Mike tyson vs riddick bowe 1991?

[gilgamesh]

You're making 2 different arguments there. You're saying if 2 people have the same stats they're even, and then you're saying that Wladimir who has the same stats almost to a tee as Larry Holmes isn't even with him.

"People recognize that they are about even"

Yes they do. If people have accomplished similar things, most people recognize that they are about even. At least I can follow the same logic. My criteria doesn't change from fighter to fighter.

[Ambling Alp II]

Not what I am saying. I didn't say that if two fighters have similar "stats" they are even. Stats in boxing are often very misleading. Most people realize this after they have followed the sport for a year or two.

However, if you actually a good hard, look at two heavyweights careers, and determine that Fighter A and fighter B are about even, you shouldn't then just say that "well, fighter B weighed 30 more pounds so he must have been better."
Whatever supposed things that the excess weight helped him with have already been factored in by how well he performed in the ring.

[gilgamesh]

I don't know say that. I've never once said this guy weighs more than that guy so he must be better.

I rate them based on the Quality of their opposition and the Quality of their performance.

How much they weighed isn't one of my criteria. Never has been before and isn't now. So if you're gonna try to make a point against me, try making a point against me about something I've actually said.

[Ambling Alp II]

You literally were just bringing up the weight issue. It is clearly on your mind, subconsciously or not.

More importantly, much of how you don't base your ratings on the quality of their opposition and the quality of their performance. i..e, It's a huge win for Fury over Klitschko. Despite Klitschko being well past his best. Despite it being a terrible performance by Fury. And you do this a lot. Guys get credit for winning a title fight regardless of how good the opponent was or how well they performed, as long as it was for a WBS title fight. They shouldn't.

i..e. In your super system, Wilder has 250 points or whatever, and Pinklon Thomas has 5. Anyone can tell watching Thomas in his prime that he far better than Wilder. Obviously there are flaws.
And there are many guys better than Thomas who are ranked below Wilder as well.

The biggest problem giving guys credit for winning title fights against weak-mediocre opponents is this:

It great favors modern fighters over fighters from years ago. It is simply much easier to win a title in the first place if there are 4 titles than if there is 1. Then if a guy wins one of the 4 paper titles, he can defend his title against inferior opponents and rack up points.

[gilgamesh]

You literally were just bringing up the weight issue. It is clearly on your mind, subconsciously or not.

More importantly, much of how you don't base your ratings on the quality of their opposition and the quality of their performance. i..e, It's a huge win for Fury over Klitschko. Despite Klitschko being well past his best. Despite it being a terrible performance by Fury. And you do this a lot. Guys get credit for winning a title fight regardless of how good the opponent was or how well they performed, as long as it was for a WBS title fight. They shouldn't.

i..e. In your super system, Wilder has 250 points or whatever, and Pinklon Thomas has 5. Anyone can tell watching Thomas in his prime that he far better than Wilder. Obviously there are flaws.
And there are many guys better than Thomas who are ranked below Wilder as well.

The biggest problem giving guys credit for winning title fights against weak-mediocre opponents is this:

It great favors modern fighters over fighters from years ago. It is simply much easier to win a title in the first place if there are 4 titles than if there is 1. Then if a guy wins one of the 4 paper titles, he can defend his title against inferior opponents and rack up points.

No it's not. It's considered a Lineal title win because it was that, but it's not considered a Gold star victory because Fury's level of performance was dog sh*t.

You always bitch about things that I've done in my system that I didn't even do. Look at my breakdown of Tyson Fury's career. I DID NOT consider his win over Wladimir to be a Gold star or All time win. So your complaint is literally something made up because you can't read or grasp a system no matter how many times it's explained to you.

I've watched both Wilder and Thomas in their prime. My money would be on Wilder if they fought. Wilder accomplished much more, Wilder looked better doing it. Disagree if you want to I don't give a sh*t.

Many fighters I've ranked from the past rank ahead of fighters from the modern era.

My Top 6 at Heavyweight are

Muhammad Ali
Joe Louis
George Foreman
Larry Holmes
Lennox Lewis
and Rocky Marciano

In that order. So how am I favoring the modern era when those are my all time top rated Champions, and in the case of the Top 4 nobody in the modern era even comes particularly close.

There are still many HUGE names I haven't gotten around to in the P4P list yet so it will still shift dramatically as more names come under review. There are still many big names at Heavyweight I haven't gotten around to yet either.

[gilgamesh]

Literally every complaint you make about my system you get wrong.

You'll say some stupid sh*t like "Well you consider Tyson Fury's win over Wladimir to be as good as Joe Frazier's win over Ali"

No I f*cking don't. LEARN TO READ!!!!!

[Ambling Alp II]

You are such a nice person. And so humble as well.

[gilgamesh]

I am indeed quite humble.

I just don't like having to explain something repeatedly that I already explained in painstaking detail when I first came up with it.

I only gotta explain it to you too by the way. You're the only dumbass that can't get it.

I've also said repeatedly that you can disagree with me if you want, and rank fighters however you want. I've just pointed out repeatedly that my criteria doesn't change while yours does. Facts irritate you so you throw a hissy fit when I point them out.

You're of the opinion that Wladimir Klitschko isn't a great fighter. Fine. You can have it. You're f*cking wrong, but whatever...be wrong. I don't give a sh*t.

[Ambling Alp II]

I am indeed quite humble.

I just don't like having to explain something repeatedly that I already explained in painstaking detail when I first came up with it.

I only gotta explain it to you too by the way. You're the only dumbass that can't get it.

You are humble?
Really you have literally compared yourself to Einstein.
You recently said that there is nothing left for you to learn about boxing. (The next day you were asking someone about the LaMotta-Dauthhuille fight. )
Yes, very humble indeed.
Just because you comment on here around the clock day after day doesn't make you more knowledgeable or a better person than everyone else.
There certainly have been other people that think that you don't understand a lot about the sport.

[gilgamesh]

I am indeed quite humble.

I just don't like having to explain something repeatedly that I already explained in painstaking detail when I first came up with it.

I only gotta explain it to you too by the way. You're the only dumbass that can't get it.

You are humble?
Really you have literally compared yourself to Einstein.
You recently said that there is nothing left for you to learn about boxing. (The next day you were asking someone about the LaMotta-Dauthhuille fight. )
Yes, very humble indeed.

There certainly have been other people that think that you don't understand a lot about the sport.

I said I know Boxing as well as anybody else and I believe I do.

I don't mean I know every single little factoid or story that ever took place in Boxing, I mean I understand what I'm looking at when I watch it. Yes there are classic fights, and various Boxing tales I am unfamiliar with. There's probably not ever going to be enough time to see every single fight that's ever taken place, but I get in what I can.

I had never heard of anything about Dauthille's trainers giving him bad advice or whatever in the Lamotta bout. Big deal.

I've seen other people that'll say I don't know anything about the sport, and those people similar to you can't ever display any knowledge themselves that I haven't already expressed more eloquently and thoroughly.

[Caractacus]

If the two would have fought when Kevin Rooney was still his trainer, then Tyson would have had a chance.
Anything later I think Bowe would have won, because Tyson had a problem with tall fighters
also Bowe's size. Bowe would have crunched Tyson with a right uppercut.

[Cojimar 1946]

Thomas actually beat some of the top guys of his era though. Wilder did not though maybe he could off.

[gilgamesh]

Thomas actually beat some of the top guys of his era though. Wilder did not though maybe he could off.

His best wins are on par with Wilder's best wins pretty much to me, and he got his ass handed to him quite a bit more often including many one sided KO losses.

[Cojimar 1946]

Thomas actually beat some of the top guys of his era though. Wilder did not though maybe he could off.

His best wins are on par with Wilder's best wins pretty much to me, and he got his ass handed to him quite a bit more often including many one sided KO losses.

Witherspoon and Weaver are legacy wise way ahead of anyone Wilder beat though. Wilder's best win is Ortiz who really didn't do anything with his career and has one decent win.

[gilgamesh]

Thomas actually beat some of the top guys of his era though. Wilder did not though maybe he could off.

His best wins are on par with Wilder's best wins pretty much to me, and he got his ass handed to him quite a bit more often including many one sided KO losses.

Witherspoon and Weaver are legacy wise way ahead of anyone Wilder beat though. Wilder's best win is Ortiz who really didn't do anything with his career and has one decent win.

I'd agree Witherspoon is better than anyone Wilder beat. I don't know about Weaver.

Wilder is also aided by the fact that more of his fights are available on video, although a surprising amount of his fights aren't actually for a guy from the modern era, and of course Wilder has a significantly longer title reign than did Pinklon Thomas.

For that matter he had a longer title reign than Thomas, Witherspoon and Weaver combined.

[Ambling Alp II]

Thomas actually beat some of the top guys of his era though. Wilder did not though maybe he could off.

His best wins are on par with Wilder's best wins pretty much to me, and he got his ass handed to him quite a bit more often including many one sided KO losses.

Witherspoon and Weaver are legacy wise way ahead of anyone Wilder beat though. Wilder's best win is Ortiz who really didn't do anything with his career and has one decent win.

Agreed, those were good wins. Obviously, he wasn't in Tyson or Holyfield class, though he hung in there taking a lot of punishment. Thomas could beat fighters far better than anyone Wilder ever beat. Plus, just watching them fight it's obvious that Thomas is better. Wilder had power and that's it. Thomas was much faster, had far better boxing skills-combination punching, jab, much faster etc. Wilder had none of that. You know a tall guy is bad when people don't even try to pretend that he had a great jab. No way Wilder has some big title reign in the 1980s. Probably not one at all.

[gilgamesh]

His best wins are on par with Wilder's best wins pretty much to me, and he got his ass handed to him quite a bit more often including many one sided KO losses.

Witherspoon and Weaver are legacy wise way ahead of anyone Wilder beat though. Wilder's best win is Ortiz who really didn't do anything with his career and has one decent win.

Agreed, those were good wins. Obviously, he wasn't in Tyson or Holyfield class, though he hung in there taking a lot of punishment. Thomas could beat fighters far better than anyone Wilder ever beat. Plus, just watching them fight it's obvious that Thomas is better. Wilder had power and that's it. Thomas was much faster, had far better boxing skills-combination punching, jab, much faster etc. Wilder had none of that. You know a tall guy is bad when people don't even try to pretend that he had a great jab. No way Wilder has some big title reign in the 1980s. Probably not one at all.

We'll never know because he didn't fight in the 1980's. Just like Pinklon Thomas didn't fight in the 2010's.

What we do know is that Wilder was a better Champion in his time than Pinklon was in his, and defended his World Title 5x as often, and before you say "Well you can always find 10 stiffs to beat" ask yourself this. Why couldn't Pinklon?

Both men in their prime. My money would be on Wilder to win via a come from behind KO after getting outboxed early, but who i think would win a mythical fight between them plays no part in how I rank them because of course I could be wrong. We'll never know.

[Cojimar 1946]

His best wins are on par with Wilder's best wins pretty much to me, and he got his ass handed to him quite a bit more often including many one sided KO losses.

Witherspoon and Weaver are legacy wise way ahead of anyone Wilder beat though. Wilder's best win is Ortiz who really didn't do anything with his career and has one decent win.

I'd agree Witherspoon is better than anyone Wilder beat. I don't know about Weaver.

Wilder is also aided by the fact that more of his fights are available on video, although a surprising amount of his fights aren't actually for a guy from the modern era, and of course Wilder has a significantly longer title reign than did Pinklon Thomas.

For that matter he had a longer title reign than Thomas, Witherspoon and Weaver combined.

Sure but there's no evidence to suggest Wilder was ever the best heavyweight in the world.

Back in the day title reigns were considered significant because the guy holding the title was the best in the world

[gilgamesh]

Witherspoon and Weaver are legacy wise way ahead of anyone Wilder beat though. Wilder's best win is Ortiz who really didn't do anything with his career and has one decent win.

I'd agree Witherspoon is better than anyone Wilder beat. I don't know about Weaver.

Wilder is also aided by the fact that more of his fights are available on video, although a surprising amount of his fights aren't actually for a guy from the modern era, and of course Wilder has a significantly longer title reign than did Pinklon Thomas.

For that matter he had a longer title reign than Thomas, Witherspoon and Weaver combined.

Sure but there's no evidence to suggest Wilder was ever the best heavyweight in the world.

Back in the day title reigns were considered significant because the guy holding the title was the best in the world

Pinklon Thomas wasn't the best in the world at any point in his life. Larry Holmes was the Heavyweight Boss. Pinklon was a Titlist.

[Caractacus]

What would the "Tale-of-the-Tape have been in 1991 anyway ?
( between Tyson and Bowe)

[gilgamesh]

What would the "Tale-of-the-Tape have been in 1991 anyway ?
( between Tyson and Bowe)

7 inch height difference. Probably a 30 pound weight advantage for Bowe. Longer reach as well. I think they're close to the same age. Give or take a year so that wouldn't have been a big factor.

[Klee Gluckman]

Tyson was gone post prison.

The 1991 model is different. We know the 11991 model can fight 12 rounds, won't quit when hit hard. Ruddock hit him, he didn't flinch.

We also know when Ruddock used dirty tactics, Tyson just did the same thing. (Yes Tyson did his share of initiating bad behavior as well.

The fact Tyson offered Bowe a fight in 1991 suggests he wasn't scared.

The body language of Tyson when he was at the press conference with Holyfield in 1991 was lot different than in 1006 there was no fear or attempts to intimidate, he was respectful, like he knew he would have to work to beat Holyfield. There was nothing to suggest Holyfield had won the mental game like there was in 1996. Tyson and his corner making stupid comments and acting like a bunch of kids.



Even in his defeat to Douglas Tyson still was trying to win and almost did, there was no moment where he quit and went through the motions.

This would be a great fight. Another lost fight of the 90;s.

The one question that was never answered about Bowe is he never faced a puncher. We would know the outcome after this fight.

[Riddick Bowie]

What is the source of this 'Tyson offered Bowe a fight in 1991'.

Tyson was booked to fight an eliminator with Ruddock at the beginning of the year, Richard Steele's botch job tied him up in a rematch, then the world title challenge against Holyfield was scheduled for November.

Bowe was boxing on undercards at this point. How would such a pairing make sense?

[Jaywheel]

The one question that was never answered about Bowe is he never faced a puncher. We would know the outcome after this fight.

Blocking punches with his face his whole carreer suggests he would have a really hard time against 1991 Tyson, especially the first few rounds. Tyson was levels below Bowe as an inside fighter, but he was still very effective mid range. Both Holyfield and Golota plastered Bowe's face with punches. Tyson would connect early, not sure Bowe withstands it.

[Cojimar 1946]

I'd agree Witherspoon is better than anyone Wilder beat. I don't know about Weaver.

Wilder is also aided by the fact that more of his fights are available on video, although a surprising amount of his fights aren't actually for a guy from the modern era, and of course Wilder has a significantly longer title reign than did Pinklon Thomas.

For that matter he had a longer title reign than Thomas, Witherspoon and Weaver combined.

Sure but there's no evidence to suggest Wilder was ever the best heavyweight in the world.

Back in the day title reigns were considered significant because the guy holding the title was the best in the world

Pinklon Thomas wasn't the best in the world at any point in his life. Larry Holmes was the Heavyweight Boss. Pinklon was a Titlist.

Nope I would favor Thomas over Holmes in 84/85. Holmes also refused to fight Thomas