Heavyweights : Donovan Ruddock vs. Corrie Sanders

[Woldemar]

Prime vs prime.Who wins?

[margaret thatcher]

Ruddock KO within 5, after getting rocked himself

[DrDuke]

Both could KO each other early. The longer it goes, the more chances go for Ruddock.

[Ambling Alp II]

Can't see how Sanders wins this. He simply isn't in Ruddock's league. It might be interesting for a while, but soon Ruddock would blow him out. It would be brutal. Can't see this making it to the mid-rounds.

[scorpio83]

Sanders had a great big left hand, but Ruddock would nail him with the "Smash" left hook and that's all she wrote for Sanders maybe in the later rounds.

[Cojimar 1946]

I think Sanders has a fair shot here, he is a big puncher and Ruddock is fairly easy to hit and while reasonably durable was stopped early by Lewis and dropped by Smith.

It's sort of like Ruddock vs a powered-up Tommy Morrison.

[Onetimeonly]

Powered up? Morrison hit harder, was faster and tougher than Sanders.

[AntonioMartin]

Powered up? Morrison hit harder, was faster and tougher than Sanders.

I like Sanders in this one.

[DrDuke]

Morrison would KO Sanders. Of course, Sanders had his chances to KO Morrison too, but Tommy was just a better boxer, he had more tools.

[Cojimar 1946]

Morrison would KO Sanders. Of course, Sanders had his chances to KO Morrison too, but Tommy was just a better boxer, he had more tools.

Morrison seemed to frequently struggle with guys who were fringe contender/journeymen types (and even guys who wouldn't even qualify as journeymen) whereas Corrie Sanders generally dealt with them pretty easily.

Sanders resume is pretty thin outside of beating Wladimir Klitschko (though Wladimir was more highly rated than anyone Morrison beat by far) but he seemed to always handle guys who were not world class with the exception of the Nate Tubbs loss. Morrison seemed to have more difficulty with fringe contenders e.g. the draw with Ross Purrity, getting decked multiple times by a shot Carl Williams, struggling with Joe Hipp.

As far as Ruddock goes he should probably be favored here but he seems to get too much mileage out of tough losses to Tyson and lacks win over prime, top rated guys like Witherspoon, Douglas, Bruno, etc and mostly beat guys who were on the downside so its hard to get a good idea of how good he actually was.

[Onetimeonly]

At least Tommy got a draw with purity.

[DrDuke]

Morrison would KO Sanders. Of course, Sanders had his chances to KO Morrison too, but Tommy was just a better boxer, he had more tools.

Morrison seemed to frequently struggle with guys who were fringe contender/journeymen types (and even guys who wouldn't even qualify as journeymen) whereas Corrie Sanders generally dealt with them pretty easily.

Sanders resume is pretty thin outside of beating Wladimir Klitschko (though Wladimir was more highly rated than anyone Morrison beat by far) but he seemed to always handle guys who were not world class with the exception of the Nate Tubbs loss. Morrison seemed to have more difficulty with fringe contenders e.g. the draw with Ross Purrity, getting decked multiple times by a shot Carl Williams, struggling with Joe Hipp.

As far as Ruddock goes he should probably be favored here but he seems to get too much mileage out of tough losses to Tyson and lacks win over prime, top rated guys like Witherspoon, Douglas, Bruno, etc and mostly beat guys who were on the downside so its hard to get a good idea of how good he actually was.

Morrison generally dealed without much problems against journeymen and fringes. He had his jaw and hand broken against Hipp. And Williams was good, while the Morrison fight was a last hurrah for him. Morrison's problems in the ring began after he had become the WBO champ and had started to lack dedication. He wasn't prepared against Bentt, he had a bunch of unconvincing performances agaist a lower class of opposition afterwards. The draw vs Puritty was the last chapter of this troublesome period, after what Morrison seemed to regain his shape a bit.

Sanders could seem more consistent, but he has always competed on the lower level than Morrison. Whom he faced on the higher level, except Wlad and Rahman? While Rahman wasn't rated really high by particularly that moment. And Sanders was KOed by him. Yes, his Wlad win is huge, but obviously Wlad was chinny and that loss was exactly a one, that had him exposed and caused him to change his style. Of course, Morrison's chin wasn't anything special as well and Sanders could KO him too, but with the higher probability Sanders would be KOed himself.

Apart from Klitschko, Sanders had no really big wins, while Morrison had Wiliams, Ruddock, Foreman. And Morrison was better not only on paper. Tommy had better technique and fundamentals, he could box methodically, he had great combinations, he was smarter and faster than Sanders. Despite some stamina issues, he still was more durable than Sanders and also had more guts. While they both had so-so chins.

So, Morrison was clearly better, I'd say.

[Ambling Alp II]

At least Tommy got a draw with purity.

He did, didn't he?
Ruddock, Sanders, and for that Morrison for that matter had their flaws and their setbacks..
Ruddock and Morrison's biggest wins were against opponents clearly past their best and Sanders only has the win over glass jaw. Morrison even got waxed by Micheal Bentt.
Of the three, Would have to go with Ruddock because at least he was competitive with Tyson. Can't imagine Morrison or Sanders doing that.
Of the three, Ruddock had the best boxing skills. Of the three, he was the hardest puncher, Of the three he had the best defense. Of the three, he had the best chin.
Would pick Morrison over Sanders.

[Evander]

Prime

Ruddock stoppage early

[DrDuke]

Of the three, Ruddock had the best boxing skills. Of the three, he was the hardest puncher, Of the three he had the best defense. Of the three, he had the best chin.

How on earth Ruddock's skills were better than Morrison's ones, when Ruddock was extremely dependant on his left hook, while Morrison could box and frequently used variable combinations?

[Ambling Alp II]

Ruddock actually had decent boxing skills. He had a good jab, moved around, could throw decent combinations. After he scored couple of devastating knockouts, he began to get away from that and was looking for the one-punch knockout too much.

Morrison did not have very boxing skills. He was aggressive brawler who was not hard to hit.

[DrDuke]

Ruddock actually had decent boxing skills. He had a good jab, moved around, could throw decent combinations. After he scored couple of devastating knockouts, he began to get away from that and was looking for the one-punch knockout too much.

Morrison did not have very boxing skills. He was aggressive brawler who was not hard to hit.

Morrison could move and jab as well, he also had more diverse combinations and he did all this stuff more often than Ruddock, while Ruddock wasn't hard to be hit either. Ruddock's best performnces were losses to the declining and conquered Tyson. Morrison best performance is a win over old, but future champ Foreman, where Morrison suddenly wasn't an aggressive brawler. Also, Ruddock was bashed out by Lewis faster and eventually stopped by Morrison himself. What a great superiority.

[Ambling Alp II]

Guess we will have agree to disagree about Morrison's boxing skills.

Ruddocks best performances might have been a devastating KO of Dokes who had given prime Holyfield a tough fight just a year before.

Love the spin on Morrison's win over Foreman and Ruddock's fights with Tyson.

Tyson was in his mid-20s but we have to remember that Tyson had earlier been "conquered. "
Morrison beat an ancient Foreman, but that's a big win because Foreman later won the title title against Moorer.

Hadn't Foreman been conquered before? (Like 20 years before against he should not be named) Jimmy Young and Holyfield? Didn't Tyson win the title again after the Ruddock fight?

The Morrison-Ruddock fight? You forgot a couple of important details. Ruddock had one fight (against a journeyman) in the previous three years. He was very rusty. Also, the referee could have easily stopped the fight when Morrison was knocked down and hurt but didn't. He also could have let in continue when later Ruddock was decked and hurt.

And you forgot Morrison had a draw with Ross Purrity. Oh, and how about the embarrassing KO loss to Michael Bentt, who was a complete no name?

So yeah, Ruddock was superior to Morrison.

[DrDuke]

Ruddocks best performances might have been a devastating KO of Dokes who had given prime Holyfield a tough fight just a year before.

Dokes had no big wins for years before that and never earned a one afterwards. He was past his best.

Tyson was in his mid-20s but we have to remember that Tyson had earlier been "conquered. "
Morrison beat an ancient Foreman, but that's a big win because Foreman later won the title title against Moorer.

Hadn't Foreman been conquered before? (Like 20 years before against he should not be named) Jimmy Young and Holyfield? Didn't Tyson win the title again after the Ruddock fight?

To say, that Tyson was in his prime, because he was in mid-20s, is quite dumb, because a longevity of a fighter suddenly differs. Old George wasn't a regular old fighter obviously. The point was, that he was credible even after Morrison loss. And his Moorer win was bigger than Tyson's ones over semi-retired Bruno and the diver Seldon.

The Morrison-Ruddock fight? You forgot a couple of important details. Ruddock had one fight (against a journeyman) in the previous three years. He was very rusty. Also, the referee could have easily stopped the fight when Morrison was knocked down and hurt but didn't. He also could have let in continue when later Ruddock was decked and hurt.

The ref made a premature stoppage, but, if he decided to do it after the flash knockdown of Morrison, as you suggest, than he would have been a complete fool.

And you forgot Morrison had a draw with Ross Purrity. Oh, and how about the embarrassing KO loss to Michael Bentt, who was a complete no name?

Those were in Morrison's decline period. Go then remember about Ruddock's losses to Jaco, Carman and draw against the great Phil Brown.

[Ambling Alp II]

Try watching the Dokes-Holyfield fight. It was arguably the best performance of Dokes' career. Ruddock blasted out Dokes just a year later. there was no indication that Dokes was washed up going into the fight.

Tyson was pretty close to his prime when he he fought Ruddock. You can't dismiss this and then make a big deal about how Morrison's win over 44 year old Foreman is a win over a credible opponent. Tyson a that stage was much better than Foreman was at that stage. Not even close.

Morrison was in his "decline period" when he got embarrassed by an unknown Michael Bentt? You have to be kidding. This was just four months after the win over Foreman which you think is such a big deal. He was 24 years old. That counts. It was an absolutely embarrassing loss. You have to factor that in when rating Morrison.

All you are doing is overrating what helps your your guy, underrating what helps the case of the other guy, ignoring what hurts your guy's case, and ignoring what helps the other guy's case.

I feel like I am discussing this with elmer.

[gilgamesh]

Corrie would be a big threat early. If Ruddock is still there after 4 rounds. I think the tide starts to turn his way, and he eventually knocks out Sanders.

Would be a damn fun Heavyweight fight. Either guy winning by KO is a very realistic possibility.

That being said, I think Ruddock wins more often than not.

[DrDuke]

Try watching the Dokes-Holyfield fight. It was arguably the best performance of Dokes' career. Ruddock blasted out Dokes just a year later. there was no indication that Dokes was washed up going into the fight.

What indication you need, bruh? Only fighters themselves know, how much is left in them. We only have facts: Dokes never defeated a solid opponent in years, had a tough war vs Holyfield, where he got stopped, after what he got bashed out by a much lower class opponent in much easier fashion. Try to push your brain more for the indication. Norton had a war vs Holmes, which he arguably won, and a year later he got iced by Shavers, oops!

Tyson was pretty close to his prime when he he fought Ruddock. You can't dismiss this and then make a big deal about how Morrison's win over 44 year old Foreman is a win over a credible opponent. Tyson a that stage was much better than Foreman was at that stage. Not even close.

He could be better, but there was no such a huge gap in any case.

Morrison was in his "decline period" when he got embarrassed by an unknown Michael Bentt? You have to be kidding. This was just four months after the win over Foreman which you think is such a big deal. He was 24 years old. That counts. It was an absolutely embarrassing loss. You have to factor that in when rating Morrison.

His prime ended with winning Foreman. Like Bowe's prime ended with winning Holyfield for the championship. Sometimes there are factors more important than age FFS, I was just talking about it in my previous post, but it seems like I was talking to a wall or to a plant, or to I dunno what.

All you are doing is overrating what helps your your guy, underrating what helps the case of the other guy, ignoring what hurts your guy's case, and ignoring what helps the other guy's case.

As if you weren't the same, when cited the irrelevant lowlights of not your guy, but utterly ignored such of your guy.

[Ambling Alp II]

I don't ignore losses/bad performances of my guy or good performances of the other guy. If it's a big win, win, it's a big win. If it's a bad loss, it a bad loss. If it's a win that really doesn't mean a lot, then that is what it is.

I don't care either way about Ruddock or Morrison.

The Dokes-Norton comparison is quite a reach. Norton was 35, Dokes was only 31. You can't really say that Dokes was falling apart after the Ruddock fight because he didn't fight anyone really good for three years. (He won all his fights until he did fight Bowe)
When Shavers did blow out Norton, he got a lot of credit. Just Ruddock should get some too.

There was a significant gap between the obese, middle age Foreman and Tyson.

The one that is way over the top is the Morrison declined after Foreman and so we can't count the embarrassing loss to Bentt. Absolutely ridiculous.

The Bentt fight was just four months after Morrison fought Foreman. He was just 24 years old. you can't have it it both ways. You have to factor that fight in when rating Morrison.
Morrison simply "declined." Wow. Might be the lamest excuse I have ever heard.

[DrDuke]

I don't ignore losses/bad performances of my guy or good performances of the other guy. [/b]

The Dokes-Norton comparison is quite a reach. Norton was 35, Dokes was only 31. You can't really say that Dokes was falling apart after the Ruddock fight because he didn't fight anyone really good for three years. (He won all his fights until he did fight Bowe)
When Shavers did blow out Norton, he got a lot of credit. Just Ruddock should get some too.

There was a significant gap between the obese, middle age Foreman and Tyson.

Oh my, again sticking to the numbers. Norton at his 35 was better than Dokes at his 31. Foreman at his 40s wasn't like the majority of normal people at their 40s. Bowe was declined at 26. Klitschko at 40 was better than the majority of this age. That happens. What's the evidence of the 90s Tyson being significantly better than 90s Foreman? (Probably we're just wasting our time here, now there be them numbers)

The one that is way over the top is the Morrison declined after Foreman and so we can't count the embarrassing loss to Bentt. Absolutely ridiculous.

The Bentt fight was just four months after Morrison fought Foreman. He was just 24 years old. you can't have it it both ways. You have to factor that fight in when rating Morrison.
Morrison simply "declined." Wow. Might be the lamest excuse I have ever heard.

Well, people around Morrison, his team and managment, talk about him partying instead of preparing for Bentt. I guess, this source is more trustworthy than you. Go watch and compare his performances before Bentt and a bunch of fights after Bentt.

[Onetimeonly]

The bentt loss should be held against him, but it doesn't drop him to Sanders level.