BoxRec

dr_devious wrote:

The Great John L wrote: Ali
Louis
Holmes
Johnson
Dempsey
Marciano
Frazier
Jeffries
Tunney
Lewis
Tyson
Charles
Wills
Langford
Holyfield
Foreman
Liston
Jeanette
Corbett
Jackson
Bowe

Is this list in order? If so, why do you rank Foreman and Liston so low, and why are Corbett and Jackson ranked above Bowe, or even on the list?

Good point. Wouldn't have jim jeffries ranked so high either.

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:

dr_devious wrote:

The Great John L wrote: Ali
Louis
Holmes
Johnson
Dempsey
Marciano
Frazier
Jeffries
Tunney
Lewis
Tyson
Charles
Wills
Langford
Holyfield
Foreman
Liston
Jeanette
Corbett
Jackson
Bowe

Is this list in order? If so, why do you rank Foreman and Liston so low, and why are Corbett and Jackson ranked above Bowe, or even on the list?

Good point. Wouldn't have jim jeffries ranked so high either.

Okay. Why wouldn't you rate Jeffries that high?

Bowe is arguably far closer to the level of Tony Tucker in terms of accomplishments than he is to Holyfield, Tyson or Lewis. If Spinks is at Tucker's level than he is at Bowe's as well.

dr_devious wrote:

The Great John L wrote: Ali
Louis
Holmes
Johnson
Dempsey
Marciano
Frazier
Jeffries
Tunney
Lewis
Tyson
Charles
Wills
Langford
Holyfield
Foreman
Liston
Jeanette
Corbett
Jackson
Bowe

Is this list in order? If so, why do you rank Foreman and Liston so low, and why are Corbett and Jackson ranked above Bowe, or even on the list?

Corbett and Jackson are arguably the two greatest heavyweights of the 19th century. I agree that they should be ranked higher than a fringe contender of the 1990s.

Cojimar 1945 wrote:Bowe is arguably far closer to the level of Tony Tucker in terms of accomplishments than he is to Holyfield, Tyson or Lewis. If Spinks is at Tucker's level than he is at Bowe's as well.

Sure, and it's arguable that the sun will come up tomorrow.

pundit wrote:

dr_devious wrote:

The Great John L wrote: Ali
Louis
Holmes
Johnson
Dempsey
Marciano
Frazier
Jeffries
Tunney
Lewis
Tyson
Charles
Wills
Langford
Holyfield
Foreman
Liston
Jeanette
Corbett
Jackson
Bowe

Is this list in order? If so, why do you rank Foreman and Liston so low, and why are Corbett and Jackson ranked above Bowe, or even on the list?

Corbett and Jackson are arguably the two greatest heavyweights of the 19th century. I agree that they should be ranked higher than a fringe contender of the 1990s.

Pundit, are you seriously saying that Bowe was a "fringe contender" of the 1990's?

Ambling Alp wrote:

pundit wrote:

dr_devious wrote: Is this list in order? If so, why do you rank Foreman and Liston so low, and why are Corbett and Jackson ranked above Bowe, or even on the list?

Corbett and Jackson are arguably the two greatest heavyweights of the 19th century. I agree that they should be ranked higher than a fringe contender of the 1990s.

Pundit, are you seriously saying that Bowe was a "fringe contender" of the 1990's?

No. Upgrade it to "eternal contender".

Ambling Alp wrote: Prime Tyson had trouble with Jesse Ferguson (Who Bowe knocked out in two rounds)

I can't beleive I actually read this. Ferguson was 29 when he fought Tyson. while he was 36 (and alot more losses) when he fought Bowe.

generic screen name wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote: Prime Tyson had trouble with Jesse Ferguson (Who Bowe knocked out in two rounds)

I can't beleive I actually read this. Ferguson was 29 when he fought Tyson. while he was 36 (and alot more losses) when he fought Bowe.

I'm not saying was that Ferguson was ever that great, though when he fought Bowe, he was coming off his win over Mercer which was the biggest of his career.
My main point was about Tyson not blowing out Ferguson. If you read the rest of the posts about this, I was responding to the claim that Tyson was "untouchable" and Ferguson was one of four fighters that I was pointing out that Tyson had trouble with before he got knocked out by Douglas.

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:

pundit wrote: Corbett and Jackson are arguably the two greatest heavyweights of the 19th century. I agree that they should be ranked higher than a fringe contender of the 1990s.

Pundit, are you seriously saying that Bowe was a "fringe contender" of the 1990's?

No. Upgrade it to "eternal contender".

Pundit, do I have to point out the obvious?
Bowe wasn't just a "fringe contender" or a "eternal contender". He wasn't just a paper champion either. He didn't win a vacant title against a nobody or beat an "alphabet soup" champion. He legitimately beat a great fighter (Evander Holyfield) to win the title. Btw, this was no fluke.
Riddick Bowe was the IBF/WBC/WBA heavyweight champion of the world. This isn't just my opinion. This is a fact.

Ambling Alp wrote: Pundit, do I have to point out the obvious?
Bowe wasn't just a "fringe contender" or a "eternal contender". He wasn't just a paper champion either. He didn't win a vacant title against a nobody or beat an "alphabet soup" champion. He legitimately beat a great fighter (Evander Holyfield) to win the title. Btw, this was no fluke.
Riddick Bowe was the IBF/WBC/WBA heavyweight champion of the world. This isn't just my opinion. This is a fact.

Fine, Alp. But he did nothing with these titles but squandering them as soon or even throwing them into a trash can when threnatened with an opponent he thought he could not beat.

Bowe as a "champ" is a sad story. The guy had obvious talent, but did little with it except for beating a sub-par Holyfield twice (when Holyfield brought his A game Bowe didn't beat him).

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote: Pundit, do I have to point out the obvious?
Bowe wasn't just a "fringe contender" or a "eternal contender". He wasn't just a paper champion either. He didn't win a vacant title against a nobody or beat an "alphabet soup" champion. He legitimately beat a great fighter (Evander Holyfield) to win the title. Btw, this was no fluke.
Riddick Bowe was the IBF/WBC/WBA heavyweight champion of the world. This isn't just my opinion. This is a fact.

Fine, Alp. But he did nothing with these titles but squandering them as soon or even throwing them into a trash can when threnatened with an opponent he thought he could not beat.

Bowe as a "champ" is a sad story. The guy had obvious talent, but did little with it except for beating a sub-par Holyfield twice (when Holyfield brought his A game Bowe didn't beat him).

I agree that Bowe should have fought Lewis, and that should be held against him. Tyson ducked Lewis as well until he was well past it and could use the "past his Prime excuse".

Holyfield wasn't subpar for their first fight. Holyfield brought his "A' game to the first Holyfield-Bowe fight. Holyfield fought a very good fight, Bowe was just a little bit better. In their 2nd fight, it was a very close fight; this time Holyfield was just a little better.
Both of these fights were great fights. There hasn't been a better fight in the heavyweight division since.

Ambling Alp wrote:

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote: Pundit, do I have to point out the obvious?
Bowe wasn't just a "fringe contender" or a "eternal contender". He wasn't just a paper champion either. He didn't win a vacant title against a nobody or beat an "alphabet soup" champion. He legitimately beat a great fighter (Evander Holyfield) to win the title. Btw, this was no fluke.
Riddick Bowe was the IBF/WBC/WBA heavyweight champion of the world. This isn't just my opinion. This is a fact.

Fine, Alp. But he did nothing with these titles but squandering them as soon or even throwing them into a trash can when threnatened with an opponent he thought he could not beat.

Bowe as a "champ" is a sad story. The guy had obvious talent, but did little with it except for beating a sub-par Holyfield twice (when Holyfield brought his A game Bowe didn't beat him).

I agree that Bowe should have fought Lewis, and that should be held against him. Tyson ducked Lewis as well until he was well past it and could use the "past his Prime excuse".

Not the same. Lewis wasn't Tyson's mandatory, and he didn't throw his belt into the trash can rather than defending it.

Holyfield wasn't subpar for their first fight. Holyfield brought his "A' game to the first Holyfield-Bowe fight. Holyfield fought a very good fight, Bowe was just a little bit better. In their 2nd fight, it was a very close fight; this time Holyfield was just a little better.

I always thought Holyfield was much improved and better prepared for the second fight. He himself said so.

Both of these fights were great fights. There hasn't been a better fight in the heavyweight division since.

I guess that's a fair statement.

pundit wrote:

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Corbett and Jackson are arguably the two greatest heavyweights of the 19th century. I agree that they should be ranked higher than a fringe contender of the 1990s.

Pundit, are you seriously saying that Bowe was a "fringe contender" of the 1990's?

No. Upgrade it to "eternal contender".

pundit logic trumps all else. Man, this guy is just too funny.

Bowe's reign was very short but he was a champion.

The Great John L wrote:

dr_devious wrote:

The Great John L wrote: Ali
Louis
Holmes
Johnson
Dempsey
Marciano
Frazier
Jeffries
Tunney
Lewis
Tyson
Charles
Wills
Langford
Holyfield
Foreman
Liston
Jeanette
Corbett
Jackson
Bowe

Is this list in order? If so, why do you rank Foreman and Liston so low, and why are Corbett and Jackson ranked above Bowe, or even on the list?

And why would you rank them differently? I simply posted this because Alp requested it, not to get into a debate.

I'd rank Foreman higher than Frazier because he beat him like a drum twice, and since I rank Frazier about number 8 I'd put Foreman a little higher. As for Liston, he was nigh on unbeatable at his peak, only 2 or 3 fighters in history would have a realistic chance of being able to walk out of the ring if they fought him. And Corbett and Jackson, like all pre-1900s fighters, fought in a different different game, like comparing apples and oranges. Besides, Corbett was little more than a middleweight. Peter Jackson didnt beat anyone in the Holyfield league. Bowe was a great, but unrealised talent. To rank him as low as you do is stupid

Jackson is a difficult fighter to rate. He had him rated at #20, which is better than many people would have him.

Actually Corbett wasn't that small. He was about 6'1 and usually weighed a solid 180-185. He was about the same size as Dempsey and Tunney. Corbett wasn't much smaller than Jackson who he fought evenly for 61 rounds.

dr_devious wrote:Bowe was a great, but unrealised talent. To rank him as low as you do is stupid

Sorry, but to rank someone who beat only one truly world class HW in the top 20 ATG HWs is stupid. But I guess you prefer to rank fighters with this mystical "unrealized" talent rather than those who actually accomplish things in the ring.

dr_devious wrote:I'd rank Foreman higher than Frazier because he beat him like a drum twice, and since I rank Frazier about number 8 I'd put Foreman a little higher.

Hmmm, Jimmy Young made a peak Foreman look like an amatuer, so I guess you must have him ahead of Foreman then?

It's nice to see you put so much thought and effort into your rankings.

The Great John L wrote:

dr_devious wrote:Bowe was a great, but unrealised talent. To rank him as low as you do is stupid

Sorry, but to rank someone who beat only one truly world class HW in the top 20 ATG HWs is stupid. But I guess you prefer to rank fighters with this mystical "unrealized" talent rather than those who actually accomplish things in the ring.

John L- It can't be that stupid to rank Bowe in the top 20, you have him # 21 yourself!

Since the arguement against Bowe seems to be that his competition was so weak, you must believe that if Charles, Wills,Langford, Jeanette, Corbett, and Jackson would have fought Bowe's opponents, that they would have not lost more than one fight.
Do you believe that?

Ambling Alp wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

dr_devious wrote:Bowe was a great, but unrealised talent. To rank him as low as you do is stupid

Sorry, but to rank someone who beat only one truly world class HW in the top 20 ATG HWs is stupid. But I guess you prefer to rank fighters with this mystical "unrealized" talent rather than those who actually accomplish things in the ring.

John L- It can't be that stupid to rank Bowe in the top 20, you have him # 21 yourself!

Since the arguement against Bowe seems to be that his competition was so weak, you must believe that if Charles, Wills,Langford, Jeanette, Corbett, and Jackson would have fought Bowe's opponents, that they would have not lost more than one fight.
Do you believe that?

Oh yes. And they also would not have been beaten up by Andrew Golota. Plus, Bowe would have faltered against these folks' competition, i.e., against the likes of Walcott, Louis, Langford, Wills, Johnson, Jeffries, Corbett, Jackson.

I'd have a few more guys above Bowe. He's barely top 30 in my book.

The Great John L wrote:

dr_devious wrote:I'd rank Foreman higher than Frazier because he beat him like a drum twice, and since I rank Frazier about number 8 I'd put Foreman a little higher.

Hmmm, Jimmy Young made a peak Foreman look like an amatuer, so I guess you must have him ahead of Foreman then?

It's nice to see you put so much thought and effort into your rankings.

I just dont get carried away with nostalgia like some posters on here do. I believe that the pre 1960s/70s heavies would very much struggle to beat the best that have come since, mostly on size grounds. Thats why I dont rate Rocky Marciano in my top 5. I just dont see him beating Ali, Liston, Holmes, Foreman, Frazier or Lewis or even being competitive in these fights (ok he would be competitive against Frazier but I'd still back Frazier). And to rank the likes of Peter Jackson and Jim Corbett ahead of Bowe is unrealistic. Its based on nostalgia rather than analysis of what these guys brought to the ring.
And you cant judge Foreman on one bad performance against Jimmy Young. Its common knowledge that Foreman wasnt exactly focussed in this fight

Ambling Alp wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

dr_devious wrote:Bowe was a great, but unrealised talent. To rank him as low as you do is stupid

Sorry, but to rank someone who beat only one truly world class HW in the top 20 ATG HWs is stupid. But I guess you prefer to rank fighters with this mystical "unrealized" talent rather than those who actually accomplish things in the ring.

John L- It can't be that stupid to rank Bowe in the top 20, you have him # 21 yourself!

Alp, sorry if I offended, but I was simply challenging devious own rediculous comment. He said that Bowe was a “great unrealized talent” and that my ranking him as low as 21 was stupid. I think he was simply trying to rankle, which is all I was doing as well.

Ambling Alp wrote:Since the arguement against Bowe seems to be that his competition was so weak, you must believe that if Charles, Wills,Langford, Jeanette, Corbett, and Jackson would have fought Bowe's opponents, that they would have not lost more than one fight.
Do you believe that?

Overall, they each fought better competition than Bowe, but as to how they would each perform against all of Bowe's opponents I would have to go through an individual matchup of each of them against each of Bowe's opponents and I don't have the time or interst.

Decagon wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

dr_devious wrote:I'd rank Foreman higher than Frazier because he beat him like a drum twice, and since I rank Frazier about number 8 I'd put Foreman a little higher.

Hmmm, Jimmy Young made a peak Foreman look like an amatuer, so I guess you must have him ahead of Foreman then?

It's nice to see you put so much thought and effort into your rankings.

A peak Foreman suffering from deep depression? Prime, yes; peak, no. I wouldn't call the Tyson that lost to Douglas at his peak. If the mind isn't there, it's a problem you have to work with. When Foreman was in his prime, his mind was always there.

George was well prepared and probably better trained for Young than for any other fight of his career. If you remember, George had spent considerable time and effort improving his skills and shortening his punches after the Lyle fight and the Foreman that fought Young was probably at his very best skill wise.

George, like many (most?) great athletes was an intense and highly emotional personality. That intensity, like with Tyson, helped to make George the fearsome fighter that he was. The breakdown that occurred following the defeat to Young was certainly understandable and not entirely unheard of for a great athlete losing on a big stage.

George struggled twice against an over the hill Gregorio Peralta, and was outboxed by Young. Not because Young was a better fighter, but because of the styles of the two fighters. George on any night would have looked bad against Young.

dr_devious wrote:I just dont get carried away with nostalgia like some posters on here do. I believe that the pre 1960s/70s heavies would very much struggle to beat the best that have come since, mostly on size grounds.

So, you must rate Valuev very highly? Where do you have Valuev, Kirk Johnson, Danny Williams, A-Force and Jameel McCline rated all-time? Certainly higher than Ali, who fought 30-40 years ago, and was only 210 lbs at his best. Or are you letting your nostalgia for the 70’s get in the way of your judgment?

dr_devious wrote:And to rank the likes of Peter Jackson and Jim Corbett ahead of Bowe is unrealistic. Its based on nostalgia rather than analysis of what these guys brought to the ring.

Unrealistic? You must have great knowledge of the heavyweights prior to 1900. Perhaps you can enlighten us on exactly what Jackson and Corbett “brought to the ring”.

dr_devious wrote:And you cant judge Foreman on one bad performance against Jimmy Young. Its common knowledge that Foreman wasnt exactly focussed in this fight

Foreman struggled with slick boxers. He had great difficulty with an over the hill Gregorio Peralta, was schooled by Ali and Young, and avoided slick boxers like the plague during his “second career”. He was a great fighter, but he also had some very glaring faults. I’m just trying to be realistic about George and not let my nostalgia for the 70’s get in the way of my judgment.