Riddick Bowe vs Joe Louis

[The Great John L]

Bowe at his best might well be the best HW champ of all time. However his prime could probably be considered to be a bout 6 months in duration.

Which 6 months were you thinking was his prime?

[NazNaci1]

Bowe at his best might well be the best HW champ of all time. However his prime could probably be considered to be a bout 6 months in duration.

Which 6 months were you thinking was his prime?

I am sorry, I just can't see a guy, with a leaky defence, willing to take shots doing very well, when compared to the other great HW champs and contenders. Of course he could beat some, its not like he wasn't talented, but the possibly the best???

What did he posses that makes you think he could have been? I would be interested to read your thoughts, as to why

[The Great John L]

Bowe at his best might well be the best HW champ of all time. However his prime could probably be considered to be a bout 6 months in duration.

Which 6 months were you thinking was his prime?

I am sorry, I just can't see a guy, with a leaky defence, willing to take shots doing very well, when compared to the other great HW champs and contenders. Of course he could beat some, its not like he wasn't talented, but the possibly the best???

What did he posses that makes you think he could have been? I would be interested to read your thoughts, as to why

I don't think he was even remotely close to the best at any time during his career. That's why I asked the OP for a 6 month timeframe when he felt that Bowe was at his best.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

The guy in the ring with Holyfield for their first fight was a bad ass that could beat anybody.

[NazNaci1]

The guy in the ring with Holyfield for their first fight was a bad ass that could beat anybody.

Not often I find myself disagreeing with you Saad, however I do here......I just don't see that. I see a very hittable guy, with good power (not immense as some make out) just taking too many licks because he cant get out the way.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Its bound to happen here and there. I wouldn't favor him over Louis, but I'm not comfortable saying he couldn't possibly beat him. And Dempsey treats Bowe like he was Jameel McCline at the end of his career. Buddy Baer?

[hhaehre]

The guy in the ring with Holyfield for their first fight was a bad ass that could beat anybody.

Just because he beat Holyfield it does not mean he could beat anybody, besides Holyfield fought a bad fight tactically the first time around. He corrected it in the rematch and won, sure Bowe was not quite as sharp for the second fight but like Ali in FOTC he wasn't that far off.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

The guy in the ring with Holyfield for their first fight was a bad ass that could beat anybody.

Just because he beat Holyfield it does not mean he could beat anybody, besides Holyfield fought a bad fight tactically the first time around. He corrected it in the rematch and won, sure Bowe was not quite as sharp for the second fight but like Ali in FOTC he wasn't that far off.

It's not just who he beat, it's how he beat him. Great jab, great chin, great infighting, solid stamina & huge size. I'm not ruling him out against anyone. But feel free to yourself.

[hhaehre]

The guy in the ring with Holyfield for their first fight was a bad ass that could beat anybody.

Just because he beat Holyfield it does not mean he could beat anybody, besides Holyfield fought a bad fight tactically the first time around. He corrected it in the rematch and won, sure Bowe was not quite as sharp for the second fight but like Ali in FOTC he wasn't that far off.

It's not just who he beat, it's how he beat him. Great jab, great chin, great infighting, solid stamina & huge size. I'm not ruling him out against anyone. But feel free to yourself.

I'm not ruling him out, it was truly a great performance. My problem is that it happened only once. I have a problem rating Buster Douglas very high for the same reason, despite his one glorious moment. Odds are neither one of them would be able to repeat it.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I've never rated him very high for that very reason. This is a discussion about one fight. And on the right night, I think he could beat anybody. That's not the same thing as would. Though Tyson is a guy I think he would beat consistently.

[dempseyfire]

Obviously you have to go with Louis. However, it could be a difficult fight. Styles are important. However you have to take into consideration that not only would Bowe have height and reach advantages, he could fight on the inside and had very good handspeed for a big man.

Usually Louis rolled over his opponents, but not always. Louis got knocked down by Braddock, Buddy Baer and Galento, and Farr and Godoy went the distance in competitive fights. None of those guys are in Bowe's class. It's no far fetched at all to think he could hurt Louis, and be competitive for several rounds.

I'd favor Farr over Bowe. Buddy Baer-Riddick Bowe would've been a helluva war.

Farr over Bowe? Come on. Bowe vs Baer? Bowe was better than Baer at virtually everything. It would have been a one-sided beating.
I know that Farr and Baer birth certificates probably show they were older than Bowe, but this is taking the whole "they were better in the old days" to a ridiculaus extreme.

Farr was an extremely durable, fast active boxer-puncher with constant movement and a great jab. He fought in the style Evander did when Holyfield won rounds from Bowe and didn't get into a slugging match in typical Holyfield style.

Baer was an athletic guy with a huge punch. Leaky defense himself but his chin and stamina were as good or better than Bowe at his best.

[dempseyfire]

The guy in the ring with Holyfield for their first fight was a bad ass that could beat anybody.

Just because he beat Holyfield it does not mean he could beat anybody, besides Holyfield fought a bad fight tactically the first time around. He corrected it in the rematch and won, sure Bowe was not quite as sharp for the second fight but like Ali in FOTC he wasn't that far off.

It's not just who he beat, it's how he beat him. Great jab, great chin, great infighting, solid stamina & huge size. I'm not ruling him out against anyone. But feel free to yourself.

Evander came into the fight way overconfident b/c he'd kicked Bowe's ass in sparring and the word on Riddick in boxing circles was that he was a front-runner with no heart. Hence Evander abandoning boxing after the 2nd round and taking it to Bowe, thinking Riddick would wilt from Holyfield's pressure and being in his chest. Well, credit to Bowe he did have heart and he had more perservence (and an inside game) then everyone thought, and Holyfield made the wrong move. I do regard Holyfield as Bowe's superior (beat him in the rematch and would've knocked out Bowe in their 3rd fight if not for his illness) . .so you should be supporting me here!!

[Ambling Alp]

Oh come on.Bowe beat him fair and sqaure becasue he perfomed at a very high level. Yes Holfyield won the rematch. however, that fight was very close and easily could have been a draw or a win for Bowe.

You nitpick Bowe, even he when he performs great. However, guys that fought during the old days always get a free pass.

Tommy Farr career record was 83-31-15. He lost to guys nobody ever bothers talking about. Dave Carstens, Eddie Phillips, etc. Yet this would be a huge challenge for Bowe?
If so many mediocre fighers can beat Farr or at least get a draw against him there is only one logical conclusion; He was not that good. He could not even win 2/3 of his fights.

46 times he went into the ring and couldn't win. Yet someone beating a prime Holyfield is something that should be downplayed.
Holyfield was overconfident, blah blah. Holyfield fought a bad tactical fight? He fought the same way that he always did. Holyfield won the 2nd time, but it easily could have gone the other way.

Buddy Baer was athletic? Seriously? Durable, I guess you argue for that. However he was stopped by none other than the legendary Gunner Barlund.

[dempseyfire]

Oh come on.Bowe beat him fair and sqaure becasue he perfomed at a very high level. Yes Holfyield won the rematch. however, that fight was very close and easily could have been a draw or a win for Bowe.

You nitpick Bowe, even he when he performs great. However, guys that fought during the old days always get a free pass.

Tommy Farr career record was 83-31-15. He lost to guys nobody ever bothers talking about. Dave Carstens, Eddie Phillips, etc. Yet this would be a huge challenge for Bowe?
If so many mediocre fighers can beat Farr or at least get a draw against him there is only one logical conclusion; He was not that good. He could not even win 2/3 of his fights.

46 times he went into the ring and couldn't win. Yet someone beating a prime Holyfield is something that should be downplayed.
Holyfield was overconfident, blah blah. Holyfield fought a bad tactical fight? He fought the same way that he always did. Holyfield won the 2nd time, but it easily could have gone the other way.

Buddy Baer was athletic? Seriously? Durable, I guess you argue for that. However he was stopped by none other than the legendary Gunner Barlund.

AA I expect more in your posts. Farr was just "not that good" . . the wide majority of his losses were when he was still a teenager and not a full fledged heavyweight yet, fighting under the English 'tent' system when guys fought every month, sometimes every week (or in his ill-fated "comeback" in the early 1950s when he was old and washed up) and you'll compare those circumstances to a modern record? That is just ignoring history and circumstances altogether. You can your a$$ Bowe don't come out with 60-1 records fighting every week in their teens without Rock Newman there to pad his record.

As for Phillips, great job completly entering the ignorant terrority of "never heard of him, his record isn't fancy, he must have sucked" . . Phillips was a hard hitting, skilled fighter who drew with Len Harvey, beat Ben Foord and Jack Doyle, gave Jock McAvoy a tough fight . . .and Farr fought him when he was still not fully developed into a heavyweight.

Evander fought like he always did? The guy didn't get into a slugging match every fight, although he was vulnerable to letting his gameplan slip. Yeah the rematch was close but Evander was already slightly past his best by that point and the extra steroid weight he carried into the fight clearly gave him stamina issues late.

[Ambling Alp]

Sure, it is much tougher to have a high winning % when you are fighting so frequently. However, at a certain point the excuses have got to stop.

Some of these losses have to be counted against Farr.
Phillips had a grand total of 9 fights when he beat Farr. Farr had over 50.
Farr also lost to Ernie Simmons, Dave Carstens, Charlie Belanger, Jack Curtis. This is the part where you say how great these guys were and that they were better than records. Excuse me if I am skeptical that everyone in the good old days with a mediocre record really was great.

Farr was 25 when lost to Red Burman. He was in his prime when he lost to a washed up Jimmy Braddock.

Evander Holyfield was in his prime when he fought Bowe. He was 30 the first time 31 the 2nd. He had not that many fights at that point and did not have a lot of wear and tear yet. If he was not in his prime, he was 99% of what he was in his prime. He certainly was a lot closer to his prime than Braddock was when he beat Farr. (Please don't tell me you think Braddock was better than Holyfield)

As he usually fought, he tried to mix up boxing with slugging. Bowe was able to counter everything Holyfield tried to do. He couldn't bully Bowe around inside like he could almost everyone else he fought. He could not out jab Bowe.

There probably was not 10 guys in the history of boxing who could have beat Bowe in either of the first 2 Holyfield-Bowe fights. And Tommy Farr and Buddy Baer certainly are not among them.

There were great, good, mediocre, and poor fighters in every era. Sometimes an era was great in one weight class but not in another.
Sure if you want to, you can keep making excuses for every fighter in one era and then try to nitpick a great accomplishment in a more modern era and then write the guy off. However, that is not being accurrate.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Sure, it is much tougher to have a high winning % when you are fighting so frequently. However, at a certain point the excuses have got to stop.

Some of these losses have to be counted against Farr.
Phillips had a grand total of 9 fights when he beat Farr. Farr had over 50.
Farr also lost to Ernie Simmons, Dave Carstens, Charlie Belanger, Jack Curtis. This is the part where you say how great these guys were and that they were better than records. Excuse me if I am skeptical that everyone in the good old days with a mediocre record really was great.

Farr was 25 when lost to Red Burman. He was in his prime when he lost to a washed up Jimmy Braddock.

Evander Holyfield was in his prime when he fought Bowe. He was 30 the first time 31 the 2nd. He had not that many fights at that point and did not have a lot of wear and tear yet. If he was not in his prime, he was 99% of what he was in his prime. He certainly was a lot closer to his prime than Braddock was when he beat Farr. (Please don't tell me you think Braddock was better than Holyfield)

As he usually fought, he tried to mix up boxing with slugging. Bowe was able to counter everything Holyfield tried to do. He couldn't bully Bowe around inside like he could almost everyone else he fought. He could not out jab Bowe.

There probably was not 10 guys in the history of boxing who could have beat Bowe in either of the first 2 Holyfield-Bowe fights. And Tommy Farr and Buddy Baer certainly are not among them.

There were great, good, mediocre, and poor fighters in every era. Sometimes an era was great in one weight class but not in another.
Sure if you want to, you can keep making excuses for every fighter in one era and then try to nitpick a great accomplishment in a more modern era and then write the guy off. However, that is not being accurrate.

[dempseyfire]

Sure, it is much tougher to have a high winning % when you are fighting so frequently. However, at a certain point the excuses have got to stop.

Some of these losses have to be counted against Farr.
Phillips had a grand total of 9 fights when he beat Farr. Farr had over 50.
Farr also lost to Ernie Simmons, Dave Carstens, Charlie Belanger, Jack Curtis. This is the part where you say how great these guys were and that they were better than records. Excuse me if I am skeptical that everyone in the good old days with a mediocre record really was great.

Farr was 25 when lost to Red Burman. He was in his prime when he lost to a washed up Jimmy Braddock.

Evander Holyfield was in his prime when he fought Bowe. He was 30 the first time 31 the 2nd. He had not that many fights at that point and did not have a lot of wear and tear yet. If he was not in his prime, he was 99% of what he was in his prime. He certainly was a lot closer to his prime than Braddock was when he beat Farr. (Please don't tell me you think Braddock was better than Holyfield)

As he usually fought, he tried to mix up boxing with slugging. Bowe was able to counter everything Holyfield tried to do. He couldn't bully Bowe around inside like he could almost everyone else he fought. He could not out jab Bowe.

There probably was not 10 guys in the history of boxing who could have beat Bowe in either of the first 2 Holyfield-Bowe fights. And Tommy Farr and Buddy Baer certainly are not among them.

There were great, good, mediocre, and poor fighters in every era. Sometimes an era was great in one weight class but not in another.
Sure if you want to, you can keep making excuses for every fighter in one era and then try to nitpick a great accomplishment in a more modern era and then write the guy off. However, that is not being accurrate.

Again, you just conveniently ignored that the wide majority of those losses came when Farr was still an undeveloped teenager.
You think Boxrec has Phillips complete record?
Yeah, Farr lost to Burman, an extremely crafty and skilled fighter, after he had in consecutive fights fought Joe Louis over 15 rounds, Max Baer, Jim Braddock and Lou Nova, in a span of 16 months. It's laughable to compare that ANYTHING any heavyweight schedule in a 16 month time span in the past 20 years, hell stretch it to 30 years.

And the Braddock fight was widely considered a robbery. From the HL films I've seen, Farr certainly looks like he won that fight. Sometimes it takes more than a glance at boxrec to understand what's going on in a record.

Holyfield had far quicker FEET than Bowe and when he moved, went in quick and out, Bowe could catch him with occasional counters but generally Holyfield had success when he used that strategy, he also did outjab Bowe often when he doubled and tripled up. He threw that out the window after a very good first found in their first fight for the reasons I mentioned, the rest of the fight he was standing in front of Bowe or lying on the inside with a guy who was bigger and stronger. In the 2nd fight, he had great success with that strategy although he did tire at the end (he weighed something like 217 for that fight . . way too pumped up for Holyfield's frame). In the 3rd fight, he didn't even have the energy to move around but still almost knocked Bowe completely out.

Keep believing Bowe was better than he was. Don't you think there was a reason that besides Holyfield his management kept him away from any other top 5 heavyweights???

[The Great John L]

Buddy Baer was athletic? Seriously? Durable, I guess you argue for that. However he was stopped by none other than the legendary Gunner Barlund.

If everybody can call the Klitschkos athletic, then yes, Buddy Baer was athletic.

[The Great John L]

Keep believing Bowe was better than he was. Don't you think there was a reason that besides Holyfield his management kept him away from any other top 5 heavyweights???

Yes, that should tell us a lot, just like it should about another large and over-protected guy who is often grossly over-rated.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Keep believing Bowe was better than he was. Don't you think there was a reason that besides Holyfield his management kept him away from any other top 5 heavyweights???

Yes, that should tell us a lot, just like it should about another large and over-protected guy who is often grossly over-rated.

Buddy Baer has nothing to do with the Top 5 of any era.

[The Great John L]

Keep believing Bowe was better than he was. Don't you think there was a reason that besides Holyfield his management kept him away from any other top 5 heavyweights???

Yes, that should tell us a lot, just like it should about another large and over-protected guy who is often grossly over-rated.

Buddy Baer has nothing to do with the Top 5 of any era.

No one said Buddy was a top 5 guy of any era.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Yes, that should tell us a lot, just like it should about another large and over-protected guy who is often grossly over-rated.

Buddy Baer has nothing to do with the Top 5 of any era.

No one said Buddy was a top 5 guy of any era.

Dempsey said he was even money with Bowe. That's the competition we are looking at. And of course Tommy Farr is favored over him. And you guys call Bowe overrated?

You and Dempsey get more ridiculous every time Bowe's name is mentioned. If you two were doing the rankings, he would be the most underrated Heavyweight in history.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Keep believing Bowe was better than he was. Don't you think there was a reason that besides Holyfield his management kept him away from any other top 5 heavyweights???

Yes, that should tell us a lot, just like it should about another large and over-protected guy who is often grossly over-rated.

Yeah...the whole world has Foreman painted as a ring legend, but you've nailed it. It's everyone else who's got it so wrong. LOL.

[Ambling Alp]

to anser dempsyefire:
I did say that some of his losses hver to count against him. Ernie Simmons, Dave Carstens, Chalrie Belanger, Jack Curtis; he was a very experienced fighter when he lost to them. You conveniently offer no reasons why he lost to all of these guys. Let me guess, they all legends too?

Yes Farr did fight 5 times in a 16 month period. That is commendable. What you conveniently did not mention was that he went 0-5. Imagine if Bowe lost 5 fights in a row in his prime. Even if it was to Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis etc. He would get ripped constantly for it.

Are you going to seiously say that Bowe would have gone 05 in that 16 month span against hose opponents. He would lose to Louis but would still go 4-1. Baer would have aremote punchers chance and that is it. No way he ever going to lose to fricken Red Burman or a washed up Braddock.

There is a difference with fighting a lot, against some good competition and actaully winning. James Tillis Bert Cooper and Jesse Ferguson fought a lot of good fighters; However they almost always lost. That doesn't make them great.

I'm not going to go to far with your analysis of Holyfield-Bowe. I think it is crap. They were 2 great fights. Nothing more needs to be said.

I have read about Farr-Braddock many times and never have seen mention of a "robbery". It was considered a close fight, maybe Farr should have got it. However, Braddock was way past it. No way in the world Bowe has any trouble in that situation. I would have thought that you have known better to to think a few highlights means a lot.

Yes Bowe could have fought better competition. However, he did fight the best guy there and beat him when that guy was at his best. That has to count for something. He proved it a 2nd time as well that it was no fluke.. He was also consistent enough to beat several fringe contenders. Believe me if Farr fought Tubbs, Biggs, donald, Hide, Seldon etc, and Holyfield 3 times he would have lost more than 1 fight.

btw-He was scheduled to fight Mercer, who was a top 5 heavyweight at the time. However Mercer got upset by Ferguson.

Ultimately it go down to this; you consider just about anyone with a pulse who fought in the 1920s to 1940s to have been a great fighter. Some were, most were not.

[Ambling Alp]

Buddy Baer was athletic? Seriously? Durable, I guess you argue for that. However he was stopped by none other than the legendary Gunner Barlund.

If everybody can call the Klitschkos athletic, then yes, Buddy Baer was athletic.

Peope really call the Klitschos atheltic? If thast is the yardstick, then I guess Buddy Baer is athletic.