DrDuke wrote: ↑21 Mar 2023, 03:44
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 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.
Or maybe you scored that way, because you admittedly like him.
DrDuke wrote: ↑21 Mar 2023, 03:44
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 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.
Or maybe you scored that way, because you admittedly like him.
Perhaps, but again... Nobody at HBO complained about the decision being rendered the way it was. Ruiz is boring and ugly to watch, but he is effective with what he does. Golota to my mind certainly performed better against Byrd than Ruiz, so I don't think it was a robbery the Ruiz-Golota fight.
Just an unpopular guy got the decision, and most people don't want to count the jab-and-clinch tactic as effective boxing. Even though it was that very same tactic that made Vladimir Klitschko a dominant heavyweight champion.
Personally I prefer to see John Ruiz in his matches with Valuev and Toney, because he was forced to throw punches in bunches. He was a better boxer than given credit for but unfortunately he never really demonstrated it all that much. He had a pretty good jab and a pretty sneaky overhand right.
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.
Or maybe you scored that way, because you admittedly like him.
Perhaps, but again... Nobody at HBO complained about the decision being rendered the way it was. Ruiz is boring and ugly to watch, but he is effective with what he does. Golota to my mind certainly performed better against Byrd than Ruiz, so I don't think it was a robbery the Ruiz-Golota fight.
Just an unpopular guy got the decision, and most people don't want to count the jab-and-clinch tactic as effective boxing. Even though it was that very same tactic that made Vladimir Klitschko a dominant heavyweight champion.
Personally I prefer to see John Ruiz in his matches with Valuev and Toney, because he was forced to throw punches in bunches. He was a better boxer than given credit for but unfortunately he never really demonstrated it all that much. He had a pretty good jab and a pretty sneaky overhand right.
What the hell are u talking about?
Lederman had it for Golota.
Merchant said it was tough to score, but he felt Golota winning.
Or maybe you scored that way, because you admittedly like him.
Perhaps, but again... Nobody at HBO complained about the decision being rendered the way it was. Ruiz is boring and ugly to watch, but he is effective with what he does. Golota to my mind certainly performed better against Byrd than Ruiz, so I don't think it was a robbery the Ruiz-Golota fight.
Just an unpopular guy got the decision, and most people don't want to count the jab-and-clinch tactic as effective boxing. Even though it was that very same tactic that made Vladimir Klitschko a dominant heavyweight champion.
Personally I prefer to see John Ruiz in his matches with Valuev and Toney, because he was forced to throw punches in bunches. He was a better boxer than given credit for but unfortunately he never really demonstrated it all that much. He had a pretty good jab and a pretty sneaky overhand right.
What the hell are u talking about?
Lederman had it for Golota.
Merchant said it was tough to score, but he felt Golota winning.
The others weren't scoring at all.
What I mean was nobody was bitching and hollering after the fact there was no big uproar over the whole thing. Anyways, you see fights the way you see them and I see them the way I see them.
Even if you were to say Golota won, it still doesn't matter because John Ruiz beat enough people and made enough people look like crap to warrant him being a top 5 heavyweight for the bulk of the 2000s.
And it was a pretty miserable era for heavyweight lets be honest. The Lewis era all the way through the Klitschko era was pretty poor. I reckon that is the only reason why a John Ruiz was possible as an alphabet champion. It's also the same reason why Jones and Toney and Haye ever got to be champions or contenders.
Perhaps, but again... Nobody at HBO complained about the decision being rendered the way it was. Ruiz is boring and ugly to watch, but he is effective with what he does. Golota to my mind certainly performed better against Byrd than Ruiz, so I don't think it was a robbery the Ruiz-Golota fight.
Just an unpopular guy got the decision, and most people don't want to count the jab-and-clinch tactic as effective boxing. Even though it was that very same tactic that made Vladimir Klitschko a dominant heavyweight champion.
Personally I prefer to see John Ruiz in his matches with Valuev and Toney, because he was forced to throw punches in bunches. He was a better boxer than given credit for but unfortunately he never really demonstrated it all that much. He had a pretty good jab and a pretty sneaky overhand right.
What the hell are u talking about?
Lederman had it for Golota.
Merchant said it was tough to score, but he felt Golota winning.
The others weren't scoring at all.
What I mean was nobody was bitching and hollering after the fact there was no big uproar over the whole thing. Anyways, you see fights the way you see them and I see them the way I see them.
Even if you were to say Golota won, it still doesn't matter because John Ruiz beat enough people and made enough people look like crap to warrant him being a top 5 heavyweight for the bulk of the 2000s.
And it was a pretty miserable era for heavyweight lets be honest. The Lewis era all the way through the Klitschko era was pretty poor. I reckon that is the only reason why a John Ruiz was possible as an alphabet champion. It's also the same reason why Jones and Toney and Haye ever got to be champions or contenders.
John Ruiz was given the WBA shot only because of the Don King organized track to it. Jones and Toney chose Ruiz because he was the easiest champion. That's why Valuev was tracked to the WBA too. And Haye was targeting at the unified championship. Haye confidently dealt with both these sh1thouses, Ruiz and Valuev, before challenging Klit.
Yeah, the 2000s era was pretty weak. It was much weaker than the 90s and even fell short with the 80s. That's why Ruiz was able to appear on the scene, yet even in that era he had all those controversies, so the problem was far beyond the robbery vs Golota.
DrDuke wrote: ↑21 Mar 2023, 04:21
What the hell are u talking about?
Lederman had it for Golota.
Merchant said it was tough to score, but he felt Golota winning.
The others weren't scoring at all.
What I mean was nobody was bitching and hollering after the fact there was no big uproar over the whole thing. Anyways, you see fights the way you see them and I see them the way I see them.
Even if you were to say Golota won, it still doesn't matter because John Ruiz beat enough people and made enough people look like crap to warrant him being a top 5 heavyweight for the bulk of the 2000s.
And it was a pretty miserable era for heavyweight lets be honest. The Lewis era all the way through the Klitschko era was pretty poor. I reckon that is the only reason why a John Ruiz was possible as an alphabet champion. It's also the same reason why Jones and Toney and Haye ever got to be champions or contenders.
John Ruiz was given the WBA shot only because of the Don King organized track to it. Jones and Toney chose Ruiz because he was the easiest champion. That's why Valuev was tracked to the WBA too. And Haye was targeting at the unified championship. Haye confidently dealt with both these sh1thouses, Ruiz and Valuev, before challenging Klit.
Yeah, the 2000s era was pretty weak. It was much weaker than the 90s and even fell short with the 80s. That's why Ruiz was able to appear on the scene, yet even in that era he had all those controversies, so the problem was far beyond the robbery vs Golota.
I can't argue (to a point) because the easiest road to the heavyweight title was through Ruiz. That's why Jones went after him, as did Toney. Haye, for all intents and purposes, went after Ruiz to further cement his image as a bona-fide heavyweight because other than the 12th round against Valuev he looked worse than Holyfield did against the Russian giant.
But to declare Ruiz was just an outright shithouse is wrong. Nobody who was a genuine shithouse could go the distance with Golota, Oquendo, and Chagaev. And he was robbed twice in a row to Valuev.
Really for as limited as his style was it ought to be an an indictment on the men who fought him that they didn't do better against him than they did. If everybody knew he would just jab and clinch why didn't anybody just step back the moment he shot a jab and crack his jaw as he was coming in to clinch? Or sidestep the clinch you knew was coming?
What I mean was nobody was bitching and hollering after the fact there was no big uproar over the whole thing. Anyways, you see fights the way you see them and I see them the way I see them.
Even if you were to say Golota won, it still doesn't matter because John Ruiz beat enough people and made enough people look like crap to warrant him being a top 5 heavyweight for the bulk of the 2000s.
And it was a pretty miserable era for heavyweight lets be honest. The Lewis era all the way through the Klitschko era was pretty poor. I reckon that is the only reason why a John Ruiz was possible as an alphabet champion. It's also the same reason why Jones and Toney and Haye ever got to be champions or contenders.
John Ruiz was given the WBA shot only because of the Don King organized track to it. Jones and Toney chose Ruiz because he was the easiest champion. That's why Valuev was tracked to the WBA too. And Haye was targeting at the unified championship. Haye confidently dealt with both these sh1thouses, Ruiz and Valuev, before challenging Klit.
Yeah, the 2000s era was pretty weak. It was much weaker than the 90s and even fell short with the 80s. That's why Ruiz was able to appear on the scene, yet even in that era he had all those controversies, so the problem was far beyond the robbery vs Golota.
I can't argue (to a point) because the easiest road to the heavyweight title was through Ruiz. That's why Jones went after him, as did Toney. Haye, for all intents and purposes, went after Ruiz to further cement his image as a bona-fide heavyweight because other than the 12th round against Valuev he looked worse than Holyfield did against the Russian giant.
But to declare Ruiz was just an outright shithouse is wrong. Nobody who was a genuine shithouse could go the distance with Golota, Oquendo, and Chagaev. And he was robbed twice in a row to Valuev.
Really for as limited as his style was it ought to be an an indictment on the men who fought him that they didn't do better against him than they did. If everybody knew he would just jab and clinch why didn't anybody just step back the moment he shot a jab and crack his jaw as he was coming in to clinch? Or sidestep the clinch you knew was coming?
Lol, his 'wins' were either robberies or 'tough-to-score' hugging contests, where he should have been warned for the excessive holding. In any case, you said it yourself, it was a weak era, where Ruiz didn't even face the very best.
I can't call them robberies. Very tough to score contests, yes, but I can't call the Golota fight a robbery. Unpopular, yes, but Golota allowed himself to be clinched and mauled and he did get hurt a few times in the fight himself. And like I said had the decision been a draw or split for Golota I wouldn't have complained but he certainly put on a better performance against Byrd.
By the way, that fight I'm going to watch and score.
Round One- 10/10, even
Round Two- 10/9, Golota, although Byrd wobbled him temporarily near the end of the round
Round Three- Umm... 10/9 Byrd, though hard to score
28-28 at this point
Round Four- 10/10, even
Round Five- 10/9, Golota
48-47, Golota at this point
Round Six- 10/9, Golota, though close round
Round Seven- 10/10, even
68-66, Golota at this point
Round Eight- 10/9, Golota
Round Nine- 10/9, Byrd
88-86, Golota at this point
Round Ten- 10/9, Golota
Round Eleven- 10/10, even
108-105, Golota at this point
Round Twelve- 10/9, Golota
118-114 for Golota on my unofficial scorecard. Now, had I gave the even rounds to Byrd it'd of been the same 118-114 score but in the reverse. I figure 2 of my even rounds someone scored for Byrd which is reasonable as he was the defending champion.
Oddly enough in the last few days there has been a Twitter beef going on between Roy Jones and Lennox Lewis where it was pointed out regardless of reasoning that Lennox Lewis ducked John Ruiz.
If a man is your #1 challenger in two different organizations, and you did not fight him, what else could it be? A duck doesn't necessarily mean you're afraid of the opponent. But a clear avoidance of the opponent, no matter the reason, is a duck.
HomicideHenry wrote: ↑22 Mar 2023, 21:45
If a man is your #1 challenger in two different organizations, and you did not fight him, what else could it be? A duck doesn't necessarily mean you're afraid of the opponent. But a clear avoidance of the opponent, no matter the reason, is a duck.
He faced Michael Grant instead, who was seen as a tougher challenge at that point, not just a more marketable bout.
HomicideHenry wrote: ↑22 Mar 2023, 21:45
If a man is your #1 challenger in two different organizations, and you did not fight him, what else could it be? A duck doesn't necessarily mean you're afraid of the opponent. But a clear avoidance of the opponent, no matter the reason, is a duck.
He faced Michael Grant instead, who was seen as a tougher challenge at that point, not just a more marketable bout.
But immediately after the match it was clear Grant wasn't even in the same category as Ruiz. The problem with Lewis was he was about optics and finances in many ways. He knew Ruiz and Byrd would be hard sells to the public because they weren't crowd pleasing, he also knew that their styles could make even him look bad even if he won every round. Most likely he would have beat them, but it would have looked badly.
I think Lewis had enough experiences in the past with Akinwande and Mavrovic, a clincher and a mover, that he knew that he would've been in a situation where the fights would make him look not only like crap but look vulnerable even in winning the contest. Emmanuel Stewart admitted himself that Byrd and Ruiz were difficult challenges that didn't sell.
But just because a fight does not sell well and just because a fight would be difficult because of horrible styles being presented to you is no excuse for not making the fights and facing your mandatory or unifying the belts.
HomicideHenry wrote: ↑22 Mar 2023, 21:45
If a man is your #1 challenger in two different organizations, and you did not fight him, what else could it be? A duck doesn't necessarily mean you're afraid of the opponent. But a clear avoidance of the opponent, no matter the reason, is a duck.
He faced Michael Grant instead, who was seen as a tougher challenge at that point, not just a more marketable bout.
But immediately after the match it was clear Grant wasn't even in the same category as Ruiz. The problem with Lewis was he was about optics and finances in many ways. He knew Ruiz and Byrd would be hard sells to the public because they weren't crowd pleasing, he also knew that their styles could make even him look bad even if he won every round. Most likely he would have beat them, but it would have looked badly.
I think Lewis had enough experiences in the past with Akinwande and Mavrovic, a clincher and a mover, that he knew that he would've been in a situation where the fights would make him look not only like crap but look vulnerable even in winning the contest. Emmanuel Stewart admitted himself that Byrd and Ruiz were difficult challenges that didn't sell.
But just because a fight does not sell well and just because a fight would be difficult because of horrible styles being presented to you is no excuse for not making the fights and facing your mandatory or unifying the belts.
Justifying the sh1thouse Ruiz in front of Lewis is total lol kek.
It don't matter if he was a shithouse. If you are #1 in two different organizations in a three belt era and you're being avoided by the lineal champion and the excuse is that your style stinks then somebody was either afraid to lose, or afraid to look like crap.
HomicideHenry wrote: ↑23 Mar 2023, 03:18
It don't matter if he was a shithouse. If you are #1 in two different organizations in a three belt era and you're being avoided by the lineal champion and the excuse is that your style stinks then somebody was either afraid to lose, or afraid to look like crap.
DrDuke wrote: ↑21 Mar 2023, 03:44
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 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.
I had Golota winning personally. I forget the exact score, but he had a 10-7 round in the 2nd round I believe it was, plus Ruiz got a point deduction. Out of those first 6 rounds, Ruiz lost at least 5 of 'em, with 3 extra points being against him due to Knockdowns and Point Deductions.
So even if you score the other 7 rounds for Ruiz, which if I'm not mistaken I did. You still come out with 113-112 Golota just due to the early advantage he had built.
Basically having the fight as a Ruiz win, they're giving him some of those early rounds which he clearly lost.
DrDuke wrote: ↑21 Mar 2023, 03:44
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 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.
I had Golota winning personally. I forget the exact score, but he had a 10-7 round in the 2nd round I believe it was, plus Ruiz got a point deduction. Out of those first 6 rounds, Ruiz lost at least 5 of 'em, with 3 extra points being against him due to Knockdowns and Point Deductions.
So even if you score the other 7 rounds for Ruiz, which if I'm not mistaken I did. You still come out with 113-112 Golota just due to the early advantage he had built.
Basically having the fight as a Ruiz win, they're giving him some of those early rounds which he clearly lost.
The thing with me was a lot of the early rounds were so difficult to score that I could only make it even rounds giving both men 10 points a piece. Because some of the rounds I gave to Ruiz basically came down to a handful of punches. They were that razor thin the rounds.
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑22 Mar 2023, 19:46
He didn't duck John Ruiz. Come on.
News flash, the WBS Organizations rankings are a joke. Nobody really thought Ruiz was the best opponent out there. Nobody wanted to see Ruiz fight. No way Lewis would have lost to him.
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑22 Mar 2023, 19:46
He didn't duck John Ruiz. Come on.
News flash, the WBS Organizations rankings are a joke. Nobody really thought Ruiz was the best opponent out there. Nobody wanted to see Ruiz fight. No way Lewis would have lost to him.
Nobody is really arguing that point.
And it don't really matter who wants to see a fight or not if somebody is rated number one you are supposed to fight them and if you don't it don't matter what your damn reasons are it was a duck.
Lennox Lewis is the only modern heavyweight I know of who got away with not fighting people simply on the basis of the excuse, "They would have been boring fights." That is inexcusable.
Muhammad Ali defended the title against some pretty boring people (ie, Jimmy Young for example) so Lennox Lewis is without any excuse. And don't bring up this nonsense about multiple belts because the only difference between the Ali era and the Lewis era was 1 additional belt. WBA, WBC, and IBF were the belts that mattered in Lewis's time. The WBA & WBC were the only ones that existed in Ali's time.
John Ruiz was #1 in two of the three. Inexcusable. Not just the WBA, but the WBC as well. Lewis should have fought him instead of guys like Grant and Botha. I don't care how boring and ugly the fights would have been. And he should have fought Chris Byrd as well.
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.
I had Golota winning personally. I forget the exact score, but he had a 10-7 round in the 2nd round I believe it was, plus Ruiz got a point deduction. Out of those first 6 rounds, Ruiz lost at least 5 of 'em, with 3 extra points being against him due to Knockdowns and Point Deductions.
So even if you score the other 7 rounds for Ruiz, which if I'm not mistaken I did. You still come out with 113-112 Golota just due to the early advantage he had built.
Basically having the fight as a Ruiz win, they're giving him some of those early rounds which he clearly lost.
The thing with me was a lot of the early rounds were so difficult to score that I could only make it even rounds giving both men 10 points a piece. Because some of the rounds I gave to Ruiz basically came down to a handful of punches. They were that razor thin the rounds.
Judges almost never score even rounds anymore. It used to be common as shit. I doubt there were any even rounds on the official cards in that fight.
The only fights I've ever seen where I had no choice but to give an even round was Mosley vs Forrest 2 and Byrd vs Davarryl Williamson. Both being because there were several rounds in those fights that were so boring that nobody did ANYTHING, and there's nothing to give them the round on.
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑22 Mar 2023, 19:46
He didn't duck John Ruiz. Come on.
News flash, the WBS Organizations rankings are a joke. Nobody really thought Ruiz was the best opponent out there. Nobody wanted to see Ruiz fight. No way Lewis would have lost to him.
Nobody is really arguing that point.
And it don't really matter who wants to see a fight or not if somebody is rated number one you are supposed to fight them and if you don't it don't matter what your damn reasons are it was a duck.
Lennox Lewis is the only modern heavyweight I know of who got away with not fighting people simply on the basis of the excuse, "They would have been boring fights." That is inexcusable.
Muhammad Ali defended the title against some pretty boring people (ie, Jimmy Young for example) so Lennox Lewis is without any excuse. And don't bring up this nonsense about multiple belts because the only difference between the Ali era and the Lewis era was 1 additional belt. WBA, WBC, and IBF were the belts that mattered in Lewis's time. The WBA & WBC were the only ones that existed in Ali's time.
John Ruiz was #1 in two of the three. Inexcusable. Not just the WBA, but the WBC as well. Lewis should have fought him instead of guys like Grant and Botha. I don't care how boring and ugly the fights would have been. And he should have fought Chris Byrd as well.
Lewis was the linear champion, he had unified the belts, nobody gave a shit about watching him v B level spoilers.
Grant at the time was a perceived threat, Botha was a homecoming with some name value. Nobody thinks that Lewis is in anyway harmed but not fighting Ruiz and Byrd.
