BoxRec

Big Bad John wrote:I call bullshit on you implying that Mercer and Schaaf should be ranked above John Ruiz. Ruiz beat Holyfield, Rahman, Oquendo, Johnson, Tucker and McCline, and he should've gotten the win over Valuev and maybe even Chagaev.

Number 1, you REALLY have to stretch reality to say RUiz deserved the decision vs Chagaev. Tucker was WAY past his prime when he lost to Ruiz. That leaves you with

Valuev (controversial call, I'll give it to you), McCline, washed up Holyfield, Oquendo, Johnson, and Rahman.

Yes ther were top HWs. They also were pathetic. Ruiz showed his true quality when he was toyed with by two former middleweights in their mid-late 30s. who actually had skills.

Mercer fought a near-prime Holyfield very close, arguably beat a prime Lennox Lewis, knocked out Morrison and beat a still dangerous Witherspoon.

Quality over quantity.

Ruiz, Spinks, Moorer, Byrd, Tua, and Rahman are all ranked too highly IMO, but then again I put more emphasis on quality of comp and head to head than statistical achievements)

Witherspoon was as shot as Tucker, and Mercer didn't actually beat Holyfield or Lewis. Plus, he got outpointed by an ancient Larry Holmes, and James Toney didn't actually beat John Ruiz.

Mercer's only big win was over Morrison. Sorry, but that simply isn't enough. I don't rank fighters based on "almost" beating someone. I thought Mercer clearly lost to Holyfield and Lewis, I scored the Valuev fight pretty clearly for Ruiz, and I thought the Chagaev fight was even. The main point is that Mercer simply didn't have the notable wins. He was a disappointment as a heavyweight, and that's why I'll never rank him anywhere near Ruiz.

[quote="Big Bad John"]

I don't rank fighters based on "almost" beating someone. quote]

But you do rank them on almost fighting nobody at all...

Why isn't Jones above Ruiz then?

Ezzard wrote:Why isn't Jones above Ruiz then?

Same reason Ken Norton isn't ranked above Ali.

Big Bad John wrote:Witherspoon was as shot as Tucker, and Mercer didn't actually beat Holyfield or Lewis. Plus, he got outpointed by an ancient Larry Holmes, and James Toney didn't actually beat John Ruiz.

Mercer's only big win was over Morrison. Sorry, but that simply isn't enough. I don't rank fighters based on "almost" beating someone. I thought Mercer clearly lost to Holyfield and Lewis, I scored the Valuev fight pretty clearly for Ruiz, and I thought the Chagaev fight was even. The main point is that Mercer simply didn't have the notable wins. He was a disappointment as a heavyweight, and that's why I'll never rank him anywhere near Ruiz.

You can't have it both ways . . you scored the Valuev fight for Ruiz. Myself and many others scored Mercer-Lewis for Mercer. And Lewis is a much bigger scalp than Valuev.

Tucker was a severe coke-head by the 1990s. Witherspoon came back after the Martin fiasco and became a legitimate top 10 fighter. Apples and oranges.

Toney didn't actually beat Ruiz? Yeah, Toney's physique sure showed that he was pumping up that nadalone to work out 14 times a week.

Ruiz is the epitome of how weak Heavyweight boxing became in the 21st century. The four guys with real consumate skills he's faced he lost to (Jones, Toney, Chagaev and a 40 year old Holyfield in the rubber match in which Evander got jobbed, (plus Holyfield knocked Ruiz out with a body shot in their rematch only for Ruiz to go for the Oscar and get a low-blow call)
Sure he had several 'title' defenses but place him 15 years back and if he's lucky he scrapes the top 15.

I admire you gentlemen...You know your boxing...My knowledge is mostly limited to the Ali, Leonard and Tyson era...

You cats can really get in the weeds...

Where do you have Leotis Martin ranked?

I liked him because he beat Liston even though Liston was shot...

Big Bad John wrote:I call bullshit on you implying that Mercer and Schaaf should be ranked above John Ruiz. Ruiz beat Holyfield, Rahman, Oquendo, Johnson, Tucker and McCline, and he should've gotten the win over Valuev and maybe even Chagaev.

Interesting that you say that. Almost all of Ruiz entire career is BS.

He doesn't have one impressive win in his entire career. None. Holyfield was way, way past his best when he fought him.
Tucker was 40, and was stopped in two round 6 months earlier against Hide.

None of these other wins are any bid deal either.
Against Johnson, he resorted to acting like he was hit in the groin to the point of rolling around on the ground.
He lost to Roy Jones badly, who never beat anyone over 175 before.
He lost to Darnell Nicholson.
He barely beat Jimmy Thunder.
He would have lost to an ancient andrew Golota if it wasn't for a bad decision.
He never even beat the best fighters of an incredibly weak era. Never fought either of the Klitchkos's or Byrd.
Lasted all of 18 seconds against Tua.

I'm not just implying that Ray Mercer or Ernie Schaaf were better, I'm flat out saying it. A lot better.
Mercer certainly had some off nights, but alteast he had some qulaity perfromances.
If you want to hide behind the judges' decision and say that the Lewis fight wasn't impressive, whatever.
Mercer's win over Witherspoon is much more impressive than Tucker. Witherspoon seemed rejuvenated and was atleast fringe contender at the time.

You say that you don't give credit to guys who have close losses to great fighters. However how close a fight is must mean something to you. you made a point in another thread that Norton got bombed out against Shavers.
Losing a decision to Lewis (that he probably deserved) and giving a close to his prime Holyfield a very tough fights is much more impressive than losing to Darnell Nicholson and Valuev.

Ernie Schaaf beat 3 guys on your own list (Braddock,Baer,Loughran)and they weren't ancient either. He also had several other solid wins.

Like I said earlier, most of your list is pretty much on target. But you are way off with Ruiz.

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:I admire you gentlemen...You know your boxing...My knowledge is mostly limited to the Ali, Leonard and Tyson era...

You cats can really get in the weeds...

Where do you have Leotis Martin ranked?

I liked him because he beat Liston even though Liston was shot...

I think Martin should be in the Top 100, probably in the 80-90 range. There are a lot of guys that are very close. It's too bad that he got the detached retna and had to retire early.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. Sonny Liston
5. George Foreman
6. Joe Frazier
7. Jack Johnson
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Riddick Bowe
10. James Jefferies

It's hard to consider Marciano, Dempsey, Tunney, Patterson heavyweights when they fought in the 180's. They would be outweighed by 25-65 pounds by the others on the list.
That would be like asking Pacquiao to fight guys like Hopkins or Jones.

Ambling Alp wrote:

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:I admire you gentlemen...You know your boxing...My knowledge is mostly limited to the Ali, Leonard and Tyson era...

You cats can really get in the weeds...

Where do you have Leotis Martin ranked?

I liked him because he beat Liston even though Liston was shot...

I think Martin should be in the Top 100, probably in the 80-90 range. There are a lot of guys that are very close. It's too bad that he got the detached retna and had to retire early.

Martin probably peaked...He wasn't going to beat Frazier, Ali, or Foreman...

Is the goal of boxing to be champion or get a pay check?

actjac wrote: It's hard to consider Marciano, Dempsey, Tunney, Patterson heavyweights when they fought in the 180's. They would be outweighed by 25-65 pounds by the others on the list.
That would be like asking Pacquiao to fight guys like Hopkins or Jones.

That's ridiculous. Marciano, Dempsey, Tunney and Patterson were usually outweighed; and they still won, and won against good/great Heavyweights. Not to mention winning the ultimate prize in the Heavyweight division and in boxing in general.

25-65 pounds in the Heavyweight division is not the same as 25-65 pounds in the lower weight classes. A Straweight could never beat a Jr. Middleweight, but 200 pounders have crushed plenty of 250 pounders. Not a valid comparison; things are different in the higher weights, which should be common knowledge to boxing fans.

dempseyfire wrote:You can't have it both ways . . you scored the Valuev fight for Ruiz. Myself and many others scored Mercer-Lewis for Mercer. And Lewis is a much bigger scalp than Valuev.

No. You haven't seen the Valuev fight, I take it. That was such an unbearable decision that Ring magazine broke its 80-year policy of respecting the judges' decisions in ranking the winner over the loser, something the magazine has only done in extreme cases, like Foreman-Briggs. The publication didn't do so in Ruiz-Holyfield I, which in another thread you said, "was not close at all . . Ruiz should've won something like an 8-4 decision." Ring magazine and pretty much everyone who saw Ruiz-Valuev thought that it was even more of a travesty than Ruiz-Holyfield I.

So, are you arguing that Mercer's win over Lewis was as one-sided as Ruiz-Holfyield I? You've obviously seen that fight, if not Ruiz-Valuev. The only time I ignore the judges' decisions completely is when it's a clear case of either incompetence or corruption. There was neither in Lewis's win over Mercer.

Big Bad John wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:You can't have it both ways . . you scored the Valuev fight for Ruiz. Myself and many others scored Mercer-Lewis for Mercer. And Lewis is a much bigger scalp than Valuev.

No. You haven't seen the Valuev fight, I take it. That was such an unbearable decision that Ring magazine broke its 80-year policy of respecting the judges' decisions in ranking the winner over the loser, something the magazine has only done in extreme cases, like Foreman-Briggs. The publication didn't do so in Ruiz-Holyfield I, which in another thread you said, "was not close at all . . Ruiz should've won something like an 8-4 decision." Ring magazine and pretty much everyone who saw Ruiz-Valuev thought that it was even more of a travesty than Ruiz-Holyfield I.

So, are you arguing that Mercer's win over Lewis was as one-sided as Ruiz-Holfyield I? You've obviously seen that fight, if not Ruiz-Valuev. The only time I ignore the judges' decisions completely is when it's a clear case of either incompetence or corruption. There was neither in Lewis's win over Mercer.

Yes I have seen Ruiz-Valuev, it was an ugly, very close fight. Most reporters had it a draw or a point win for Ruiz (as I did). Your inclination that everyone thought it was another Lewis-Holyfield is just not factual. Larry Donald actually beat Valuev by a greater margin on my scorecard.

I had Mercer beating Lewis by 2 or 3 points, I can't remember the exact score.

Ring Magazine? The same fallen publication that made Vitali Klitschko linear HW champion of the World? I'll trust others, thanks.

So would John Ruiz beat Ray Mercer prime vs prime in your opinion?

Probably Ruiz. Even in his prime, Ray Mercer lost to a 42-year-old Larry Holmes and 18-9 Jesse Ferguson, drew with Marion Wilson, and lost practically every round to Francesco Damiani before stopping him with one punch. Ruiz lost a few early bouts, but from the late 1990s until the mid 2000s, Roy Jones was the only fighter who conclusively beat him (again, James Toney didn't beat him, the steroids did).

Big Bad John wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Why isn't Jones above Ruiz then?

Same reason Ken Norton isn't ranked above Ali.

That reason being??????

Big Bad John wrote:Probably Ruiz. Even in his prime, Ray Mercer lost to a 42-year-old Larry Holmes and 18-9 Jesse Ferguson, drew with Marion Wilson, and lost practically every round to Francesco Damiani before stopping him with one punch. Ruiz lost a few early bouts, but from the late 1990s until the mid 2000s, Roy Jones was the only fighter who conclusively beat him (again, James Toney didn't beat him, the steroids did).

Well, if you want to put the best possible spin on Ruiz career and not look at Mercer's achievements then I guess you could come to that conclusion. however, if you want to weigh all of the evidence, I don't see how you can possibly come to that conclusion.

True, Ruiz only had one "conclusive Loss" in the late 1990's and early 2000's.
-However that loss was to a fighter who has no other wins over any one over 175
-How many conclusive wins over the top opponents did he have? Zero.
-He got a close decision over Jimmy Thunder.
-He had to resort to his Phaintin Phil Scott impersonation to beat Kirk Johnson. Not exactly convincing.
-He didn't deserve a draw in the 3rd Holyfield fight.

-The Tua fight has to count as an important fight on his record. He was no green kid. He already had 27 fights by then.
-He got a decision against an ancient Andrew Golota that he no right to get.
-True the Toney fight doesn't count as a loss. However, a really good heavyweight would have beaten Toney anyway and would have got a win on his record.
-He got more than enough breaks from the officials to offset the Valuev decision.

Ray Mercer was of course not a consistent fighter. His bad moments were mentioned.
However he did:
Fight a tough fight with Holyfield who was much closer to his prime then the one Ruiz struggled with.
-Should have got a decision against Lennox Lewis.
-Stopped Morrsion and Damiani. Beat a still good Tim Witherspoon.

Ambling Alp wrote:

Big Bad John wrote:Probably Ruiz. Even in his prime, Ray Mercer lost to a 42-year-old Larry Holmes and 18-9 Jesse Ferguson, drew with Marion Wilson, and lost practically every round to Francesco Damiani before stopping him with one punch. Ruiz lost a few early bouts, but from the late 1990s until the mid 2000s, Roy Jones was the only fighter who conclusively beat him (again, James Toney didn't beat him, the steroids did).

Well, if you want to put the best possible spin on Ruiz career and not look at Mercer's achievements then I guess you could come to that conclusion. however, if you want to weigh all of the evidence, I don't see how you can possibly come to that conclusion.

True, Ruiz only had one "conclusive Loss" in the late 1990's and early 2000's.
-However that loss was to a fighter who has no other wins over any one over 175
-How many conclusive wins over the top opponents did he have? Zero.
-He got a close decision over Jimmy Thunder.
-He had to resort to his Phaintin Phil Scott impersonation to beat Kirk Johnson. Not exactly convincing.
-He didn't deserve a draw in the 3rd Holyfield fight.

-The Tua fight has to count as an important fight on his record. He was no green kid. He already had 27 fights by then.
-He got a decision against an ancient Andrew Golota that he no right to get.
-True the Toney fight doesn't count as a loss. However, a really good heavyweight would have beaten Toney anyway and would have got a win on his record.
-He got more than enough breaks from the officials to offset the Valuev decision.

Ray Mercer was of course not a consistent fighter. His bad moments were mentioned.
However he did:
Fight a tough fight with Holyfield who was much closer to his prime then the one Ruiz struggled with.
-Should have got a decision against Lennox Lewis.
-Stopped Morrsion and Damiani. Beat a still good Tim Witherspoon.

I watch a lot of sports and criticsm of the referees is always a major part of the process... I submit the errors they make are random and they usually work themselves out...For instance you can argue that Holmes was jobbed in his Spinks fights but you could also argue that Tim Witherspoon was jobbed in his fight against him...

A few points:

• Sonny Liston lost to a 175-pound fighter in Marty Marshall. Joe Louis lost his title to two fighters who started out at 160, Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles. Ezzard Charles was smaller than Roy Jones.
• The Rahman, McCline, Oquendo and Johnson fights were conclusive.
• Have you seen the Jimmy Thunder bout, or did you just read that it was an SD on Boxrec?
• Ruiz was ahead on all three judges' scorecards in the Johnson fight, and he had Johnson nearly out in that round.
• Perhaps, but he didn't deserve a loss in their first bout.
• Of course he clearly lost to David Tua, but he learned from that mistake and became a better (if much less exciting) fighter.
• On the Golota fight, I think the referee was badly biased against Ruiz, with the phantom knockdown and the point deduction disparity. The point is that Ruiz came on strong in the later rounds enough to make it competitive. Ignoring the poor calls by the referee, I would have had Ruiz ahead, but even including them, I had the bout even, as Ring magazine did.
• Sam Peter's a good heavyweight, and he should have lost to Toney in their bout. Like it or not, Toney was a solid heavyweight.
• I think you don't understand that the concept of "holding and hitting." If referees started taking points away for what Ruiz does, the entire game of boxing would be different.

-When Liston lost to Marshall, it was only his 8th fight. Ruiz was a veteran when he lost to Jones. Liston also avenged his defeat; Ruiz didn't.

-Comparing a loss to "heavyweight" Roy Jones and Joe Louis vs Walcott and Charles is just silly.
Both Walcott and charles had been heavyweights for years when they fought Louis. Jones wasn't accustomed to weighing 193, nor had he fought anyone over 175 before.
Not to mention that Louis was well past his prime and that Ruiz was in his prime.

I like how all of Ruiz's controversial wins are legitimate but Louis' official win against Walcott is called a win for Walcott.

-The wins over Rahman,McCline, and Oquendo were conclusive? How impressive were they? Not exactly legends here. The Oquendo fight was very close until the stoppage.
The Johnson fight was conclusive. He was only ahead becasue the referee deducted point from Johnson. He was rolling on the ground by punches more than once from punches that couldn't have hit him in the groin. It was all an act. He was being outboxed by Johnson. The referee warned Johnson that he would disqualify him if he hit him low again. When Johnson did again a few rounds later, the referee immediately disqualified him. This time Ruiz didn't bother to flop on the ground.

-Ruiz didn't a loss against Holyfield in their fight? Well it was hard to judge since it more of a wrestling match than a fight.

-The Jimmy Thunder-John Ruiz fight was televised. I believe it was on USA's Tuesday Night Fights. It's embarrassing for a good fighter to have that much trouble against a fighter like that.

- I don't see how you could have Ruiz ahead of Golota, even not including the dubious knockdown and the point deduction. Golota still had one legitimate knockdown. He also hit Ruiz more often, and more cleanly through most of the fight.

-That Samuel Peter had so much trouble with Toney tells you a lot about how good Peter is.

-I don't undertand Ruiz's holding and hitting? He throws a punch, and immediately trys to hold. The sport will be fine without that being allowed. He should not been allowed to get away with this. When the referee warned him about it against Jones he was screwed. A good fighter doesn't need to do that.

I don't understand your fascination with this Ruiz at all.
I also don't understand how you can have him at #56 (ahead of some pretty good fighters) and say this about him on another thread:

"He obliterated shitty heavyweights like Ruiz"

I Feel Fine wrote:

actjac wrote: It's hard to consider Marciano, Dempsey, Tunney, Patterson heavyweights when they fought in the 180's. They would be outweighed by 25-65 pounds by the others on the list.
That would be like asking Pacquiao to fight guys like Hopkins or Jones.

That's ridiculous. Marciano, Dempsey, Tunney and Patterson were usually outweighed; and they still won, and won against good/great Heavyweights. Not to mention winning the ultimate prize in the Heavyweight division and in boxing in general.

25-65 pounds in the Heavyweight division is not the same as 25-65 pounds in the lower weight classes. A Straweight could never beat a Jr. Middleweight, but 200 pounders have crushed plenty of 250 pounders. Not a valid comparison; things are different in the higher weights, which should be common knowledge to boxing fans.

WHY are things so different in the higher weights? Why should a flyweight not compete with a middleweight when a 180 pounder could compete with a 265 lber. Tell me the physicalological reasoning.

Ezzard Charles was smaller than Roy Jones. PERIOD. Joe Louis lost to him. So did lots of heavyweights.

actjac wrote:WHY are things so different in the higher weights? Why should a flyweight not compete with a middleweight when a 180 pounder could compete with a 265 lber. Tell me the physicalological reasoning.

You can't be serious. 5-10 pounds is nothing at Heavyweight, in the lower weight classes its a huge difference. A Heavyweight puncher, or even a Cruiserweight puncher, can do much more damage to a man who outweighs him a great deal than a Flyweight could do to a Welterweight or a Middleweight. This is the boxing equivalent of first grade knowledge.

In my experience, most 265-pound fighters are fat. ALL 112-pound fighters are in good shape.

I Feel Fine wrote:

actjac wrote:WHY are things so different in the higher weights? Why should a flyweight not compete with a middleweight when a 180 pounder could compete with a 265 lber. Tell me the physicalological reasoning.

You can't be serious. 5-10 pounds is nothing at Heavyweight, in the lower weight classes its a huge difference. A Heavyweight puncher, or even a Cruiserweight puncher, can do much more damage to a man who outweighs him a great deal than a Flyweight could do to a Welterweight or a Middleweight. This is the boxing equivalent of first grade knowledge.

You have offered nothing such as physiological evidence that shows that there is a vast difference between a boxing match such as Ricky Hatton at 5'-7", 145 lbs. with a 65" reach vs Joe Calzaghe at 5-11", 175 lbs. with a 71" reach as opposed to Floyd Patterson at 5-11", 188 lbs. and 71" reach vs Muhammad Ali at 6-3" and 218 lbs and an 82" reach. Why would one be allowed and the other be considered an outrageous mis-match.