Both were sloppy as fuck but with chilling power. I'd go with Ruddock at this stage purely because he was able to withstand Tyson's bombs.
Ruddock is a mystery to me... He stands up to Tyson but is bombed out by Lewis who struggled to put away Bruno who Tyson destroyed. Then Ruddock gets knocked out by Morrison. I don’t trust ruddock’s chin. I actually think Wilder would have stopped him...although on paper ruddock should win.
Ruddock wasn't the same after the second Tyson fight. He took a bad beating in that one. We've seen Ruddock in wars and although he came up short he was game and dangerous. We just don't know what Wilder would do against a guy that can crack and won't fold the first time he takes a big shot.
The Morrison KO was the definition of a lucky punch, and was a terrible early (corrupted) stoppage to boot
Wilder looks as if he was easy to hit, yet Ruddock actually got hit a lot. Not that it matters though, since mental image of 90s always beats the reality of the day
Ugo truly has nothing meaningful to say anymore. Every post is the same "Of course you guys pick against the modern guy..."
How is that less meaningful than creating shitload of new topics, only to make the point that this and this fighter from the past would have beaten everybody now? Look, I am not claiming we live a great new era nor that Wilder is anything special. I just don't understand the difference in judging fighters of different eras. Guys like Ruddock had bad performances and he got hit a lot too, just like the guys now. That is all I am saying.
In MOST mythical matchups that are posted, about 75-80% of the time, the old time fighter IS the better fighter. If you post Floyd vs Ray Mancini, then obviously, I'm not gonna pick the old time guy.
As flawed and power-crazy as Ruddock was, I would definitely favor him at this point over what I’ve seen of Wilder.
