BoxRec

He's a troll. He has no system. I just read a post from time to time without looking at the user name.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑27 Jun 2019, 01:30 He beat a definitive all time top 10 heavy, arguably 3 times. That carries enough weight for top 20. Certainly miles more impressive than your beloved vitali beating nobody of note.

Michael Moorer beat a prime Evander Holyfield
Buster Douglas beat a prime Mike Tyson

By your logic these guys are top 20 as well.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑29 Jun 2019, 11:29 Michael Moorer beat a prime Holyfield
Buster Douglas beat a prime Mike Tyson

Are they both top 20?

I thought Holy was in the midst of some health issues when Moorer beat him?

Also I don't think Tyson was performing close to prime when Douglas beat him, not to take away from Buster's amazing performance. Lastly, Bowe has only 1 defeat on his record. He would cream both Moorer and Douglas.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑27 Jun 2019, 12:03 He's a troll. He has no system. I just read a post from time to time without looking at the user name.

Is it trolling to not rate Iran Barley an ATG despite beating Thomas Hearns twice?
Is it trolling to not rate Buster Douglas an ATG heavyweight despite beating Mike Tyson?
Is it trolling to not rate Randolph Turpin an ATG middleweight despite beating Sugar Ray Robinson?

oogiebe wrote: ↑29 Jun 2019, 11:32 I thought Holy was in the midst of some health issues when Moorer beat him?

Also I don't think Tyson was performing close to prime when Douglas beat him, not to take away from Buster's amazing performance. Lastly, Bowe has only 1 defeat on his record. He would cream both Moorer and Douglas.

Bowe has two absolute thrashings at the hands of Andrew Golota in which he was saved from defeat by his opponents low blows. No doubt these factor in as well.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑29 Jun 2019, 11:39 Bowe has two absolute thrashings at the hands of Andrew Golota in which he was saved from defeat by his opponents low blows. No doubt these factor in as well.

That may be, but it doesn't impact what I posted. Bowe had a short prime, but his resume warrants his high ranking. Can't compare to Moorer or Douglas.

oogiebe wrote: ↑29 Jun 2019, 11:41 That may be, but it doesn't impact what I posted. Bowe had a short prime, but his resume warrants his high ranking. Can't compare to Moorer or Douglas.

His resume consists of little aside from beating Holyfield. How does beating Holyfield by itself justify a high ranking anymore than Douglas and Moorer? You can argue Bowe was better than either man but not based on his win resume.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑29 Jun 2019, 11:46 His resume consists of little aside from beating Holyfield. How does beating Holyfield by itself justify a high ranking anymore than Douglas and Moorer? You can argue Bowe was better than either man but not based on his win resume.

Certainly based on his win resume you can. Douglas and Moorer don't have decent resumes at all. He had a trilogy with Holyfield, not just one fight. They were epic. Douglas got pasted by Holyfield, and Moorer got kayoed by a 45 year old foreman. Give me a break! LOL!

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑27 Jun 2019, 11:17 There are major flaws in his system of counting wins over Top 10 Opponents:

1. He doesn't factor in where in the Top 10 the opponent was. A win over a champion or #1 contender is the same as beating the #10 contender.

2. He doesn't take into account eras. Beating the # 5 guy in one might be vastly different than beating the #5 contender in another. He doesn't take that into account.

3. If you beat a guy just outside of the top 10, it doesn't count at all. Beating the #10 contender is usually not much different than beating a fringe contender. He gives Bowe no credit for beating several fringe contenders, even when he had not reached his prime yet himself.

4. He doesn't count rematches. So he only counts Holyfield as 1, not 3 times that Bowe fought a great fighter.

(Even in his own system, Hide should count since he was in the top 10 when Bowe beat him.)


As a result, Klitschko's wins over Corrie Sanders and Samuel Peter count just as much as Bowe's wins over Holyfield.

His system is ridiculous.

I see no reason to give Bowe any credit for beating gatekeeper/journeymen types. These guys consistently lose whenever they face top guys. Beating them merely establishes that Bowe is one of the elite of his era which nobody is disputing. Frank Bruno for example would be massively favored over all but 3 guys Bowe fought.

Holyfield is obviously a great win but I don't think it by itself is enough to put Bowe in the top 20, his resume needs a bit more depth.

oogiebe wrote: ↑29 Jun 2019, 11:50 Certainly based on his win resume you can. Douglas and Moorer don't have decent resumes at all. He had a trilogy with Holyfield, not just one fight. They were epic. Douglas got pasted by Holyfield, and Moorer got kayoed by a 45 year old foreman. Give me a break! LOL!

I would agree that Bowe's losses are less embarrassing. With Moorer he was easily dominating Foreman and got caught. Such things sometimes happen. Douglas has a lot of really bad losses though, I won't make any excuses for him.

My basic point is beating one great fighter often isn't enough to say someone is great or put them in top-20 lists.
Ken Norton had three great fights with Muhammad Ali yet many people have him just outside their top 20.

Bowe gets rated so highly because of his trilogy with Holyfield. His resume apart from that isn't too strong, the size difference and style of Holyfield was a good match up for him.

Controversial wrote: ↑29 Jun 2019, 12:24 Bowe gets rated so highly because of his trilogy with Holyfield. His resume apart from that isn't too strong, the size difference and style of Holyfield was a good match up for him.

That's basically what I think

Controversial wrote: ↑29 Jun 2019, 12:24 Bowe gets rated so highly because of his trilogy with Holyfield. His resume apart from that isn't too strong, the size difference and style of Holyfield was a good match up for him.

I'm no Bowe fan, but I'm arguing that Bowe was better and had a better resume than Douglas and Moorer, as the prior poster seems to disagree.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑29 Jun 2019, 11:58 I see no reason to give Bowe any credit for beating gatekeeper/journeymen types. These guys consistently lose whenever they face top guys. Beating them merely establishes that Bowe is one of the elite of his era which nobody is disputing. Frank Bruno for example would be massively favored over all but 3 guys Bowe fought.

Holyfield is obviously a great win but I don't think it by itself is enough to put Bowe in the top 20, his resume needs a bit more depth.

Had Bruno fought these opponents with the Bowe's experience, had at the time, then Bruno would have had some losses before he ever fought Holyfield. Bruno probably would have been 0-3 against Holyfield. Who knows, with Bruno's chin he may have lost to Golota.

You simply don't understand, or don't care to understand.

oogiebe wrote: ↑29 Jun 2019, 12:27 I'm no Bowe fan, but I'm arguing that Bowe was better and had a better resume than Douglas and Moorer, as the prior poster seems to disagree.

And you are correct. Obviously a huge win counts as a big positive on your resume. However, the negatives count to. The ugly win sover Golota is a lot more impressive than the meltdowns that Douglas and Moorer had.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑29 Jun 2019, 20:38 Had Bruno fought these opponents with the Bowe's experience, had at the time, then Bruno would have had some losses before he ever fought Holyfield. Bruno probably would have been 0-3 against Holyfield. Who knows, with Bruno's chin he may have lost to Golota.

You simply don't understand, or don't care to understand.

Bruno probably would be 0-3 against Holyfield but he easily could beat everyone else Bowe faced. I'm just driving home that aside from Holyfield, Bowe's resume appears lack the depth of guys commonly placed in the top 20. Golota might be able to beat him but he was beating Bowe in both fights before he threw away victory by going low. If he hits Bruno low repeatedly like he did Bowe he probably loses by DQ.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑29 Jun 2019, 20:40 And you are correct. Obviously a huge win counts as a big positive on your resume. However, the negatives count to. The ugly win sover Golota is a lot more impressive than the meltdowns that Douglas and Moorer had.

I think a reasonable top 20 list would at least include the following guys in chronological order not order of ranking
Bob Fitzsimmons
James J Jeffries
Jack Johnson
Sam Langford
Harry Wills
Jack Dempsey
Gene Tunney
Max Schmelling
Joe Louis
Ezzard Charles
Sonny Liston
Muhammad Ali
Joe Frazier
George Foreman
Larry Holmes
Mike Tyson
Evander Holyfield
Lennox Lewis
Wladimir Klitschko

After that you have guys like Jersey Joe Walcott, Max Baer, Floyd Patterson, Jack Sharkey, Ken Norton, Riddick Bowe and others.
The top 20 is a pretty elite group. Would you put Bowe ahead of Ken Norton and Jersey Joe Walcott and if so why?

Part of ranking is dominance and I would say the following guys dominated a definable period of time (3+ years)
Bob Fizsimmons (1893-1897)
James J Jeffries (1898-1902)
Jack Johnson (1905-1908)
Joe Louis (1935-1942) (1946-1948)
Rocky Marciano (1951-1955)
Sonny Liston (1958-1963)
Muhammad Ali (1964-1967)(1970-1975)
Larry Holmes (1978-1983)
Mike Tyson (1986-1989)
Lennox Lewis (1998-2003)
Wladimir Klitschko (2006-2014)

I'd definitely have bowe over Fitz and wlad. Odd you rate tunney.

Who did Wlad beat 2006-2014 (or indeed ever) that Bowe wouldn't beat?

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑30 Jun 2019, 01:06 Bruno probably would be 0-3 against Holyfield but he easily could beat everyone else Bowe faced. I'm just driving home that aside from Holyfield, Bowe's resume appears lack the depth of guys commonly placed in the top 20. Golota might be able to beat him but he was beating Bowe in both fights before he threw away victory by going low. If he hits Bruno low repeatedly like he did Bowe he probably loses by DQ.

Had Bruno fought people like Thomas, Seldon, Cooper, Coetzer etc. while he was coming up he would have had some losses.
You keep ignoring the stage of Bowe's career because it is inconvenient to your argument.
Bruno definitely would have lost to Tubbs at that stage; in fact he probably would have lost to Tubbs at any stage of his career.

If Bruno got hit with the punches that Golota hit Bowe with, he would have been knocked out, Bruno had a glass jaw and never showed he had to ability to come back like Bowe did.
If Bruno fought Bowe's exact competition at the same stage of his career as Bowe did, he would have had had 6 or 7 losses.
It's a stupid argument you are making, so just stop.

overhand_right wrote: ↑01 Jul 2019, 10:47 Who did Wlad beat 2006-2014 (or indeed ever) that Bowe wouldn't beat?

Nobody. Klitschko is wildly overrated. His biggest win is over Chris Byrd. He has embarrassing losses. No reason at all to have him close to the top 30.
Klitschko is not remotely in Bowe's league.
Love how Cjoimar is always obsessed with size (when it suits his argument) but has Fitzsimmons in his top 20.

overhand_right wrote: ↑01 Jul 2019, 10:47 Who did Wlad beat 2006-2014 (or indeed ever) that Bowe wouldn't beat?

That's a pretty silly argument though.

I'm rating guys based on what they did in their own era and in his era Wladimir made 19 title defenses, held the title for more than 9 years and didn't avoid anyone aside from his brother. If your rating based on accomplishments that has to put him up high. Not fighting Vitali Klitschko and Wilder hurts him a bit but most heavyweight champions have missed some capable challengers and despite this few have lasted as long as Wladimir without losing.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑01 Jul 2019, 10:55 Nobody. Klitschko is wildly overrated. His biggest win is over Chris Byrd. He has embarrassing losses. No reason at all to have him close to the top 30.
Klitschko is not remotely in Bowe's league.
Love how Cjoimar is always obsessed with size (when it suits his argument) but has Fitzsimmons in his top 20.

I rate Fitzsimmons high because what he accomplished in his own era was extremely impressive. Over a 5 year period he cleaned out the division and beat everyone who posed any sort of threat. His only official loss during that period was a bizarre disqualification loss in a fight in which he was beating his opponent senseless and knocked him out only for the referee to claim he'd landed a low blow that nobody else saw. He beat Tom Sharkey, Gus Ruhlin, James Corbett, and Peter Maher. His only prime loss aside from the bizarre DQ was to James J. Jeffries. Most white fighters from that era have legacies that suffer due to drawing the color line but Fitzsimmons was fortunate that no capable black heavyweights emerged between Peter Jackson and Jack Johnson enabling him to not fight them without affecting his legacy.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑01 Jul 2019, 12:07 That's a pretty silly argument though.

I'm rating guys based on what they did in their own era and in his era Wladimir made 19 title defenses, held the title for more than 9 years and didn't avoid anyone aside from his brother. If your rating based on accomplishments that has to put him up high. Not fighting Vitali Klitschko and Wilder hurts him a bit but most heavyweight champions have missed some capable challengers and despite this few have lasted as long as Wladimir without losing.

He avoided a rematch with Ross Purritty, he avoided a rematch with Corrie Sanders, he avoided a rematch with Davaryll Williamson, and he only rematched Lamon Brewster and Samuel Peter years later, once they were washed up.