Mike tyson vs riddick bowe 1991?

[Ambling Alp II]

Tyson didn't beat Golota. It was a No-contest. doesn't matter of people think it was a stupid rule. It was a rule and Tyson broke it.
A big part of the reason that Golota did as well as he was against Bowe because he was constantly fouling Bowe.
Also worth mentioning that Andrew Golota is about the most inconsistent fighter that you can find. You never knew how well he would perform. comparing two guys by what they did against him doesn't mean a whole lot.

[gilgamesh]

Tyson didn't beat Golota. It was a No-contest. doesn't matter of people think it was a stupid rule. It was a rule and Tyson broke it.
A big part of the reason that Golota did as well as he was against Bowe because he was constantly fouling Bowe.
Also worth mentioning that Andrew Golota is about the most inconsistent fighter that you can find. You never knew how well he would perform. comparing two guys by what they did against him doesn't mean a whole lot.

In 1991 Bowe beats Mike I think. In 1996 or 97 the advantage may have swung Mike's way, but the proposed matchup of 1991 favors Bowe i think.

And yes officially Mike didn't beat Golota, but when you watch Mike whip Golota's ass, your eyes aren't lying to you.

[Cojimar 1946]

Tyson didn't beat Golota. It was a No-contest. doesn't matter of people think it was a stupid rule. It was a rule and Tyson broke it.
A big part of the reason that Golota did as well as he was against Bowe because he was constantly fouling Bowe.
Also worth mentioning that Andrew Golota is about the most inconsistent fighter that you can find. You never knew how well he would perform. comparing two guys by what they did against him doesn't mean a whole lot.

Marijuana is not a performance enhancing drug so I will happily count it as a win for Tyson

Holyfield on the other hand was clearly on steroids for much of his career so there is a good argument for throwing out his wins unless the opponents were also all on steroids

[gilgamesh]

Tyson didn't beat Golota. It was a No-contest. doesn't matter of people think it was a stupid rule. It was a rule and Tyson broke it.
A big part of the reason that Golota did as well as he was against Bowe because he was constantly fouling Bowe.
Also worth mentioning that Andrew Golota is about the most inconsistent fighter that you can find. You never knew how well he would perform. comparing two guys by what they did against him doesn't mean a whole lot.

Marijuana is not a performance enhancing drug so I will happily count it as a win for Tyson

Holyfield on the other hand was clearly on steroids for much of his career so there is a good argument for throwing out his wins unless the opponents were also all on steroids

What people allegedly were on makes no difference. Holyfield never tested positive for PED's. So all the rumors and speculation in the world means jack sh*t.

If Holyfield did 'em, and got away with it. Good for him.

As for Marijuana and Mike Tyson, I'm 100% in agreement with you on that one.

[Ambling Alp II]

Tyson didn't beat Golota. It was a No-contest. doesn't matter of people think it was a stupid rule. It was a rule and Tyson broke it.
A big part of the reason that Golota did as well as he was against Bowe because he was constantly fouling Bowe.
Also worth mentioning that Andrew Golota is about the most inconsistent fighter that you can find. You never knew how well he would perform. comparing two guys by what they did against him doesn't mean a whole lot.

In 1991 Bowe beats Mike I think. In 1996 or 97 the advantage may have swung Mike's way, but the proposed matchup of 1991 favors Bowe i think.

And yes officially Mike didn't beat Golota, but when you watch Mike whip Golota's ass, your eyes aren't lying to you.

Wait a minute. Hold on here. We are supposed to believe our eyes? You have been arguing against that for many months now. It's not supposed to matter how good someone looks in the ring. It's about WBS title fights against crappy opponents. Not supposed to matter how well a fighter actually performs. If we actually go by how good the fighter was, we couldn't rank Klitschko in the top 10, or better yet Wilder in the top 20. A close loss in a great fight against a legend is not as impressive as a title defense against a club fighter or a kickboxer. Competitive title defenses in mediocre fights are where it's at.

So actually matter that Tyson whipped his ass if a paper title is not involved? If a stellar organization like WBO says it's an important fight that's one thing. This wasn't a title fight!
This changed everything. Looks like we are going to judging people on how well they could fight!

[gilgamesh]

I never didn't do that.

Wladimir is definitely an all time Top 10 or Top 15 Heavyweight, and he both looked like it, and has the record to show it. Your personal disdain for him cannot take away his talent or achievement.

Deontay Wilder would have to be no worse than a Top 30 Heavyweight, as he does look better than many other Alphabet Titlists, and quite a few of the Lineal Champions as well, he had many flaws, but once you get beyond the Cream of the Crop in the Top 15 or so that goes for anybody. Even the guys at the very top had flaws, nobody is perfect.

[Ambling Alp II]

You never do that.

Not one guy ahead of Klitschko got stopped three times in his career during his prime. I think only one was stopped twice. Many guys behind him are the same way. and they have much better wins.

Just because a corrupt boxing organization (i.e. all of them) deems a fight a title fight doesn't mean anything. At all.

Yes, everyone has flaws. They are human beings. The real greats don't have two major flaws. Klitschko had a weak chin and poor stamina. Others had multiple things they were not great at. But not major flaws.

There are many, many fighters less flawed than Wilder. Wilder has power. That it's period. Zero boxing skills. Can't jab, not fast, not a good chin, not a good defense, not active enough etc.
He doesn't have one big win in his entire career. Not one. Had he fought in most previous eras you probably would never have heard of him.
Fighters that aren't or a barely on your radar were far better boxers than him and have better wins.

[gilgamesh]

You never do that.

Not one guy ahead of Klitschko got stopped three times in his career during his prime. I think only one was stopped twice. Many guys behind him are the same way. and they have much better wins.

Just because a corrupt boxing organization (i.e. all of them) deems a fight a title fight doesn't mean anything. At all.

Yes, everyone has flaws. They are human beings. The real greats don't have two major flaws. Klitschko had a weak chin and poor stamina. Others had multiple things they were not great at. But not major flaws.

There are many, many fighters less flawed than Wilder. Wilder has power. That it's period. Zero boxing skills. Can't jab, not fast, not a good chin, not a good defense, not active enough etc.
He doesn't have one big win in his entire career. Not one. Had he fought in most previous eras you probably would never have heard of him.
Fighters that aren't or a barely on your radar were far better boxers than him and have better wins.

Yeah you've said it before. Guys with half as many wins, and twice as many losses are better than Wladimir Klitschko because they just are, and I'm an idiot because I don't know this.

Klitschko is more successful than all but the very, very best Heavyweights there ever were. Whether you give him credit or not for all he achieved doesn't matter.

You only see his failures, and not his success. It's a personal bias of yours that you just can't get past as long as you insist the likes of Jersey Joe Walcott and Max Baer were somehow better than him You'll always be wrong though, and any unbiased observer of the Sport will know this to be true.

I wouldn't pick Klitschko to beat either Tyson or Bowe in their prime I'll tell ya that. I'd give him a better shot against Mike than I would Bowe, but I wouldn't favor him in either matchup.

[Cojimar 1946]

Tyson didn't beat Golota. It was a No-contest. doesn't matter of people think it was a stupid rule. It was a rule and Tyson broke it.
A big part of the reason that Golota did as well as he was against Bowe because he was constantly fouling Bowe.
Also worth mentioning that Andrew Golota is about the most inconsistent fighter that you can find. You never knew how well he would perform. comparing two guys by what they did against him doesn't mean a whole lot.

Marijuana is not a performance enhancing drug so I will happily count it as a win for Tyson

Holyfield on the other hand was clearly on steroids for much of his career so there is a good argument for throwing out his wins unless the opponents were also all on steroids

What people allegedly were on makes no difference. Holyfield never tested positive for PED's. So all the rumors and speculation in the world means jack sh*t.

If Holyfield did 'em, and got away with it. Good for him.

As for Marijuana and Mike Tyson, I'm 100% in agreement with you on that one.

Human growth hormone was found to be being sent to his address under the name Evan Fields.

My understanding is that with Holyfield the evidence for PED usage is pretty overwhelming

[gilgamesh]

Clearly that package was for his neighbor

[Ambling Alp II]

You never do that.

Not one guy ahead of Klitschko got stopped three times in his career during his prime. I think only one was stopped twice. Many guys behind him are the same way. and they have much better wins.

Just because a corrupt boxing organization (i.e. all of them) deems a fight a title fight doesn't mean anything. At all.

Yes, everyone has flaws. They are human beings. The real greats don't have two major flaws. Klitschko had a weak chin and poor stamina. Others had multiple things they were not great at. But not major flaws.

There are many, many fighters less flawed than Wilder. Wilder has power. That it's period. Zero boxing skills. Can't jab, not fast, not a good chin, not a good defense, not active enough etc.
He doesn't have one big win in his entire career. Not one. Had he fought in most previous eras you probably would never have heard of him.
Fighters that aren't or a barely on your radar were far better boxers than him and have better wins.

Yeah you've said it before. Guys with half as many wins, and twice as many losses are better than Wladimir Klitschko because they just are, and I'm an idiot because I don't know this.

Klitschko is more successful than all but the very, very best Heavyweights there ever were. Whether you give him credit or not for all he achieved doesn't matter.

You only see his failures, and not his success. It's a personal bias of yours that you just can't get past as long as you insist the likes of Jersey Joe Walcott and Max Baer were somehow better than him You'll always be wrong though, and any unbiased observer of the Sport will know this to be true.

I wouldn't pick Klitschko to beat either Tyson or Bowe in their prime I'll tell ya that. I'd give him a better shot against Mike than I would Bowe, but I wouldn't favor him in either matchup.

Off of the top of my head, I don't know of anyone that had both twice as many wins and twice as many losses as Klitschko that I would rate of Klitschko. But a guy can have a much worse record than another guy and be better.

This is what bothers me and others. In boxing, you have to dig a lot deeper than statistics or what you consider "accomplishments" or what you call "success.

When someone is new to boxing, they naturally think of it like they do basketball football, baseball. They think the stats are as reliable as these sports. Then after a while, they start to realize how different the sport is from the other sports. At first they see a guy that 15-0 or 20-0 or whatever, and are surprised when they see him the first time and he loses.
But after they have been a fan for a while and seen this happen umpteen times, they realize how deceiving statistics can be.
They might dig into fights from before their time and realize that often non-title fights between two contenders tells you more than a WBO or WBC title fight will tell you.

They see that something is off when they see someone like Wilder who their eyes tell them wasn't very good pile up a stellar record and lots of title defenses.

They start to understand the importance of a fighter's prime when rating him as well as rating his opponents who are fighting him when isn't in his prime.

They realize that's it's hard to brat a truly great fighter once than winning 20 fights against guys not that good. They realize that you can always find an easy opponent to beat.

What is baffling is that you seem to act someone who has been a fan for a very short time and have learned very little. You say you do but it's very obvious that you don't.

[Klee Gluckman]

Bowe v Tyson for me

A post prison Tyson gets destroyed by a pre Golota Bowe, of this I have no bubt.

Bowe never faced a puncher like Tyson. Tyson punched harder than Holyfield.

Tyson in 1991 can fight for 12 rounds, a post prison Tyson cold not.

I really believe prison destroyed Tyson, his stamina was gone.

I believe Tyson between 1989 and 1991 was every bit as capable as he was in 1988, but often lazy.

If it goes past 7 rounds Bowe wins, but would it.

[Riddick Bowie]

You never do that.

Not one guy ahead of Klitschko got stopped three times in his career during his prime. I think only one was stopped twice. Many guys behind him are the same way. and they have much better wins.

Just because a corrupt boxing organization (i.e. all of them) deems a fight a title fight doesn't mean anything. At all.

Yes, everyone has flaws. They are human beings. The real greats don't have two major flaws. Klitschko had a weak chin and poor stamina. Others had multiple things they were not great at. But not major flaws.

There are many, many fighters less flawed than Wilder. Wilder has power. That it's period. Zero boxing skills. Can't jab, not fast, not a good chin, not a good defense, not active enough etc.
He doesn't have one big win in his entire career. Not one. Had he fought in most previous eras you probably would never have heard of him.
Fighters that aren't or a barely on your radar were far better boxers than him and have better wins.

Yeah you've said it before. Guys with half as many wins, and twice as many losses are better than Wladimir Klitschko because they just are, and I'm an idiot because I don't know this.

Klitschko is more successful than all but the very, very best Heavyweights there ever were. Whether you give him credit or not for all he achieved doesn't matter.

You only see his failures, and not his success. It's a personal bias of yours that you just can't get past as long as you insist the likes of Jersey Joe Walcott and Max Baer were somehow better than him You'll always be wrong though, and any unbiased observer of the Sport will know this to be true.

I wouldn't pick Klitschko to beat either Tyson or Bowe in their prime I'll tell ya that. I'd give him a better shot against Mike than I would Bowe, but I wouldn't favor him in either matchup.

Off of the top of my head, I don't know of anyone that had both twice as many wins and twice as many losses as Klitschko that I would rate of Klitschko. But a guy can have a much worse record than another guy and be better.

This is what bothers me and others. In boxing, you have to dig a lot deeper than statistics or what you consider "accomplishments" or what you call "success.

When someone is new to boxing, they naturally think of it like they do basketball football, baseball. They think the stats are as reliable as these sports. Then after a while, they start to realize how different the sport is from the other sports. At first they see a guy that 15-0 or 20-0 or whatever, and are surprised when they see him the first time and he loses.
But after they have been a fan for a while and seen this happen umpteen times, they realize how deceiving statistics can be.
They might dig into fights from before their time and realize that often non-title fights between two contenders tells you more than a WBO or WBC title fight will tell you.

They see that something is off when they see someone like Wilder who their eyes tell them wasn't very good pile up a stellar record and lots of title defenses.

They start to understand the importance of a fighter's prime when rating him as well as rating his opponents who are fighting him when isn't in his prime.

They realize that's it's hard to brat a truly great fighter once than winning 20 fights against guys not that good. They realize that you can always find an easy opponent to beat.

What is baffling is that you seem to act someone who has been a fan for a very short time and have learned very little. You say you do but it's very obvious that you don't.

You're trying to teach a man who is demonstrably incapable of learning.

Wlad has better stats than everyone who destroyed him. Gilgamesh will never be able to wrap his head around that. His thinking is on display in every post he writes. You might as well screech into the abyss for all the difference it will make. The abyss of Gilgamesh will screech back, 'but win column... Knockout percentage.... Alphabet titles defended.....' for ever and ever and ever

[gilgamesh]

You can also see with your eyes that Wladimir was an effective fighter. Difficult to hit. A sledgehammer jab and right hand. A damn good left hook when he used it, and throughout the majority of his career I'd imagine he won a pretty goddamn large amount of the total rounds he fought.

Good statistics don't happen by accident. All of the Alphabet Champions of the 1980's reigned in a similarly weak time as Wladimir's, and couldn't have a fraction of his success.

The reason why I'm not "learning" anything from you guys is because you're not teaching me anything. I know everything you know about all these fighters. Probably more considering it's fresher on my mind from having done a deep dive into most of these guys very recently.

Where would you rank Wladimir on the All time list? Who would you have ahead of him that I don't? How far back on your list is he?

Also why does every thread become about sh*tting on Wladimir Klitschko?

[Ambling Alp II]

Yes Klitschko did some things well. Have acknowledged that many times. He also had a weak chin and poor stamina. Great fighters don't have two major weaknesses like that. You have to weigh the good vs the bad.
Never said the alphabet soup titleholders of the 1980s were great except for Tyson and of course Holmes.

They had their own strengths and weaknesses. They had things to deal with that Klitscjko did not. First, as mentioned their was Holmes and then Tyson. They were never going to be the #1 heavyweight and neither would Klitschko in the 1980s. He would never have had a ton of title defenses in that time. And they also fought each sometimes. Giving each other losses.
But yes, these are the guys that Klitschko should be compared to.

It is just absolutely absurd to have Klitschko ranked ahead of Tyson, Liston, Dempsey, even Joe Frazier!!!

Where should he be? Well he is far behind the 8 guys that you have in front of him. And course the 4 that I just mentioned. There are guys who don't seem to be on your radar... Wills, Langford, Jeannette, McVey. Also, Jeffries, Tunney, Charles, Norton,. That's 20 right there. All clearly ahead of him. There several other guys that should be ahead of him but it's closer. Then several more guys who are roughly even.

But it's not just Klitschko. Fury, Wilder, Usyk and Tommy Morrsion are in your Top 20. Tommy Morrsion has a decision over a senior citizen and nothing else. At all. Joshua is just outside of it! I mean come on. Wilder probably should not be in the top 100. He has beaten absolutely nobody.

[gilgamesh]

I'm aware of the likes of Langford, Wills, McVea, and all of that era. I'm aware of them but I always contend that it's difficult to know exactly where these fellows place since all you can do is read about them with little to no footage available on these guys in most cases.

I've covered Jeffries, Tunney, Charles and many of the others you've mentioned so they're on my radar and they're less accomplished than Wladimir Klitschko. In Tunney's case that only applies to the Heavyweight portion of his career not his entire career. Ken Norton falls well behind Wladimir to me as well. So it's not that these men aren't on my radar. I just assess their talent differently than you do.

No Heavyweight besides Wladimir has 2 weaknesses?

I'd agree that Wladimir in all likelihood couldn't have beaten Holmes or Tyson at their best in the 1980's. I'd favor him confidently over all the others of the era though.

[Ambling Alp II]

There is actually some footage of them. But obviously they were great fighters and better than Klitschko. Even with old footage you tell they were better than Wilder by quite a bit.
Klitschko "accomplishments" aren't that impressive. WBS title defenses don't count. Hus victim list is a joke compared to these other guys.

As for Ken Norton, let me put it this way. If you are going to use some points system for win, Norton's win over Ali is worth more than all of Klitschko's together. Beating Ali is a real accomplishment. He certainly wasn't perfect; but he is criminally underrated these days.

Never said that no great heavyweight besides Klitschko has two weaknesses.
I have said that no great heavyweight has two major weaknesses. Have said this many times.
Nooe of these guys mentioned did. There were things they weren't great at, but they didn't have multiple weaknesses.
Klitschko did.
And of course guys like Wilder, Morrison, etc. were nowhere near the top 20.

If you really want to understand how a good a fighter was (0r wasn't), one thing that you have learn what it was like to fight in whatever era he was fighting in.

[gilgamesh]

I don't have to learn anything about Boxing that i don't already know that's something you need to understand.

I agree Ken Norton's win over Ali is bigger than any 1 win that Wladimir has, but that's the 1 and only thing he has over Wladimir. Wladimir laps him on just about every other noteworthy measurement.

Your opinion that title wins are meaningless is just nonsense.

Langford, Wills and the likes of that era may indeed have been better than Wladimir. Based on things I can read about them that would certainly have been the opinion of some of the writers of their time.

However since I can't see those guys in any way that can confirm nor deny their talent, then I just kinda lump them into the Mythical Figures of Boxing category and leave them there as Legends of the past. It's impossible to rank the talent of someone you can't see.

[gilgamesh]

Also I think too much is made of Wladimir's supposedly bad stamina. The only time in his career his stamina ever came into play is the Lamon Brewster fight. I never saw it in any other fight besides that one.

He won many 12 round decisions and even scored some KO's as late as the 11th and 12th rounds.

Mike Tyson never scored an 11th or 12 round KO, but Wladimir did. Mike showed poor stamina more frequently in his career than Wlad did, but you don't consider Tyson to be a fighter with weak stamina do you? Why is that?

Mike Tyson got knocked out more frequently than Wladimir did, but you don't consider him to be weak chinned do you? Why is that?

Do you not see your hypocrisy when you tell me that Gene Tunney should rank ahead of Wladimir, yet you'll say Usyk shouldn't be considered a great Heavyweight because he has so relatively few Heavyweight fights. Tunney has about the same amount of Heavyweight Fights as Usyk, and he has significantly less Championship fights than Usyk, but Tunney is an All Time Great and Usyk isn't? Why is that?

Finally, and I know you'll hate this, but I feel it's worth pointing out. You say "It's absurd" that I have Wladimir ranked ahead of Tyson, Liston and Joe Frazier.

What's absurd is the fact that you write Wladimir off as if he were nothing when he won more Heavyweight Championship fights than Mike Tyson, Sonny Liston, Joe Frazier and Ken Norton COMBINED!!!!!

[gilgamesh]

Yeah you've said it before. Guys with half as many wins, and twice as many losses are better than Wladimir Klitschko because they just are, and I'm an idiot because I don't know this.

Klitschko is more successful than all but the very, very best Heavyweights there ever were. Whether you give him credit or not for all he achieved doesn't matter.

You only see his failures, and not his success. It's a personal bias of yours that you just can't get past as long as you insist the likes of Jersey Joe Walcott and Max Baer were somehow better than him You'll always be wrong though, and any unbiased observer of the Sport will know this to be true.

I wouldn't pick Klitschko to beat either Tyson or Bowe in their prime I'll tell ya that. I'd give him a better shot against Mike than I would Bowe, but I wouldn't favor him in either matchup.

Off of the top of my head, I don't know of anyone that had both twice as many wins and twice as many losses as Klitschko that I would rate of Klitschko. But a guy can have a much worse record than another guy and be better.

This is what bothers me and others. In boxing, you have to dig a lot deeper than statistics or what you consider "accomplishments" or what you call "success.

When someone is new to boxing, they naturally think of it like they do basketball football, baseball. They think the stats are as reliable as these sports. Then after a while, they start to realize how different the sport is from the other sports. At first they see a guy that 15-0 or 20-0 or whatever, and are surprised when they see him the first time and he loses.
But after they have been a fan for a while and seen this happen umpteen times, they realize how deceiving statistics can be.
They might dig into fights from before their time and realize that often non-title fights between two contenders tells you more than a WBO or WBC title fight will tell you.

They see that something is off when they see someone like Wilder who their eyes tell them wasn't very good pile up a stellar record and lots of title defenses.

They start to understand the importance of a fighter's prime when rating him as well as rating his opponents who are fighting him when isn't in his prime.

They realize that's it's hard to brat a truly great fighter once than winning 20 fights against guys not that good. They realize that you can always find an easy opponent to beat.

What is baffling is that you seem to act someone who has been a fan for a very short time and have learned very little. You say you do but it's very obvious that you don't.

You're trying to teach a man who is demonstrably incapable of learning.

Wlad has better stats than everyone who destroyed him. Gilgamesh will never be able to wrap his head around that. His thinking is on display in every post he writes. You might as well screech into the abyss for all the difference it will make. The abyss of Gilgamesh will screech back, 'but win column... Knockout percentage.... Alphabet titles defended.....' for ever and ever and ever

The abyss of Alp I suppose would sound like "WBS title defenses....What you don't understand is...." all without ever coming up with anything I haven't already mentioned myself.

And you Riddick. You seem to offer nothing to these conversations except insulting me, without contributing a point of view of your own.

You can disagree with my point of view all you wish, but at least I can state what it is and back up why I feel that way better than all of you guys who wanna criticize me..

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Clearly that package was for his neighbor

- Field used the name of his son for cover in his steroid bust. He weren't ever the brightest, but being one of the toughest ain't so bad save him being used as a punch monkey by MMA star Vitar Belfort when He could barely stand upright...