George Foreman 1972 vs. Riddick Bowe 1992

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 18 Jan 2007, 16:49

What's your assessment.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 18 Jan 2007, 16:53

Bowe is Laid Lowe

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 18 Jan 2007, 18:19

Even peak Bowe was never too difficult to find and here it would be the ruin of him.

Friedie · Post by **Friedie** » 18 Jan 2007, 18:37

Foreman wins by K.o.

gregor · Post by **gregor** » 18 Jan 2007, 19:12

Interesting. I agree Bowe defence was far from great, but Foreman's was neither perfect. I think it would be something like Foreman-Lyle, although Bowe should last a little bit longer.

Victor*KC · Post by **Victor*KC** » 19 Jan 2007, 00:49

Bowe was a really good inside fighter but Foreman Was an inside fighters worst nightmare I think Bowe Can win If he fights smart and fights both on the inside and outside When he has too..

Victor*KC · Post by **Victor*KC** » 19 Jan 2007, 01:55

Bowe had a good Jab when he used it I am just saying That I think he could outsmart George who probaly wasn't the most intelligent fighter after falling for the rope-a dope

ThePugilisticPreacher · Post by **ThePugilisticPreacher** » 19 Jan 2007, 08:43

Foreman early,round 3 or 4.

perrycarter · Post by **perrycarter** » 19 Jan 2007, 09:20

Decagon wrote:So, when your theory of Bowe boxing on the outside falls to pieces, you talk about him outsmarting someone?!?!? Bowe was STUPID!

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 19 Jan 2007, 09:24

perrycarter wrote:
Decagon wrote:So, when your theory of Bowe boxing on the outside falls to pieces, you talk about him outsmarting someone?!?!? Bowe was STUPID!

Decagon....quit mincing words and tell us what you think.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 19 Jan 2007, 09:46

Foreman by brutal KO inside of 5 rounds. And Bowe did not have the one punch KO power to turn this matchup into a Foreman-Lyle type fight.

walshb · Post by **walshb** » 19 Jan 2007, 11:18

Bowe at his peak was a damn hard fight for any man. Extremely fast, huge, big puncher and quite a good chin as well as a tremendous jab. George at his peak either got you out early or struggled late. But George had the potential to beat any man ever. I see Bowe maybe beating Foreman by late KO. But I'm 60/40. Foreman if he wins, does so by 4th rd KO

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 19 Jan 2007, 14:12

walshb · Post by **walshb** » 19 Jan 2007, 14:23

I personally think Foreman, though smaller was stronger physically than Bowe. Not much. But Bowe's speed of punch is the key. He really can let rip with fast devestating combos. So Foreman will know he is in a fight. George had a very good chin, Bowe too but not as sturdy. If Foreman land clean and often, I see him taking Riddick out. If Riddick boxes real clever and uses that jab and combination speed he wins late

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 19 Jan 2007, 17:07

What is there all this criticism about Riddick Bowe?
There are at least 3 recent threads dedicated to trashing him.

He was a stupid fighter? Where is all of the evidence of this? How many fights did he lose because he was outsmarted? If he was a stupid fighter, somewhere along the line he would have lost to someone besides Holyfield.
He is often criticized for not beating anyone but Holyfield.

He did beat Seldon, Thomas, Tubbs, Biggs, Coetzer, Gonzalez, Donald, and Hide. They had a combined record of 200-12-1 before they fought Bowe. Of course a fighter's win loss record in boxing can decieiving but come on, we are talking about 8 different guys here. 2 were former champions. One was a future champ, another was the WBO champ at the time Bowe beat him.

However they are all routinely dismissed as shot or way overrated fighters. All 8. Bowe doesn't get the benefit of the doubt one time.
You certainly can find fault with each of Bowes opponents. (Seldon didn't have a good chin, Hide was too small etc.) However you can do that with anyone.
Sure, these guys aren't all time greats but they weren't tomato cans either.

You would have to be a good fighter to go 8-0 against these guys. Bowe Most of these fights Bowe won very easily.

Bowe does deserve criticism for the Golota fights. However, why does he get more criticism for thsoe fights than other fighters get for crushed or losing to no names? At least Bowe hung in there won the fights, which is the most important thing.

Sure it would have been nice if Bowe would have fault Lewis. For the sake of arguement, lets say he would have been knocked out in the first round by Lewis. where should he ranked? How could he be below Floyd Patterson who got knocked out twice in the first round by Liston and never beat anyone close to as good as Holyfield?

People rank Bowe behind Sharkey. If Bowe would have fought Sharkey's competition he would have been a lot better than 38-13. Sharkey sure as heck would have found a way to lose more than 1 fight if he fought Bowe's opponents.

What about the Holyfield fights? Some people even try to dismiss these as flukes. Watch the fights. There isn't anything fluke about them.

In the first one, Bowe beat a prime Evander Holyfield over 12 rounds. In the rematch Bowe barely lost. It certainly could have been scored a draw or Bowes way. Of course no one ever brings this up becasue Bowe never gets the benefit of the doubt.
Mike Tyson loses convincingly to a 34 year old Holyfield and some people make excuses for Tyson. Bowe loses a very close fight to a prime Holyfield in a fight that was interrupted by "fanman" and no one ever says that Bowe didn't get a square deal.

All I ask is that Bowe get treated like anyone else. Watch his fights, look at his record like anyone else. If someone is going to say another fighter was better than Bowe, that fighters performances and record should be nitpicked like Bowe is.

If nothing else, Bowe's consistency should be recognized. He did have a few subpar performances but not many. How many fighters would have have fought Bowe's exact opponents and only lost one fight?

Bowe certainly wasn't perfect, and some criticism is justified. However, it seems like people are going overboard with this.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 19 Jan 2007, 17:58

Ambling Alp wrote:What is there all this criticism about Riddick Bowe?
There are at least 3 recent threads dedicated to trashing him.

I did not intend to trash Bowe -- but to review the Golota-Bowe fights.

He was a stupid fighter?

I didn't write anything like this, but I recall that Bowe was once diagnosed with a sub-normally low IQ.

Where is all of the evidence of this? How many fights did he lose because he was outsmarted? If he was a stupid fighter, somewhere along the line he would have lost to someone besides Holyfield.

He was beaten from pillar to post by Golota twice. This was much more damaging to Bowe's reputation than the Holyfield loss.

He is often criticized for not beating anyone but Holyfield.
He did beat Seldon, Thomas, Tubbs, Biggs, Coetzer, Gonzalez, Donald, and Hide. They had a combined record of 200-12-1 before they fought Bowe.

... and NONE of them was considerd first rate by the time Bowe fought them.

Of course a fighter's win loss record in boxing can decieiving but come on, we are talking about 8 different guys here. 2 were former champions. One was a future champ, another was the WBO champ at the time Bowe beat him.

See above.

However they are all routinely dismissed as shot or way overrated fighters. All 8.

Not overrated because few rate them highly.

They are routinely dismissed as mediocre fighters.

Bowe doesn't get the benefit of the doubt one time.

Which "doubt" is this supposed to be?

You certainly can find fault with each of Bowes opponents. (Seldon didn't have a good chin, Hide was too small etc.) However you can do that with anyone.
Sure, these guys aren't all time greats but they weren't tomato cans either.

No, medicore is somewhere in between ATG and tomato can.

You would have to be a good fighter to go 8-0 against these guys. Bowe Most of these fights Bowe won very easily.

Depends how you define "good". You certainly don't need to be an ATG to go 8-0 against these fighters -- not by a long shot.

Bowe does deserve criticism for the Golota fights. However, why does he get more criticism for thsoe fights than other fighters get for crushed or losing to no names? At least Bowe hung in there won the fights, which is the most important thing.

No it's not. The most important thing is that he was hit from pillar to post on both occasions.

Sure it would have been nice if Bowe would have fault Lewis. For the sake of arguement, lets say he would have been knocked out in the first round by Lewis. where should he ranked? How could he be below Floyd Patterson who got knocked out twice in the first round by Liston and never beat anyone close to as good as Holyfield?

It's close between Bowe and Patterson. Patterson was champ for many years and world class for even much longer. He had many excellent wins (Johannsen, Machen, Chuvalo, Moore, Jackson) against FAR better opposition than Bowe's 8-0 folks. He got champ at 21, and gave Ali a competitive fight when he was 37. And when he got domianted it was against ATG Sonny Liston and not a second-rate nutcase like Golota.

I give you that Patterson has no Holyfield on his record -- but Bowe is a one-opponent wonder and otherwise lots of unfulfilled promise.

People rank Bowe behind Sharkey. If Bowe would have fought Sharkey's competition he would have been a lot better than 38-13. Sharkey sure as heck would have found a way to lose more than 1 fight if he fought Bowe's opponents.

Jack Sharkey was a top 3 heavyweight for at least 7 years, twice as long as Bowe. He toyed with Dempsey, was avoided by Tunney, and his great rivalry with Schmeling ended inconclusively.

Sure he was inconsistent, which is one reason why he had these losses (the other one his much higher level of oppositon than Bowe). But he proved time and again that he was absolute world class; and against more than one outstanding opponent. He belongs above Bowe.

What about the Holyfield fights? Some people even try to dismiss these as flukes. Watch the fights. There isn't anything fluke about them.

No fluke, but there are lingering and legit doubts about Holyfield's qualitities in these fights. He was sick with hepathitis in the third, and in the first he just came off an utterly unconvincing points win over grandpa Larry Holmes that badly damaged his reputation.

My feeling is that Holyfield was there for the taking both times, and that several heavyweights would have had a good chance against him.

Mike Tyson loses convincingly to a 34 year old Holyfield and some people make excuses for Tyson. Bowe loses a very close fight to a prime Holyfield in a fight that was interrupted by "fanman" and no one ever says that Bowe didn't get a square deal.

Well yes, because this was a totally different Holyfield. A healthy and recuperated Holyfield rose like phoenix from the ashes in 1996. In his next bout he made minced meat of Michael Moorer -- the very same guy who had beaten him right before the third Bowe bout.

Plus, the 1996 Tyson was of course a shadow of the HW who had terrified the division in the late 1980s. Tyson's ATG status is not based on the things he did anywhere near his Holyfield bouts.

All I ask is that Bowe get treated like anyone else. Watch his fights, look at his record like anyone else. If someone is going to say another fighter was better than Bowe, that fighters performances and record should be nitpicked like Bowe is.

If nothing else, Bowe's consistency should be recognized. He did have a few subpar performances but not many. How many fighters would have have fought Bowe's exact opponents and only lost one fight?

If Golota DQs himself against the other fighters too -- many. 20 to 30 in HW history surely.

Bowe certainly wasn't perfect, and some criticism is justified. However, it seems like people are going overboard with this.

A rather subjective statement that could easily be turned on its head, if you ask me.

Cheers,
P

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 19 Jan 2007, 21:09

It's safe to say that when it came to intellegence Bowe probably wouldn't have had the ability to become a nuclier physisist but that doesn't mean he didn't have some ring smarts. Different people show apptitudes in different areas, and intellegence is no exception. I know guys who would fail most written exams but if you put them out in the woods with only a pocket knife where they had to survive I would match them against any college graduate or scholastic intellectual you could throw out there. In his prime when he came in well prepared he had the tools to hang with anyone.

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 19 Jan 2007, 21:20

pundit wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote:What is there all this criticism about Riddick Bowe?
There are at least 3 recent threads dedicated to trashing him.
I did not intend to trash Bowe -- but to review the Golota-Bowe fights.

He was a stupid fighter?
I didn't write anything like this, but I recall that Bowe was once diagnosed with a sub-normally low IQ.

Where is all of the evidence of this? How many fights did he lose because he was outsmarted? If he was a stupid fighter, somewhere along the line he would have lost to someone besides Holyfield.
He was beaten from pillar to post by Golota twice. This was much more damaging to Bowe's reputation than the Holyfield loss.

He is often criticized for not beating anyone but Holyfield.
He did beat Seldon, Thomas, Tubbs, Biggs, Coetzer, Gonzalez, Donald, and Hide. They had a combined record of 200-12-1 before they fought Bowe.
... and NONE of them was considerd first rate by the time Bowe fought them.

Of course a fighter's win loss record in boxing can decieiving but come on, we are talking about 8 different guys here. 2 were former champions. One was a future champ, another was the WBO champ at the time Bowe beat him.
See above.

However they are all routinely dismissed as shot or way overrated fighters. All 8.
Not overrated because few rate them highly.

They are routinely dismissed as mediocre fighters.

Bowe doesn't get the benefit of the doubt one time.
Which "doubt" is this supposed to be?

You certainly can find fault with each of Bowes opponents. (Seldon didn't have a good chin, Hide was too small etc.) However you can do that with anyone.
Sure, these guys aren't all time greats but they weren't tomato cans either.
No, medicore is somewhere in between ATG and tomato can.

You would have to be a good fighter to go 8-0 against these guys. Bowe Most of these fights Bowe won very easily.
Depends how you define "good". You certainly don't need to be an ATG to go 8-0 against these fighters -- not by a long shot.

Bowe does deserve criticism for the Golota fights. However, why does he get more criticism for thsoe fights than other fighters get for crushed or losing to no names? At least Bowe hung in there won the fights, which is the most important thing.
No it's not. The most important thing is that he was hit from pillar to post on both occasions.

Sure it would have been nice if Bowe would have fault Lewis. For the sake of arguement, lets say he would have been knocked out in the first round by Lewis. where should he ranked? How could he be below Floyd Patterson who got knocked out twice in the first round by Liston and never beat anyone close to as good as Holyfield?
It's close between Bowe and Patterson. Patterson was champ for many years and world class for even much longer. He had many excellent wins (Johannsen, Machen, Chuvalo, Moore, Jackson) against FAR better opposition than Bowe's 8-0 folks. He got champ at 21, and gave Ali a competitive fight when he was 37. And when he got domianted it was against ATG Sonny Liston and not a second-rate nutcase like Golota.

I give you that Patterson has no Holyfield on his record -- but Bowe is a one-opponent wonder and otherwise lots of unfulfilled promise.

People rank Bowe behind Sharkey. If Bowe would have fought Sharkey's competition he would have been a lot better than 38-13. Sharkey sure as heck would have found a way to lose more than 1 fight if he fought Bowe's opponents.
Jack Sharkey was a top 3 heavyweight for at least 7 years, twice as long as Bowe. He toyed with Dempsey, was avoided by Tunney, and his great rivalry with Schmeling ended inconclusively.

Sure he was inconsistent, which is one reason why he had these losses (the other one his much higher level of oppositon than Bowe). But he proved time and again that he was absolute world class; and against more than one outstanding opponent. He belongs above Bowe.

What about the Holyfield fights? Some people even try to dismiss these as flukes. Watch the fights. There isn't anything fluke about them.
No fluke, but there are lingering and legit doubts about Holyfield's qualitities in these fights. He was sick with hepathitis in the third, and in the first he just came off an utterly unconvincing points win over grandpa Larry Holmes that badly damaged his reputation.

My feeling is that Holyfield was there for the taking both times, and that several heavyweights would have had a good chance against him.

Mike Tyson loses convincingly to a 34 year old Holyfield and some people make excuses for Tyson. Bowe loses a very close fight to a prime Holyfield in a fight that was interrupted by "fanman" and no one ever says that Bowe didn't get a square deal.
Well yes, because this was a totally different Holyfield. A healthy and recuperated Holyfield rose like phoenix from the ashes in 1996. In his next bout he made minced meat of Michael Moorer -- the very same guy who had beaten him right before the third Bowe bout.

Plus, the 1996 Tyson was of course a shadow of the HW who had terrified the division in the late 1980s. Tyson's ATG status is not based on the things he did anywhere near his Holyfield bouts.

All I ask is that Bowe get treated like anyone else. Watch his fights, look at his record like anyone else. If someone is going to say another fighter was better than Bowe, that fighters performances and record should be nitpicked like Bowe is.

If nothing else, Bowe's consistency should be recognized. He did have a few subpar performances but not many. How many fighters would have have fought Bowe's exact opponents and only lost one fight?
If Golota DQs himself against the other fighters too -- many. 20 to 30 in HW history surely.

Bowe certainly wasn't perfect, and some criticism is justified. However, it seems like people are going overboard with this.
A rather subjective statement that could easily be turned on its head, if you ask me.

Cheers,
P

To disagree is one thing but It takes an unbelievably pomppous individual to ask a person to give an assessement and he does so in good faith and then go over his post with a fine tooth comb and nitpick everything he says with an attitude of smug supperiority.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 19 Jan 2007, 23:42

kick asner wrote:
To disagree is one thing but It takes an unbelievably pomppous individual to ask a person to give an assessement and he does so in good faith and then go over his post with a fine tooth comb and nitpick everything he says with an attitude of smug supperiority.

Did I step on your toes with something?

generic screen name · Post by **generic screen name** » 20 Jan 2007, 02:12

The Bowe that fought Holyfield the first time could beat anyone. But any other version of Bowe would get destroyed by Foreman. So Foreman KTFO 5 in a decent back and forth fight.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 20 Jan 2007, 02:32

Decagon wrote:
kick asner wrote:It's safe to say that when it came to intellegence Bowe probably wouldn't have had the ability to become a nuclier physisist but that doesn't mean he didn't have some ring smarts. Different people show apptitudes in different areas, and intellegence is no exception. I know guys who would fail most written exams but if you put them out in the woods with only a pocket knife where they had to survive I would match them against any college graduate or scholastic intellectual you could throw out there. In his prime when he came in well prepared he had the tools to hang with anyone.
I love this forum.

"Intellegence" is how Rush Limbaugh spells it (Kick's spind poster boy).

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 20 Jan 2007, 11:19

pundit wrote:
Decagon wrote:
kick asner wrote:It's safe to say that when it came to intellegence Bowe probably wouldn't have had the ability to become a nuclier physisist but that doesn't mean he didn't have some ring smarts. Different people show apptitudes in different areas, and intellegence is no exception. I know guys who would fail most written exams but if you put them out in the woods with only a pocket knife where they had to survive I would match them against any college graduate or scholastic intellectual you could throw out there. In his prime when he came in well prepared he had the tools to hang with anyone.
I love this forum.
"Intellegence" is how Rush Limbaugh spells it (Kick's spind poster boy).

Actually Pundit I either listen to music when I am driving or when within range I like to listen 670 The Score, thats a station where they talk about sports.

Some of the people who's political philosipy I have studied are Larry Elder, Ayn Rand, Shelby Steele, PJ Orourke, Harry Browne and others. I know this is not a political forum but you made an assumption that was icorrect and I wanted to clear it up, but thank you for being interested.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 22 Jan 2007, 10:18

Outside of nostalgia for the 1930's there is little to support the notion than Sharkey was better than Bowe.

The 8 guys that were mentioned were not average fighters. As mention before, 4 were champions, and Larry Donald in particular was an excellent boxer.
Sharkey wouldn't have gone 8-0 against these guys. He found ways throughout his career to lose fights. He would have found a way to lose at least to 2 of these guys.

Why don't we nitpick Sharkey's record like we do Bowe's? Who did he really beat that was so impressive? A dubious win over Schmeling, a win over an ancient Harry Wills, a win over the inconsistent Risko (who also beat Sharkey) are the highlights. Not to mention several losses to ordianary fighters.

I like how Dempsey is mentioned as one of Sharkey's top performances. Sharkey stupidly complained to the referee about being fouled and left himself wide open and got knocked out.
When "stupid" Bowe was fouled numerous times against Golota he didn't make this mistake and he managed to win the fight.

What counts the most is winning. Sharkey and Golota may get style points, but the bottom line is that they lost. Dempsey and Bowe won.

Here is what I mean by Bowe never getting the benefit of the doubt:
All of his opponents (besides Holyfield) are brushed off. There is no way that every single one of them was average or worse.

He is subpar performances with Golota are talked about incessantly. While these two fights should count against him, there is the rest of his career to consider.

Aspects of the Golota-Bowe fights that favor Bowe aren't talked about. He would have performed better had he not been fouled flagantly and often. Most of all, it seems to be forgotten by some that Bowe won the fights.

Some even try to minimize his fights with Holyfield. The Holyfield that Bowe fought in their first two fights was much better than the Holyfield that beat Tyson. (Of course there are the BS excuses that Tyson was past his prime against Holyfield, funny that no one was saying that before the fight)

Was Bowe the best heavyweight of all time? Of course not. However, if you start to pick apart the records of everyone else as much as Bowe's, there aren't that many that were better than Bowe. There sure as heck weren't 20-30.

As for a fight against Foreman in 1972, I would pick Foreman. However, Bowe would certainly have a chance.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 22 Jan 2007, 11:58

Ambling Alp wrote: The 8 guys that were mentioned were not average fighters. As mention before, 4 were champions, and Larry Donald in particular was an excellent boxer.

Yes, Donald may have been his best win outside of Holyfield. Can’t say I can get very excited about the rest of them, as some were well past their best, but as you noted, they weren’t total scrubs.

Ambling Alp wrote:Sharkey wouldn't have gone 8-0 against these guys. He found ways throughout his career to lose fights. He would have found a way to lose at least to 2 of these guys.

You’re probably right that he would have found a way to lose, at least once.

Why don't we nitpick Sharkey's record like we do Bowe's? Who did he really beat that was so impressive? A dubious win over Schmeling, a win over an ancient Harry Wills, a win over the inconsistent Risko (who also beat Sharkey) are the highlights. No mention several losses to ordianary fighters.

Ambling Alp wrote:I like how Dempsey is mentioned as one of Sharkey's top performances. Sharkey stupidly complained to the referee about being fouled and left himself wide open and got knocked out.

Yep, Dempsey scored a beautiful one punch KO when Sharkey gave him the opportunity.

Ambling Alp wrote:All of his opponents (besides Holyfield) are brushed off. There is no way that every single one of them was average or worse.

I agree that a few besides Holyfield were better than average. However, compared to just about any other HW mentioned in ATG lists, it’s a pretty weak resume.

Ambling Alp wrote:Was Bowe the best heavyweight of all time? Of course not. However, if you start to pick apart the records of everyone else as much as Bowe's, there aren't that many that were better than Bowe. There sure as heck weren't 20-30.

Well, I’ve currently got him at 21 in my list, so I would have to say that there were probably 20 better, but he’s a few notches above Sharkey on my list.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 22 Jan 2007, 12:45

Ambling Alp wrote:Outside of nostalgia for the 1930's there is little to support the notion than Sharkey was better than Bowe.

The 8 guys that were mentioned were not average fighters. As mention before, 4 were champions, and Larry Donald in particular was an excellent boxer.
Sharkey wouldn't have gone 8-0 against these guys. He found ways throughout his career to lose fights. He would have found a way to lose at least to 2 of these guys.

Why don't we nitpick Sharkey's record like we do Bowe's? Who did he really beat that was so impressive? A dubious win over Schmeling, a win over an ancient Harry Wills, a win over the inconsistent Risko (who also beat Sharkey) are the highlights. Not to mention several losses to ordianary fighters.

I like how Dempsey is mentioned as one of Sharkey's top performances. Sharkey stupidly complained to the referee about being fouled and left himself wide open and got knocked out.
When "stupid" Bowe was fouled numerous times against Golota he didn't make this mistake and he managed to win the fight.

What counts the most is winning. Sharkey and Golota may get style points, but the bottom line is that they lost. Dempsey and Bowe won.

Here is what I mean by Bowe never getting the benefit of the doubt:
All of his opponents (besides Holyfield) are brushed off. There is no way that every single one of them was average or worse.

He is subpar performances with Golota are talked about incessantly. While these two fights should count against him, there is the rest of his career to consider.

Aspects of the Golota-Bowe fights that favor Bowe aren't talked about. He would have performed better had he not been fouled flagantly and often. Most of all, it seems to be forgotten by some that Bowe won the fights.

Some even try to minimize his fights with Holyfield. The Holyfield that Bowe fought in their first two fights was much better than the Holyfield that beat Tyson. (Of course there are the BS excuses that Tyson was past his prime against Holyfield, funny that no one was saying that before the fight)

Was Bowe the best heavyweight of all time? Of course not. However, if you start to pick apart the records of everyone else as much as Bowe's, there aren't that many that were better than Bowe. There sure as heck weren't 20-30.

As for a fight against Foreman in 1972, I would pick Foreman. However, Bowe would certainly have a chance.

Alp I think we can largely leave it here. Our main differences appear to result from the criteria by which we rank fighters; I go primarily by a fighter's (best) performances; you go by results. Bowe's fights against Golota were poor performances with good results. Conversely, Sharkey's fight vs. Dempsey was a good performance with a poor result. No wonder we come out at different ends.

This said, you should maybe not totally overlook Sharkey's wins over Young Stribling, Tommy Loughran, Primo Carnera, Jim Maloney, Phil Scott, Jack Delaney. These were the leading contenders of his era. Sharkey's wins outside Schmeling DO make a more impressive list than Bowe's wins outside Holyfield. In particular Sharkey's run from late 1928 to 1932 was excellent, and in 1929 he was clearly the world's #1 heavyweight. Adding in Schmeling, Sharkey beat 4 HOFers in his career -- while Bowe will most likley have beaten one (unless Dokes somehow squeezes in).

The only other point I want to raise is that we had little chance to assess the post-prison Tyson before the Holyfield fight. In all the previous bouts Tyson had bullied his opponents into defeat within 3 rounds. Now Holyfield was not to be bullied, and it turned out that in this case the post-prison Tyson would run rapidly out of gas.

Cheers,
P