Who defeated more World Heavyweight Champions, Vitaly Klitschko or John Ruiz?

Gents, I can't check the stats on the boxrec at the moment, but could someone tell me who defeated more World Heavyweight Champions, Vitaly Klitschko or John Ruiz?
Thanks in advance.

 

Off the top of my head, John Ruiz. Surely, you are not suggesting that Ruiz is somehow better are you? Roy Jones fans used to bring up somew stat about Roy beating former or current champions, being a champion means little.

 

Neither has actually defeated a world champion. Both I guess have three victories over title holders (Tucker, Holyfield, Rahman vs Peter, Sanders & Hide)

 

I'm sorry, I should've been more clear. By World Champion, I meant someone who was either WBA,WBC or IBF titleholder.
So, I'm sure Sanders and Hide at some point held a WBE, WBU, WBO or some other such title, but they never held a proper championsip title.
With that being said, if my momery serves me correctly, Vitaly did defeat three world champions: Peter, Juan Carlos Gomez (former cruiserweighr champion) and Orlin Norris (former cruiserweight champion).

So, who would you say has achieved more and is a better boxer:
boxer A, who defeated Holyfield, Rahman and Tucker or a
boxer B, who defeated Peter, Gomez and Norris?

 

I am going to go with fighter B.

Fighter A fought Holyfield, Rahman and Tucker when they were all shot and was not able to kayo 2 of the 3.

Fighter B knocked out all 3. Fighter A has an illegal style and fighter A was given victories due to this illegal style. Without said style fighter A would never have any victories at the world class level. Furthermore, Fighter A would be killed literally if his greasy, slimely, greco-roman wrestling loving smelly ass ever had the balls to fight fighter B. Anyone that thinks fighter B is worse than fighter A obviously knows nothing about boxing and should never post here.

 

Weren't Norris and Gomez shot when they fought fighter B? Not to mention that, unlike Holyfield, Rahman or Tucker, there were never heavyweight champions of the world to begin with?
Plus, what if I were to tell you that fighter B did attempt to fight Rahman 4(!!) times AFTER fighter A defeated "shot" Rahman, but, unlike fighter A, fighter B never actually found the courage to face Haseem.

Since when not being able to KO seriously counts against a fighter? Some of the greatest fighters in the history were far from KO artsits, but what made them great was their ability and willingness to face the best of the best.
Think about it.....
Fighter A faces and defeats Evander Holyfield, a boxer, that shits all over guys like Norris and Gomez, not only as crusiweweight, but as heavyweight as well.....
Or, fighter A defeats Haseem Rahman, and, right afterwards, fighter B, instead of facing fighter, chooses to fight.....Haseem Rahman, only to claim 4(!!) injuries in a row, and not finding the courage to face Haseem.
Imagine, if fighter A claimed injuries 4 times, before facing Rahman, and then withdrew from the fightr altogether...fighter A would've been (deservinlgy) called a coward....yet, fighter A didn't claim any injuries and simply walked to the ring, and defeated Rahman....unlike fighter B....

 

Ruiz never beat anyone good. If you think HaSBEEN would beat Vitali more power to you. He got humiliated and stopped by his pussy younger brother. Ruiz stunk his way into fights. Let me ask you something, do you think that fat greasy, smelly bum Ruiz would beat Vitali?

Another question, did Vitali lose to 2 blown up middeweights with no power at Heavy?

 

show you how dillusionnal and stupid Klitshko fans are when they complain about someone else holding, especially considering last night fiasco where an octopuss couldn't have done worse ( or better if you're one who's mesmerized by Klithscko hot body )

 

He's beaten better fighters than Vitaly ever beat, don't you agree?

I'm not saying Rahman would've beaten anyone. I'm not into "would've, could've, should've" game
All I know is that Vitaly attempted to fight Rahman 4 times, and his fear got better of him every time he tried to face The Rock. I don't blame Vitaly for his fear, though, since he knew that Rahman had easily defeated the best man on Vitaly's resume.

What does this have to do with anything? Chris Byrd, who knocked Vitaly out was also defeated by his pussy younger brother. Does that mean we should no longer think of Chris as the man who stopped Vitaly?

Once again, we're not discussing fighters' styles. We're discussing their achievements.

It doesn't matter what I think. I have my opinion and you have yours and they have the fights precisely for the purpose of determining who beats whom. In the absense of such a fight, we can only compare what Vitaly achieved in the ring (beating 1 heavyweight champ and 2 cruserweight champs) with what Ruiz achieved in the ring (beating 3 heavyweight champs and 1 cruiserweight champ). Ruiz clearly has a huge edge and Vitaly's only goal from now on should be attempting to achieve the level of the opposition that Ruiz has beaten (and clearly, beating bums like Arreola is not the step in right direction)

First of all, as you surely know, Ruiz has never lost to 2 blown up middeweights. He only lost to 1, an all-time great in Roy Jones Jr, and managed to last the distance in the process.
Vitaly, on the other, at his fight with a blown up middeweight (and definetely not an all-time great) with no power, didn't even manage to last the distance and was stopped in the 10-th round.
Even this comparison clearly favors Ruiz.

 

Spin

 

Who thinks Byrd stopped Vitaly?:bangh:

 

You mean, he didn't? The fight went the distance?

 

Fighter A sucks, and Fighter B would make him quit.

 

Yes, "would" being a keyword here.
Unfortunately, I'm not interested in what "would" happen, but only in what actually happened (as, for example, actually fighter A defeated better quality opposition than fighter B)

 

Fighter A also lost to worse opposition.

 

Yes, that very well might be, but he also defeated better opposition (you have to admit, when fighter A continiously fights better level of opposition, some losses are inevitable, whereas fighter B can fight bums throughout his career, losing less frequently, but also not having victories over anyone of signficance)

 

Vitaly blew out his shoulder because he hit Byrd at will and you know this.

 

I'm sorry, I'm not interested in long history of Vitaly's injuries.
Vitaly lost to Maskaev because he was injured
Vitaly lost to Byrd because he was injured
Vitaly lost to Lewis because he was injured
Vitaly couldn't face Rahman (a guy Ruiz had handily beaten much earlier) when they agreed to fight the first time around.
Vitaly couldn't face Rahman (a guy Ruiz had handily beaten much earlier) when they agreed to fight the second time around.
Vitaly couldn't face Rahman (a guy Ruiz had handily beaten much earlier) when they agreed to fight the third time around.
Vitaly couldn't face Rahman (a guy Ruiz had handily beaten much earlier) when they agreed to fight the fourth time around.
Vitaly couldn't face McCline (a guy Ruiz had handily beaten much earlier) when they agreed to fight the first time around.
I couldn't care less about any of that.
All I care about is the result of the fight, which is Byrd TKOing Vitaly in the 10-th round, whereas Ruiz was able to last the distance in his fight against a former middleweight.

 

Dym at it again with the trolling and Klit-bashing, but I think he's at the wrong forum for that.

The Klitschko fans here aren't over-emotional fags like the ones over at b-scene and ESB.

 

Since we both want to be objective and analytical experts here, let's forget about all titles since we all know they have little meaning. Instead, let's compare fighter A's and Fighter B's records against opponents who were in the top-10 of the division at the fight time.

Fighter A record 5-5-1 (wins over Holyfield, Johnson, Rahman, Oquendo and Golota, losses to Holyfield, Toney, Valuev twice and Chagaev)

Fighter B record 7-2 (wins over Hide, Johnson, Sanders, Peter, Gomez, Arreola and Williams (who did not deserve the spot), losses to Lennox and Byrd)

Now if we also point out that fighter B holds a plenty of victories over guys who were close to top 10 and fighter A has been whupped by handful of them, I have to give the nod to fighter B

 

:: You should replace the pic of a shark with one of a Troll.

 

Well, if titles have little meaning, then clearly a top-10 of the division has even less meaning. So the rest of your post is irrelevant, since it's based on faulty logical supposition.
But anyhow, what does the fact that Vitaly's achievements are so close (worse than Ruiz, IMO, and better than RUIZ IYO) to that of....John Ruiz, of all people.....tells us about Vitaly?

 

And he's not too good at it.

 

Ruiz is fcking awful. Vitali for the time being is unbeatable. There's a difference.

 

You're entitled to your opinion. I am more interested in facts, then opinions, though.

You're entitled to your opinion. I am more interested in facts, then opinions, though.

 

Top-10 has clearly more meaning since most people and experts share most opinions about them but absolutely nobody thinks that some title holder is actually the best fighter in the world.

Ruiz has never been rated to the top-3 of the division. I think it bothers you since you really like his style, but maybe his day will come in the future:bears:

 

Who are these "people" and "experts" are you referring to?
I can give you dozens of examples where these "experts" were so completely wrong, that their opinion shouldn't matter at all.
Let's take, for example, the experts from The Ring magazine.
In 2004, they proclaimed that the vacant heavyweight title will be determined in the fight between contender #1 (Vitaly) and contender #3 (Sanders).
Now, their own rules clearly state that a vacant title can only be won in a fight between #1 and #2 (Byrd).
Yet, "the expers" decided to ignore their own rules.
Furthemore, #2 of their rating already defeated (by TKO, no less) #1 of their rating.
Don't you think it was a scandalous (possibly corrupt) decision made by "experts" in this case?
#2 contender defeats #1 contender, but the title is determined in a fight between #1 and #3??

And, of course, just the fact that defeating Corrie Sanders makes one a world champion is ridiculous.
Haseem Rahman knocked him out years ago, yet no one proclaimed him a champion, because everyone knew that Sanders is a bum.

He was rated #1 of the division for years by people who actually take into account fighter's actual achievements and not hypothetical victories, styles ,etc

I don't. I've never met anyone who likes this style. But, once again, this is about fighters' achievements, not their styles.

His day already came....Beating an outstanding level of opposition....Beating fighters wo other fighters simply refused to face (4 times in a row, for example).....That counts for a lot....

 

Poor Christobal!

 

Hey I'm all for hyping up Ruiz's resume since Roy beat him for the title, but this is ridiculous.

 

Yeah.

I just wonder where this little attention seeker went for all that time.

I guess he was just waiting for a bigger audience.

Nothing like a Mayweather fight to bring back the trolls.

The next troll gathering should be in November.