BoxRec

Posted: **17 Apr 2007, 10:39**

.... field? They were ranked #1 and 2.

Does anyone know?

Posted: **18 Apr 2007, 00:06**

Hmm, very interesting! This I do not understand.

Posted: **18 Apr 2007, 05:00**

That is nonsense.

In HINDSIGHT Ruiz was better than Grant.

AT THE TIME Grant was 31-0 and without doubt the credible #1 challenger.

He was huge and could punch, and had:

KO10 Al Cole 28-2
KO5 David Izon 20-2
KO9 Obed Sulliavn 29-2
W10 Lou Savarese 39-2
KO10 Andrew Golota 34-3

This compares to John Ruiz, who had

LKO1 David Tua (19 seconds)
KO11 Tony Tucker (39 yrs old and completely shot)

Ruiz magically appeared in the rankings when he signed with Don King, and soon became mandatory #1 ahead of Grant despite no victories over ranked opponents.

His proposed 2000 fight with LL was seen as yet another repulsive DK/WBA machination, and LL rightly told the WBA and their crappy challenger to shove their belt.

While Grant flopped v LL, he was without doubt #1 contender, whereas Ruiz went onto become the worst heavyweight champion of all time, and continually at the top of the WBA rankings no matter how many times he lost.

Decagon, if your going to paint a revisionist history of an event, at least do it with one that isn't still so fresh in the memory of boxing fans.

Posted: **19 Apr 2007, 05:47**

Decagon, since you've torn up Grants record against name opponents, all of whom were competing in high profile fights with top 10 fighters at the time Grant knocked them out, please give me the run down of John Ruiz's opponents before his title shot.

I cant wait to hear your spin on why Jerry Ballard, Mario Cawley, Fernly Feliz, and Thomas Top Dawg Williams have better credentials than:

Al Cole, David Izon, Obed Sullivan, Lou Savarese, and Andrew Golota.

I cant wait for this.. its gonna be GREAT!!

Posted: **19 Apr 2007, 11:08**

Decagon wrote:
overhand_right wrote:AT THE TIME Grant was 31-0 and without doubt the credible #1 challenger.
Ring magazine didn't rank him #1. Who actually did?
overhand_right wrote:KO10 Al Cole 28-2
Cole had how many fights at heavyweight?
overhand_right wrote:KO5 David Izon 20-2
He was coming off a loss to a fighter who had 5 wins in 13 fights.
overhand_right wrote:KO9 Obed Sulliavn 29-2
Not a contender by any stretch.
overhand_right wrote:W10 Lou Savarese 39-2
The guy George Foreman beat?!?!?!?
overhand_right wrote:KO10 Andrew Golota 34-3
The only reason Grant won this fight is that Golota quit.
overhand_right wrote:This compares to John Ruiz, who had

LKO1 David Tua (19 seconds)
KO11 Tony Tucker (39 yrs old and completely shot)
Ruiz beat just as many fighters with bloated records as Grant did.
overhand_right wrote:Ruiz magically appeared in the rankings when he signed with Don King, and soon became mandatory #1 ahead of Grant despite no victories over ranked opponents.
No. He appeared in the rankings when he won the NABA title. He re-entered the WBC rankings when he unified it with the NABF title. Those crappy little belts have a lot to do with how fighters are ranked. Can you find an example of someone who had seven straight wins in NABA/NABF competition without getting a title shot?
overhand_right wrote:His proposed 2000 fight with LL was seen as yet another repulsive DK/WBA machination, and LL rightly told the WBA and their crappy challenger to shove their belt.
No, it was promoted by HBO and Ring magazine as being another DK/WBA stunt. Ruiz earned his ranking by winning in regional WBC and WBA title bouts. In fact, that's also how Grant got his #5 ranking. People forget that the WBC also had him as the #1 contender. In fact, here's how the current NABF Champions are ranked by the WBC:
Heavyweight: Sam Peters, #1 (2 defenses)

Cruiserweight: Matt Godfrey, #3 (no defenses)

Light Heavyweight: Title Vacant

Super Middleweight: Lucien Bute, #1 (1 defense)

Middleweight: Kelly Pavlik, #1 (1 defense)

Jr. Middleweight: Andrey Tsurkan, #7 (1 defense)

Welterweight: Golden Johnson, #12 (no defenses)

Jr. Welterweight: Jose Luis Castillo, #1 (no defenses)

Lightweight: Kid Diamond, #5 (1 defense)

Jr. Lightweight: Agnaldo Nunes, #12 (no defenses)

Featherweight: Title Vacant

Jr. Featherweight: Julio Zarate, #8 (no defenses)

Bantamweight: Title Vacant

Jr. Bantamweight: Nonito Donaire, #3 (1 defense)

Flyweight: Gilberto Keb Baas, #11 (1 defense)

Jr. Flyweight: Giovanni Segura, #6 (no defenses)

Strawweight: Juan Hernandez, #30 (no defenses)
Clearly, there is a correlation between success in NABF competition and WBC rankings. The only NABF Champions not ranked near the top of the rankings are the ones who only recently won their titles. Giovanni Segura, who won the NABF Flyweight Championship only a few months ago, is already ranked #7. An NABF champion not getting a #1 WBC ranking after three defenses would be strange. You'll find a similar correlation between NABA titlists and WBA rankings.
overhand_right wrote:While Grant flopped v LL, he was without doubt #1 contender, whereas Ruiz went onto become the worst heavyweight champion of all time, and continually at the top of the WBA rankings no matter how many times he lost.
Flat-out lie. NO ONE RANKED MICHAEL GRANT THE #1 CONTENDER! Not even Ring magazine.
overhand_right wrote:Decagon, if your going to paint a revisionist history of an event, at least do it with one that isn't still so fresh in the memory of boxing fans.
It seems that your memory and knowledge are both subpar, as I've pointed out above. Look, no one likes John Ruiz and no one likes Don King, but Ring magazine's Championship policy was built around HBO fighters. They gave Roy Jones a championship when Dariusz Michalczewski was more worthy. They gave Vitali Klitschko a championship when he hadn't even met Ring magazine's own criteria for holding a championship.

Ring magazine is a useless pile of shit-paper. The connection between HBO and Ring magazine is no less diabolical than the one between King and the WBC.

Dec, I don't know enough for suyre about the NABA title to know how much it correlates with WBA rankings, but still, you can't justify Ruiz as the number 1 contender . . .that was utter BS. Sam Peter has the NABF title bit was only #1 after beating Toney in an eliminator. And Toney had NOTHING but the IBA or whatever for his #1 ranking, so it's lot like making some title defenses with those trinkets automatically makes you the number one guy.

Ruiz was regarded as utter crap, not just by HBO, but by EVERYONE except Ruiz's mama and Norman Stone. A defense vs Ruiz by Lewis would've been seen as more pointless than the defense vs Akinwande.

Not everyone had Grant rated number #1, but show me ANY publication that prior to the Grant fight had Ruiz AHEAD of Grant . . . .

Posted: **19 Apr 2007, 11:14**

Exactly. The guys run down is pure Revisionist History.

Guys agenda is obviously to make Lewis look bad for taking on Grant instead of Ruiz, despite the fact Grant had more credibility and brought more money than the unknown undeserving Ruiz.

Posted: **19 Apr 2007, 11:19**

overhand_right wrote:Exactly. The guys run down is pure Revisionist History.

Guys agenda is obviously to make Lewis look bad for taking on Grant instead of Ruiz, despite the fact Grant had more credibility and brought more money than the unknown undeserving Ruiz.

Dec has always displayed a strange love for Ruiz and Byrd -- fighters who are rightly considered paper champs by most as they owned their belts to one fact alone: being managed by Don King.

Posted: **19 Apr 2007, 12:11**

they started awarding belts again in 2002

Posted: **19 Apr 2007, 14:22**

am i wrong in thinking there was still a linear world champ knocking about..... moorer or someone in the line of descent from undisputed King TYson ? so The Ring Champ would not have been Holy or Lennox ?

Posted: **19 Apr 2007, 16:26**

funso banjo baby wrote:am i wrong in thinking there was still a linear world champ knocking about..... moorer or someone in the line of descent from undisputed King TYson ? so The Ring Champ would not have been Holy or Lennox ?

No Lewis was the linear champ by beating Briggs (who 'beat' Foreman)

Posted: **20 Apr 2007, 11:53**

Decagon wrote:
overhand_right wrote:Decagon, since you've torn up Grants record against name opponents, all of whom were competing in high profile fights with top 10 fighters at the time Grant knocked them out, please give me the run down of John Ruiz's opponents before his title shot.

I cant wait to hear your spin on why Jerry Ballard, Mario Cawley, Fernly Feliz, and Thomas Top Dawg Williams have better credentials than:

Al Cole, David Izon, Obed Sullivan, Lou Savarese, and Andrew Golota.

I cant wait for this.. its gonna be GREAT!!
I don't think either of them was a worthy #1 contender, but I also don't think that Grant was more deserving than Ruiz.
overhand_right wrote:Guys agenda is obviously to make Lewis look bad for taking on Grant instead of Ruiz, despite the fact Grant had more credibility and brought more money than the unknown undeserving Ruiz.
Stupid post. Lennox Lewis is arguably the best heavyweight since Larry Holmes, and he's been one of my favorites for nearly 20 years. I'm more concerned with the connection between HBO and Ring magazine, whose rankings have favored HBO for over a decade.
funso banjo baby wrote:am i wrong in thinking there was still a linear world champ knocking about..... moorer or someone in the line of descent from undisputed King TYson ? so The Ring Champ would not have been Holy or Lennox ?
Tyson unified the three titles with the Lineal title. He lost to Douglas, Douglas lost to Holyfield, Holyfield lost to Moorer, Moorer lost to Foreman, Foreman lost to Shannon Briggs, and Shannon Briggs lost to Lennox Lewis in 1998, after the Golota debacle.

Decagon. wns over a (prime) Izon and Golota by itself are may more worthy of a title shot than anything Ruiz had done. Come on . . . .Even Saverese had just lost a razor thin decision to Foreman and beaten an undefeated Lance Whitaker. Plus wins over your usual suspects for a HW prospect Purrity, Al Cole (1st guy to knock him out), Corey Sanders, Obed Sullivan, Lionel Butler etc.

Comparing this to the resume of Ruiz . . .it's NO CONTEST.

Posted: **24 Apr 2007, 09:19**

Funny how theres only 1 person in this thread who cant spot the difference between Grant knocking out a string of name heavyweights and John Ruiz winning 7 spurious regional title fights against unknown and unranked heavyweights (are we actually supposed to give credence to any titles that allow Thomas Top Dawg Williams and co to compete for them?).

Or maybe we're all employed by HBO and The Ring and in on there agenda?

His insight on Izon and Golota is laughable. The guys trolling is as clear as daylight.

Posted: **24 Apr 2007, 10:01**

Decagon wrote:A "prime" Izon was coming off a loss to a 5-6-2 cruiserweight who not only had no amateur career, but was once knocked out by that cop Roy Jones fought on HBO. David Tua had knocked out Izon, too. Why wasn't he ranked above Grant? He'd also beaten Ruiz, Rahman and Maskaev, along with barely losing to Ike Ibeabuchi in perhaps the greatest heavyweight matchup of the 1990s. What business did either of those two men have being ranked above Tua? Or Holyfield? Or even Maskaev? Andrew Golota was NOTHING. He won nearly every round of the Grant match, and then quit for the fourth time in a row in big fights. Grant was hardly impressive.

The WBA and WBC ranked John Ruiz #1 because he had a 7-0 record in NABF and NABA matchups; his ranking was justified. Michael Grant's #2 ranking in Ring magazine, however, wasn't.

You keep picking and poking at Grant's resume.

I ask you this.

Who did Ruiz beat which made him more deserving than Grant?

You already explained the boxing politics via the NABF and crap, I don't care about that.

Simply, which opponents on Ruiz's resume until the year 2000 raise it above Grants before he fought Lewis???

ANSWER THAT.

Posted: **24 Apr 2007, 10:06**

Hes already more than made it clear that he cant, hence the need to be creative with the truth re Grant victims, and cling to this laughable NABF/NABA trinket that is defended v the likes of Top Dawg Williams and Fernley Feliz et al.

Laughable.

Posted: **24 Apr 2007, 14:04**

Decagon wrote:As I said before, neither man was the most deserving contender, but Ruiz had a more solid body of work in 12-round fights.

"A more solid body of work in 12 round fights"

now you are really pushing it . . .I never knew taking fighters the distance raised your title credentials.

The fact that in your response you couldn't name any fighters says it all right there.

Posted: **25 Apr 2007, 04:37**

Please do elaborate decagon, share your wisdom with us...

Posted: **01 May 2007, 05:28**

Maybe they ignore minor titles because they allow the likes of Ruiz to accumalate winning runs versus Fernley Feliz, Top Dawg Williams, Mario Cawley et al, why on earth should any man be gifted a high ranking due to those paltry 'wins', oh boxing genius Decagon.....?

Posted: **01 May 2007, 14:26**

Decagon wrote:... because beating Lou Savarese and getting the shit kicked out of you by Andrew Golota is so much better? Grant was as unworthy of his #2 ranking by Ring magazine as Ruiz was of being named the #2 heavyweight in the world.

B/c beating Saverese, BEATING Golota, Izon, along with Sullivan and Cole, yes, were much better than anything Ruiz had done.

Posted: **02 May 2007, 04:49**

So coming off the floor to deck and knockout Andrew Golota is the same as Ruiz beating Top Dawg Williams?

You are exposing yourself for the know nothing troll you really are.

Grant beats-
Golota (2 famous beat downs of Bowe, kayos of Danell Nicholson & Samson Pouha, only loss to Lennox Lewis)

Savarese (beat Lance Whitaker, kayo of Buster Mathis, lost a SD to world champ Foreman)

Sullivan (a long string of wins over Ruiz-choice of opponents, only a MD loss to Hasim Rahman, never stopped til met Grant)

Izon (Olympian, upset by Maurice Harris but was taking Tua to a SD til stopped in the 12 in a FOTY candidate- as opposed to getting iced in 19 seconds by Tua- also upset kayo of Lou Savarese)

Cole (6 cruiserweight title wins, 1 loss at heavy to Witherspoon, never been stopped til Grant)

(This is without even bothering to mention Grants wins over Lionel Butler, Jorge Luis Gonzalez, Ross Puritty, T-Rex Sanders et al)

Decagon is trying to convince us that Ruiz's string of wins is superior to Grants. These wins were over:

Tucker- 39 yrs old, coming off a 3 knockdown, 2 rd kayo loss to Herbie Hide

Jerry Ballard- no wins of note, draw with 40 yr old Greg Page

Mario Cawley- no wins of note, every name heavyweight he has faced has knocked him out inside 4 rds or less

Fernley Feliz- no wins of note, every name heavyweight he has faced has beaten him.

Top Dawg Williams- no wins of note, every name heavyweight he has faced was knocked him out inside 8 rds inc. a 1 rd kayo loss to Marion Wilson

(this is without mentioning Ruiz's kayo loss to Tua in 19 sec... oops)

THESE, ladies & gentleman, THESE are the results of John Ruiz that Decagon is using to claim Ruiz was in actual fact a better or comparable resume to Michael Grant.

Decagon consider yourself exposed.

Posted: **02 May 2007, 08:28**

Terry- finally you have written a post where i agree with every single last word. Even the use of punctuation and paragraphs was flawless. I raise my beer glass to thee, good sir.

PS- the Harold Lederman problem. Yep, another guy with a self serving agenda, another judge not to be trusted or believed. Why the f#ck would a man like Lennox Lewis need to fawn over such a non-entity? Its time HBO told Lederman to do one, not that they will because he fits in with theri agenda most of the time.

Posted: **02 May 2007, 10:20**

Terry D wrote:Funniest thing about Lewis-Grant was how many US-based pundits picked Grant to win over Lewis then did an about-turn and denigrated Grant as never having a chance. It makes you wonder how they got it so wrong.

Part of the problem with Lewis is his perceived aloofness. British fans did not like him because he won a lot plus he refused to play the Bruno happy/sad/depressed clown role and, damningly, did not poke fun at himself on a regular basis. Mainly because there was a little to poke fun at, the man was a class fighter.

Part of the US problem seems to be, and it is a general fan thing, that he did not kow-tow to the fan-boys and media. Lewis is not a caricature, he is a rounded individual and boxing fans cannot, by and large, deal with that. You cannot get misty-eyed with him like you can with Tyson and demonise/laud him or, alternatively, pat him on the head and blame the ghetto.

Another problem was put forward by Howard Lederman who confessed to finding Lewis aloof as, god forbid, there were times Lewis would enter a fight arena and not say 'hello' to Howard and pander to him. Lederman said that, on the other hand, the K brothers would make a fuss of everyone and were approachable.

Wlad K is certainly approachable, witness Sanders approaching him and KOing him after Wlad made a prolonged ring entrance to please his fans in what looked like a scene from Gladiator mixed with the Fourth Reich.

All this stuff from Lederman explains his frankly crap card for Lewis-Tua, who incidently was also given a big shot against Lewis and Tua's sole act of success in the fight was managing to choke back his tears of frustration in the corner.

So there you have it, Lennox Lews, not fooked in the head, not a basket-case, not a fawner and guilty of being aloof, possibly to avoid that millionth conversation about whether he would have beaten a 'prime' Tyson as people sit around muttering "it is a funny old game! Styles make fights, fights make styles, I zigged when I shoulda zagged, we shoula stood in bed".

Glad someone else remembers the hype surrounding Grant before his meeting with Lewis. The subsequent denigration is something I've witnessed time and time again. Remember Holmes defeat of Cooney? There were a lot of people telling me how Cooney was going to win, who then after the fight told me, "Cooney was never any good!"

Posted: **02 May 2007, 10:33**

I think Grant actually was a good fighter. Somewhat unrefined but the power and results are there for all to see. He never recovered from the Lewis flop it seems. He seems to of drifted off, wonder whether he's injured again or given up..?

Posted: **03 May 2007, 04:59**

Ring Magazine's heavyweight ratings of April 12, 2000 (Lewis fought Grant on the 29th):

1. Lennox Lewis
2. Evander Holyfield
3. Michael Grant
4. David Tua
5. Mike Tyson
6. Andrew Golota
7. Oleg Maskaev
8. Chris Byrd
9. David Izon
10. Derrick Jefferson

Michael Grant was indeed the highest rated heavyweight that Lewis had not already beaten.
Although hindight is 20-20 and John Ruiz turned out to be better than expected at the time, Lewis did the only sensible and most respected thing by fighting Grant at the time he did.
Remember, several experts and name journalists were picking Grant to KO Lewis.

-KOKid-

Posted: **03 May 2007, 05:21**

Yep, many were picking Grant to ice Lewis late.

And nobody could see into the future and realise that the WBA would continue to gift John Ruiz his WBA belt year after year, no matter how many humiliating losses to middleweights he suffered/unedifying mauls with fellow DK heavyweights he engaged himself in.

That top 10 is good. There was little appeal in a 3rd Holyfield fight, Tua was waiting on his mandatory and taking safe fights after the Rahman escape, Grant was the best fight. John Ruiz was quite rightly not ranked since he hadn't beat anyone, the world was sane (other than the WBAs world).

Posted: **03 May 2007, 08:16**

overhand_right wrote:That top 10 is good.

Sure is. Today's top 10 is the poorest ever in my opinion.
After Lewis retired everyone starting complaining about how bad it was, but look at it now.
Two years ago everyone would laugh of the idea that Oleg Maskaev and Shannon Briggs would be rated in the top 5, let alone carrying two of the belts.
Although Maskaev worked himself back in Cinderella Man style, Briggs just came out of nowhere an KO'd Sergei Liachovich, who himself came out of nowhere and beat Lamon Brewster, who himself came out of nowhere and was lucky to catch a Klitschko who punched himself out.

It seems almost every heavyweight today makes the top 10 by way of upset instead of fight-by-fight.

-KOKid-

BoxRec

Why did the Ring not declare Lennox champ after he beat Holy

Why did the Ring not declare Lennox champ after he beat Holy