Roeber, etc in their training camps? There are plenty of pictures of champions all the way to the time of Joe Louis where they are practicing clinches and upperbody holds.

Regardless, no matter how you want to downgrade John Ruiz one has to admit that for him being "average" he was able to consistently stay in the top 5 or 10 for a decade and made a lot of perfectly capable boxers look like complete dog crap. I'm in the minority but I was always a fan.

Ruiz' holding had nothing to do with the physical aspect of boxing as a kind of fighting. The Huggin' Man was clinching to survive, not to get hit.

Ruiz' success was achieved to a huge extent because of the third party aid, about which I've talked about. So, it's irrational to take his rankings seriously. How he got in those rankings in 2000? What for? A first round KO loss to David Tua?

[HomicideHenry]

Throwing a jab before holding an opponent to make him unable to box doesn't make it legal, especially if it repeats time after time. Add holding and hitting in the mix and you'll only get another foul in the list.

We agree to disagree. Fighting in and out of the clinch, mauling while clinching, etc is as old as the sport itself. People who complain about it and call it fouling are those who only appreciate the punching aspect of boxing. It is a perfectly valid tactic in the sport of boxing no matter how many people dislike it.

If it wasn't then why did so many champions hire wrestling champions like William Muldoon, Martin Farmer Burns, Ernest Roeber, etc in their training camps? There are plenty of pictures of champions all the way to the time of Joe Louis where they are practicing clinches and upperbody holds.

Regardless, no matter how you want to downgrade John Ruiz one has to admit that for him being "average" he was able to consistently stay in the top 5 or 10 for a decade and made a lot of perfectly capable boxers look like complete dog crap. I'm in the minority but I was always a fan.

Ruiz' holding had nothing to do with the physical aspect of boxing as a kind of fighting. The Huggin' Man was clinching to survive, not to get hit.

Ruiz' success was achieved to a huge extent because of the third party aid, about which I've talked about. So, it's irrational to take his rankings seriously. How he got in those rankings in 2000? What for? A first round KO loss to David Tua?

Again... Organizations have insane ratings all the time. That being said, if we look at his record:

He loses to Tua in 1996. Afterwards he wins 11 fights. Of the 11 two were against Tony Tucker and Jimmy Thunder. People forget that Ruiz basically got himself into the #1 spot not just in the WBA but was also #1 in the WBC as well. Lennox Lewis refused to fight him regardless of his ranking.

Those wins got him to first Holyfield fight which he lost by decision. The decision was disputed, so Ruiz got a rematch and won. The third fight was a draw, which people thought Holyfield did better. I figure maybe Holyfield didn't get the nod for the same reasons that George Foreman didn't get the nod against Shannon Briggs, that Holyfield was gifted the 4th heavyweight title win and since he was getting older it was better to keep the title on Ruiz.



Anyways, I'm currently going to review the Ruiz-Johnson fight. It's been a long time since I've seen it.

Emmanuel Stewart remarks that Ruiz had a difficult style: Stepping back from shots, shooting jabs and forcing clinches, where opponents find it difficult to get the upper hand against him.

Round One- Johnson low blow, loses a point; commentators mention how Johnson got DQ'd previously against Al Cole for low blows

Round Four- Johnson low blow, strong warning; Ruiz retaliated head butting Johnson, both get lectured

Round Seven- Johnson low blow, loses a point; hits Ruiz as he's falling down, gets warned if he does it again he will be disqualified

Commentators all in agreement that Johnson has no excuse for doing these low blows, although it is pointed out that because Ruiz crouches it forces Johnson to throw low to the body. Larry Merchant asks out loud if Johnson will be unable to control himself like Andrew Golota.

Round Eight- Johnson nearly low blows again but stops himself from throwing the punch. Johnson hits Ruiz with a rabbit punch. Johnson breathing deeply in the corner.

Round Nine- Ruiz hurts Johnson bad in the end of the round but doesn't get credited with a knockdown.

Round Ten- Johnson lands a low blow on the belt line, he knew he screwed up the moment he landed it, and Cortez waived the fight off immediately afterwards.

[DrDuke]

We agree to disagree. Fighting in and out of the clinch, mauling while clinching, etc is as old as the sport itself. People who complain about it and call it fouling are those who only appreciate the punching aspect of boxing. It is a perfectly valid tactic in the sport of boxing no matter how many people dislike it.

If it wasn't then why did so many champions hire wrestling champions like William Muldoon, Martin Farmer Burns, Ernest Roeber, etc in their training camps? There are plenty of pictures of champions all the way to the time of Joe Louis where they are practicing clinches and upperbody holds.

Regardless, no matter how you want to downgrade John Ruiz one has to admit that for him being "average" he was able to consistently stay in the top 5 or 10 for a decade and made a lot of perfectly capable boxers look like complete dog crap. I'm in the minority but I was always a fan.

Ruiz' holding had nothing to do with the physical aspect of boxing as a kind of fighting. The Huggin' Man was clinching to survive, not to get hit.

Ruiz' success was achieved to a huge extent because of the third party aid, about which I've talked about. So, it's irrational to take his rankings seriously. How he got in those rankings in 2000? What for? A first round KO loss to David Tua?

Again... Organizations have insane ratings all the time. That being said, if we look at his record:

He loses to Tua in 1996. Afterwards he wins 11 fights. Of the 11 two were against Tony Tucker and Jimmy Thunder. People forget that Ruiz basically got himself into the #1 spot not just in the WBA but was also #1 in the WBC as well. Lennox Lewis refused to fight him regardless of his ranking.

Those wins got him to first Holyfield fight which he lost by decision. The decision was disputed, so Ruiz got a rematch and won. The third fight was a draw, which people thought Holyfield did better. I figure maybe Holyfield didn't get the nod for the same reasons that George Foreman didn't get the nod against Shannon Briggs, that Holyfield was gifted the 4th heavyweight title win and since he was getting older it was better to keep the title on Ruiz.



Anyways, I'm currently going to review the Ruiz-Johnson fight. It's been a long time since I've seen it.

Yeah, rankings often suck, but, as I said, in Ruiz' case it was only a one part of the problem.

In the first Holyfield bout it was Ruiz, who received the most of damage. In the rematch Ruiz was rolling on the floor from the body shot, which was ruled as a low blow. The third bout was a clear win of Holyfield.

The Kirk Johnson fight was disgraceful. Ruiz fouled no less than Kirk, but only the fouls of the least got attenion.

[HomicideHenry]

Reviewing Ruiz-Golota now.

A little bit back history with this as the Polish heavyweight was seemingly robbed against Chris Byrd so he'll get another shot at the title with a different belt holder. Ruiz regained the WBA title, after Roy Jones went back to light heavyweight, against Hasim Rahman.

Roy Jones in they prefight build-up actually gave Ruiz a lot of props saying that he hits harder than credited for and that most of the big heavyweights made the mistake of standing in front of Ruiz which was a categorical mistake because he was a difficult assignment.

My Unofficial Scorecard:

Round One- Ruiz 10-9; more aggressive than usual

Round Two- Ruiz downed twice; 10-7 Golota

Round Three- Even; 10-10

Round Four- Ruiz point deducted; 10-8 Golota

39-35 for Golota at this point

Round Five- Ruiz; 10-9

Round Six- Even; 10-10

58-55, Golota at this point

Round Seven- Ruiz, by the slimmest margin lol; 10-9

Round Eight- Ruiz, by the slimmest margin; 10-9

76-75, Golota at this point

Round Nine- Ruiz, he cuts Golota; 10-9

85-85, even at this moment

Round Ten- Ruiz, 10-9; Ruiz dropped after the bell after getting hit in the back of the head

Round Eleven- Even; 10-10 ALTHOUGH I can see it going to Golota because he landed a lot of pitter pat punches, so let's make it 10-9 Golota instead

104-104, even at this point

Round Twelve- Ruiz, harder punches; 10-9

114-113, winner John Ruiz

The official scores: 113-112, 114-111 twice

[DrDuke]

Golota was controlling the action and outlanding Ruiz in the majority of the rounds. Ruiz was hurt early and woke up only by the second half of the fight. He lost many points, what made Golota's edge wider.

I had it 115-110 for Golota.

The majoriy scored it for Golota on boxrec: https://boxrec.com/en/scoring/820352

The same on eye on the ring: https://www.eyeonthering.com/boxing/str ... rew-golota

[HomicideHenry]

Golota was controlling the action and outlanding Ruiz in the majority of the rounds. Ruiz was hurt early and woke up only by the second half of the fight. He lost many points, what made Golota's edge wider.

I had it 115-110 for Golota.

The majoriy scored it for Golota on boxrec: https://boxrec.com/en/scoring/820352

The same on eye on the ring: https://www.eyeonthering.com/boxing/str ... rew-golota

I think most people scored that way simply because they did not like John Ruiz. Even the commentators noted that Ruiz basically won every round from the 7th onward after Norman Stone was kicked out of the corner. I didn't necessarily hear anybody from HBO complaining about the decision when it was rendered.

Now, had the fight been a draw or even a split decision for Golota I would not have complained. Because the fact is neither man really did anything in there. Golota was great for the first 4-5 rounds, but basically Ruiz began to wear him down. It was a razor thin fight that would have been determined by a single round basically.