BoxRec

The Great John L wrote:

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.

You are reducing the debate to a farce. Of course I dont rate Valuev etc that highly, I was talking about the very top heavyweights of the modern era who are all time greats in their own right.
I havent seen any footage of Peter Jackson and Jim Corbett, have you? I know that the competition they fought was mostly crap and that Corbett was little more than a middleweight. Guys of this era were a step up from the old bareknuckle boxers. In fact your posting name on here would suggest you have a strong bias for the pioneer fighters of this era.
As for Foreman, he struggled with Peralta at the beginning of his career, a novice against a seasoned veteran, so what? He lost to Young when his head was cacked, so what? He lost to the greatest heavyweight of all time, after giving him hell, does this spoil his legacy? No

dr_devious wrote: I havent seen any footage of Peter Jackson and Jim Corbett, have you? I know that the competition they fought was mostly crap…

How do you know their competition was crap if you haven’t “seen footage” of them fighting?

dr_devious wrote:… Corbett was little more than a middleweight.

Corbett usually fought in the mid 180’s. The middleweight limit is 160. Perhaps you weren’t aware of these facts.

dr_devious wrote: Guys of this era were a step up from the old bareknuckle boxers. In fact your posting name on here would suggest you have a strong bias for the pioneer fighters of this era.

A knowledge and respect would be more accurate. I can tell that you are obviously totally unbiased. Unfortunately, you’re also totally clueless.

dr_devious wrote:As for Foreman, he struggled with Peralta at the beginning of his career, a novice against a seasoned veteran, so what? He lost to Young when his head was cacked, so what? He lost to the greatest heavyweight of all time, after giving him hell, does this spoil his legacy? No

Yes, George was young when he struggled with Peralta the first time. Of course, Peralta was a blown-up 35 year old light heavyweight who was not much bigger than Jim Corbett.

Perhaps you would like to list all of the slick boxers that George did beat rather than providing excuses for his losses and struggles with good boxers. I’m just trying to analyze his career by looking at his performances, and I think any unbiased observer would agree that George never beat a slick boxer in his career, and did a great job of avoiding them during his second career. And no that doesn’t take away from his legacy, but it does define who he was, and what he was capable of doing in the ring. He was a great fighter, but not a great ring technician, and his weaknesses would have made him vulnerable to a lot of fighters throughout history that would not trouble other greats who had better technical skills and speed.

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:

The Great John L wrote: 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.

Why is it that you only want to talk about the Golota fights when you talk about Bowe?
All of these other guys had fights where they looked bad as well.
I don't think Bowe was betterthan Louis, Johnson, but he he was better than guys like Charles, Walcott, Langford, Jeanette, Wills, Corbett and Jackson.

Where is your evidence that Bowe would have faltered against these guy competition. He had very little trouble with the "C'level fighters that hefought. Outside of each other who did Charles and Walcott beat that Bowe wouldn't have beaten easily? And they each lost several times to some not so great heavyweights.

If Bowe can fight great fights with Holyfield, he can compete with almost anyone. He did get lucky against Holyfield or just happen to have a style that bothered Holyfield. He had great skills.

Have you actually seen Bowe fight anyone else? In almost all of his other fights he showed the ability to fight inside or outside, had a good chin, good power, great quickness for a big man.

Even in the Golota fights in whcih he was out of shape and performed badly, (and was fouled repeatedly) at least Bowe hung in there and won the fights. He didn't roll over when things got tough like "Aluminum Mike" alwasy did when things got tough.

Ambling Alp wrote:

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote: 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.

Why is it that you only want to talk about the Golota fights when you talk about Bowe?
All of these other guys had fights where they looked bad as well.
I don't think Bowe was betterthan Louis, Johnson, but he he was better than guys like Charles, Walcott, Langford, Jeanette, Wills, Corbett and Jackson.

TOTALLY disagree with you here. This is an absurd proposition.

Where is your evidence that Bowe would have faltered against these guy competition.

Golota.

He had very little trouble with the "C'level fighters that hefought. Outside of each other who did Charles and Walcott beat that Bowe wouldn't have beaten easily?

Joe Louis, for starters.

Even in the Golota fights in whcih he was out of shape and performed badly, (and was fouled repeatedly) at least Bowe hung in there and won the fights. He didn't roll over when things got tough like "Aluminum Mike" alwasy did when things got tough.

Come on, he didn't figth anyone but Holyfield and Holyfield wasn't on the top of his game in either match, especially not in the third. An in-form fucused Holyfield creamed Bowe. But fine -- let the first win stand, this makes it one good win and nothing much of note thereafter. This puts Bowe in the class of, say, Ingemar Johannson; but only just. After all Johannson beat Patterson AND Machen.

But there is absolutely NO basis to put Bowe above or even into the same price class with ATGs like Langford (best heavyweight of the 1910s) or Wills (tied for best heavyweight of the 1920s), Charles (strong candidate for top 5 ATG pfp) or Corbett (arguably the best heavyweight of the 19th century). These guys occupy entire chapters in the history of heavyweight boxing, while Riddick Bowe occupies a footnote.

Bowe may have had the potential for more, but this it is -- potential. There are several such cases in boxing history. A disciplined Max Baer would probably have achieved more than he did. Bowe's nemesis Golota had all the tools but not the frame of mind to be a champion. Even recognized ATGs could have done better -- Jack Johnson could have domianted the 1910s too but prefered to enjoy the good life; and Mike Tyson probably had the potential to be top 3 ATG, he was certainly talked about in these terms when he came up, but didn't live up to this either.

Cheers,
P

Ambling Alp wrote: If Bowe can fight great fights with Holyfield, he can compete with almost anyone. He did get lucky against Holyfield or just happen to have a style that bothered Holyfield. He had great skills.

I totally agree, although I think you meant to say that “He didn’t get lucky against Holyfield”. Bowe was a large , skilled HW and I agree when you say that he would have been a handful for any HW in history. As you mentioned, I don’t think we’re too far apart in our assessment, but the thing that keeps Bowe from being higher in my ATG ratings is what I consider to be his somewhat weak resume.

I know you were responding to pundit, but I thought I’d give you a little support for a change. I think any observer needs to be objective, and as you noted, Bowe’s size and skills would have made him a difficult opponent for any HW in history.

Decagon wrote:

dr_devious wrote:You are reducing the debate to a farce.

Irony. If the big, bad heavyweights of the 1960s and 1970s were so great, how come Sonny Liston lost to light heavyweight Marty Marshall? Why did George Foreman lose to Jimmy Young? Why did Earnie Shavers lose to Jerry Quarry?

a. Liston got his jaw broken, which may have slightly hampered him!
b. Foreman wasnt in the right state of mind at that stage to give of his best
c. I never mentioned Earnie Shavers in this post or have claimed he is an all-time great in any other post.

The Great John L wrote: How do you know their competition was crap if you haven’t “seen footage” of them fighting?

Who did either Jackson or Corbett fight that compares with Bowe's or Foreman's opponents? In their day they were good, but not compared with modern heavyweight, so comparatively speaking they are crap.

The Great John L wrote:Corbett usually fought in the mid 180’s. The middleweight limit is 160. Perhaps you weren’t aware of these facts.

So Corbett is little more than a light heavyweight, he'd still get the crap kicked out of him by Bowe, peak for peak.

The Great John L wrote: A knowledge and respect would be more accurate. I can tell that you are obviously totally unbiased. Unfortunately, you’re also totally clueless.

I do respect the old timers. I think that chances are they could have adopted their styles and guys like Sullivan and Jackson would have been effective in other eras had they done so. The guys of the Sullivan era were extremely tough and deserve respect. But the debate is whether they could have been effective later, and as they were, no, they would be overmatched against Foreman or Bowe. Or do you think they wouldnt? Why dont you put up a logical counter argument of why Corbett and Jackson are better than Bowe (or even Foreman)? I'd like to hear this one.

The Great John L wrote: Yes, George was young when he struggled with Peralta the first time. Of course, Peralta was a blown-up 35 year old light heavyweight who was not much bigger than Jim Corbett.

Perhaps you would like to list all of the slick boxers that George did beat rather than providing excuses for his losses and struggles with good boxers. I’m just trying to analyze his career by looking at his performances, and I think any unbiased observer would agree that George never beat a slick boxer in his career, and did a great job of avoiding them during his second career. And no that doesn’t take away from his legacy, but it does define who he was, and what he was capable of doing in the ring. He was a great fighter, but not a great ring technician, and his weaknesses would have made him vulnerable to a lot of fighters throughout history that would not trouble other greats who had better technical skills and speed.

Ken Norton was an excellent boxer and Foreman nearly killed him. Just because he lost to Jimmy Young at a stage in his career where his head wasnt right doesnt make him vulnerable to other slick boxers.

dr_devious wrote:Who did either Jackson or Corbett fight that compares with Bowe's or Foreman's opponents?

Since you know nothing of boxing history this would simply be a waste of effort.

dr_devious wrote: Why dont you put up a logical counter argument of why Corbett and Jackson are better than Bowe (or even Foreman)? I'd like to hear this one.

Since you have yet to come up with s single logical comment, this would also be a waste of effort. It’s interesting that you seem to be implying that Bowe might rank higher than Foreman. I guess that makes sense since he was a little bit bigger than George, and also from a more “modern” era. Not sure why you don’t rate Valuev, Williams, Johnson, McCline, etc. higher since they are even more “modern” and bigger than Riddick Bowe. Maybe you rate the Klitchko’s higher than Bowe and Foreman, since they are both very “modern” and quite large?

dr_devious wrote: Ken Norton was an excellent boxer and Foreman nearly killed him.

Are you implying that Norton was a slick boxer, ala Jimmy Young? Don’t get me wrong, I think Norton was an excellent fighter, but I don’t think that anyone with any boxing would call him a slick boxer. I think you’ve got some serious shortcomings in your understanding of some boxing basics.

Decagon wrote:

dr_devious wrote:a. Liston got his jaw broken, which may have slightly hampered him!

If a journeyman light heavyweight could break his jaw, imagine what Nicolai Valuev would do to him.

dr_devious wrote:b. Foreman wasnt in the right state of mind at that stage to give of his best

Imagine how depressed Foreman would have been fighting Nicolai Valuev.

dr_devious wrote:c. I never mentioned Earnie Shavers in this post or have claimed he is an all-time great in any other post.

You only mentioned one heavyweight by name in your stupid post. What am I supposed to do? Memorize your top-30 all-time list?

Dec, remember that Liston fought prior to the 70’s, so devious probably doesn’t think he’s any good. Not sure there’s much logic in his ramblings, but I do recall him saying something about HWs prior to the 70’s not being any good because they were too small.

I’m really puzzled why he doesn’t rate Valuev higher since he’s certainly bigger than any HW contenders from the 70’s. Maybe he’s a Klitchko lover?

Langford, Jeannette and Wills all rate ahead of Bowe.

Langford, Jeannette and Wills all rate ahead of Bowe.

question is a little vague so I didn't vote; if you mean who was the best at a given moment within the span of those years then it's Tyson, Lewis, Holyfield, Bowe for me (at his [Tyson's] absolute best), if it's who did better over the course of those years then it's Lewis then Holyfield then Tyson then Bowe

Decagon wrote:

dr_devious wrote:a. Liston got his jaw broken, which may have slightly hampered him!

If a journeyman light heavyweight could break his jaw, imagine what Nicolai Valuev would do to him.

dr_devious wrote:b. Foreman wasnt in the right state of mind at that stage to give of his best

Imagine how depressed Foreman would have been fighting Nicolai Valuev.

dr_devious wrote:c. I never mentioned Earnie Shavers in this post or have claimed he is an all-time great in any other post.

You only mentioned one heavyweight by name in your stupid post. What am I supposed to do? Memorize your top-30 all-time list?

Whats has Valuev got to do with the argument, or is this another one of your pointless troll posts Dec?

John L, you are wasting your time because you cannot seriously claim that Corbett or Jackson's resume is as good as Foreman or Bowe. I'm simply asking you to back your claim of why you think they are better.
And I rate Liston in the top 5 heavyweights of all time.

dr_devious wrote:John L, you are wasting your time because you cannot seriously claim that Corbett or Jackson's resume is as good as Foreman or Bowe. I'm simply asking you to back your claim of why you think they are better.
And I rate Liston in the top 5 heavyweights of all time.

This is BS. Corbett beat Sullivan and drew with Jackson, and he was competitive with Fitzsimmons and Jeffries, all ATGs. He also owned other top contenders like Joe Choynski. Compare this with Bowe, who has only one comparable name to his record -- Holyfield. Gene Tunney said Corbett was the most skilful fighter he had ever met.

Jackson didn't have a chance to accumulate a great resumee because he was black and this was the colorline period and all leading white fighters except Corbett ducked him. But press reports of the time tell you that he was secdon to none in the 1890s.

In a nutshell, Corbett and Jackson are arguably the two greatest heavyweights of the 19th century, while Bowe is a footnote to the Lewis-Holyfield-Tyson era.

pundit wrote:

dr_devious wrote: In a nutshell, Corbett and Jackson are arguably the two greatest heavyweights of the 19th century, while Bowe is a footnote to the Lewis-Holyfield-Tyson era.

Which was the better era Pundit, the 1890s or the 1990s? And Bowe was more than a footnote in this era

dr_devious wrote:

pundit wrote:

dr_devious wrote: In a nutshell, Corbett and Jackson are arguably the two greatest heavyweights of the 19th century, while Bowe is a footnote to the Lewis-Holyfield-Tyson era.

Which was the better era Pundit, the 1890s or the 1990s? And Bowe was more than a footnote in this era

Very hard to say. Both belonged to the better decades of heayvweight boxing. The 1890s were really the birth hour of modern boxing, when boxing turned from a spectacle to a high-profile sport, with legends like John L Sullivan, Jim Corbett, Peter Jackson, Bob Fitzsimmons, the young Jim Jeffries, and very strong contenders like Tom Sharkey and Joe Choynski. The 1990s were good too, very competitive, although less so than the 1970s or 1930s.

The 1890s were historically very important and the fighters you mentioned are legendary. However I believe that the quality of the heavyweight division in the 1990s is stronger with the likes of Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson and Bowe. The only guy from the 1890s who would be competitive amongst this lot would be Jeffries imo.

dr_devious wrote:The 1890s were historically very important and the fighters you mentioned are legendary. However I believe that the quality of the heavyweight division in the 1990s is stronger with the likes of Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson and Bowe. The only guy from the 1890s who would be competitive amongst this lot would be Jeffries imo.

Hmmmm..... it's not that easy. A post-prime Corbett outboxed Jeffries comfortably for 22 rounds in 1900.

pundit wrote:

dr_devious wrote:Hmmmm..... it's not that easy. A post-prime Corbett outboxed Jeffries comfortably for 22 rounds in 1900.

I hear what youre saying, I just dont see Corbett lasting very long against Bowe, Tyson, Holyfield or Lewis.

The Great John L wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote: If Bowe can fight great fights with Holyfield, he can compete with almost anyone. He did get lucky against Holyfield or just happen to have a style that bothered Holyfield. He had great skills.

I totally agree, although I think you meant to say that “He didn’t get lucky against Holyfield”. Bowe was a large , skilled HW and I agree when you say that he would have been a handful for any HW in history. As you mentioned, I don’t think we’re too far apart in our assessment, but the thing that keeps Bowe from being higher in my ATG ratings is what I consider to be his somewhat weak resume.

I know you were responding to pundit, but I thought I’d give you a little support for a change. I think any observer needs to be objective, and as you noted, Bowe’s size and skills would have made him a difficult opponent for any HW in history.

Yes I did mean that Bowe didn't just get lucky against Holyfield. He beat Holyfield fair and square over 12 rounds when Holyfield was in his prime. He also fought a very close fight with Holyfield in their 2nd fight.
I agree with you that Bowe wouldn't have been an easy fight for any fighter in history. (with the possible exception of a prime Ali)

Ambling Alp wrote:I agree with you that Bowe wouldn't have been an easy fight for any fighter in history. (with the possible exception of a prime Ali)

Gee, I think he would have given Ali a pretty tough fight. At least for the first 6 or 7 rounds, when I think Ali’s conditioning would have made the second half of the fight a whitewash. Still a tough fight though.

I think a guy like Frazier would have been particularly tough for Bowe because while I think Bowe had good power, it just wasn’t’ quite good enough to stop Frazier, and the non-stop in your face Frazier would have been very hard for Bowe to deal with.

The Great John L wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:I agree with you that Bowe wouldn't have been an easy fight for any fighter in history. (with the possible exception of a prime Ali)

Gee, I think he would have given Ali a pretty tough fight. At least for the first 6 or 7 rounds, when I think Ali’s conditioning would have made the second half of the fight a whitewash. Still a tough fight though.

I think a guy like Frazier would have been particularly tough for Bowe because while I think Bowe had good power, it just wasn’t’ quite good enough to stop Frazier, and the non-stop in your face Frazier would have been very hard for Bowe to deal with.

IMO Bowe and Lewis had to carefully pace themselves or become quickly gassed. Frazier would have had to get past the first few rounds but once he was in the 5th his pace would have been too much for either man. There's no way they could have lived with Frazier's punch rate.

I agree that Bowe wasn't as good as Frazier and probably would have lost to Frazier. However, it may have been a pretty good fight. Bowe did have a good jab that would help him somewhat in keeping Frazier at bay for a while. Bowe was also a very good inside fighter as well, so while Frazier would have the edge inside, Bowe wouldn't be roughed up as much as most fighters would against Frazier.

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:

pundit wrote: 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.

Why is it that you only want to talk about the Golota fights when you talk about Bowe?
All of these other guys had fights where they looked bad as well.
I don't think Bowe was betterthan Louis, Johnson, but he he was better than guys like Charles, Walcott, Langford, Jeanette, Wills, Corbett and Jackson.

TOTALLY disagree with you here. This is an absurd proposition.

Where is your evidence that Bowe would have faltered against these guy competition.

Golota.

He had very little trouble with the "C'level fighters that hefought. Outside of each other who did Charles and Walcott beat that Bowe wouldn't have beaten easily?

Joe Louis, for starters.

Even in the Golota fights in whcih he was out of shape and performed badly, (and was fouled repeatedly) at least Bowe hung in there and won the fights. He didn't roll over when things got tough like "Aluminum Mike" alwasy did when things got tough.

Come on, he didn't figth anyone but Holyfield and Holyfield wasn't on the top of his game in either match, especially not in the third. An in-form fucused Holyfield creamed Bowe. But fine -- let the first win stand, this makes it one good win and nothing much of note thereafter. This puts Bowe in the class of, say, Ingemar Johannson; but only just. After all Johannson beat Patterson AND Machen.

But there is absolutely NO basis to put Bowe above or even into the same price class with ATGs like Langford (best heavyweight of the 1910s) or Wills (tied for best heavyweight of the 1920s), Charles (strong candidate for top 5 ATG pfp) or Corbett (arguably the best heavyweight of the 19th century). These guys occupy entire chapters in the history of heavyweight boxing, while Riddick Bowe occupies a footnote.

Bowe may have had the potential for more, but this it is -- potential. There are several such cases in boxing history. A disciplined Max Baer would probably have achieved more than he did. Bowe's nemesis Golota had all the tools but not the frame of mind to be a champion. Even recognized ATGs could have done better -- Jack Johnson could have domianted the 1910s too but prefered to enjoy the good life; and Mike Tyson probably had the potential to be top 3 ATG, he was certainly talked about in these terms when he came up, but didn't live up to this either.

Cheers,
P

Once again it's Golota. :( Bowe's entire career shouldn't be based on those bad performances. Why don't we do that with all the fighters?
Langford lost to Gunboat Smith. (A good fighter but certainly not great)
Walcott lost to several ordinary fighters.
Charles lost to Valdes, Layne, Harold Johnson
Schmeling got ko'd by the legendary Gyspey Daniels in one round. And he lost to Steve Hamas, and Baer.

Once again, at least with Golota, Bowe didn't actually lose.

If those guys had fought Bowe's competition they would have lost more than one fight. If they can lose to orindary fighters, they would have lost some of the guys Bowe beat. (Such as Seldon, Donald, Hide) And they certainly wouldn't have beaten Holyfield 2 out of 3.

Bowe deserves some credit for being consistent. Except for the Golota didn't have let downs that most fighters have occasionally.

You are actually counting Joe Louis as a big win for Charles? He was way over the hill. No way that the Joe Louis that Charles beats would go the distance with Bowe.
So I ask you again, who did Walcott and Charles beat (besides) that was so great?

An inshape Holyfield creamed Bowe? That's not true at all. The 2nd fight was very close.
And Holyfield was in great shape when he lost to Bowe in the 1st fight. Holyfield fought a great fight;but just came up a little short. (Better than the fight when he beat Tyson)

Comparing Bowe to Johannson is absolutely ridiculaus. Bowe beat Holyfield, who was much better than Patterson or Machen.
Bowe never got crushed like Johansson was twice.
Finally, watch tapes of the two. (And not just against Golota) Bowe was better at virtually every facet of boxing than Johansson.

I am not talking about Bowe's potential. I'm talking about what Bowe actually did in the ring.