BoxRec

Bowe had all the tools to be an all-time great. His work ethic left a bit to be desired.

sockdollanger wrote:Bowe had all the tools to be an all-time great. His work ethic left a bit to be desired.

As did his opposition.

The Great John L wrote:

sockdollanger wrote:Bowe had all the tools to be an all-time great. His work ethic left a bit to be desired.

As did his opposition.

I dont think you can fault Holifields work ethic!??.... just on the Holifield fights alone Bowe was a great talent and I think he could have been a top ten all time great had he the discipline of Evander... great jab, chin, good speed and able to infight as well... Eddie Futch said Bowe could have been one of the greats.... sad waste of talent...

sockdollanger wrote:

Dentsun4228 wrote:I like how the ballot didn't include Tyson...only Holmes, Ali and Louis? Cracks me up!....Prime Tyson is the greatest HW ever. Here's my list.

1- Tyson (incredible KO machine in his prime)
2- Ali (My idol, but could he have beaten a prime Tyson?)ahhh yes.
3- Holmes (Truly great champ, had all the tools)
4- Foreman (in his prime including KO's of Frazier and Norton, one of the most awesome fighters ever)
5- Louis ( far ahead of his time

you need to do some reading on here and afterward I believe you will find Tyson is not top 5 material.

Irish Ruphus Murphy's computer also needs to some reading.

Ezzard wrote:

wouter wrote:

Ezzard wrote:
Tier 3

Charles
Walcott
Jeanette
Langford
Wills
Norton
Schmeling
Sharkey
Tyson
Bowe
Jackson
Corbett
Tunney

What the **** is Bowe doing in that group? Apart from going 2-1 with Holyfield, he never fought anyone. He has the most overrated career of any fighter I know.

Well oddly I share your skepticism. I rate him beause his A game was formidable: a solid chin, great jab, good outsdie and inside, had the heart to soak it up and come back for more.

In this case Golota should be there too.... Except that he hardly ever displayed his A game.

silkov wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

sockdollanger wrote:Bowe had all the tools to be an all-time great. His work ethic left a bit to be desired.

As did his opposition.

I dont think you can fault Holifields work ethic!??.... just on the Holifield fights alone Bowe was a great talent and I think he could have been a top ten all time great had he the discipline of Evander... great jab, chin, good speed and able to infight as well... Eddie Futch said Bowe could have been one of the greats.... sad waste of talent...

Holyfield’s work ethic?!!?? Try reading again mate. I was questioning Bowe’s opposition, which any reasonable person would have to admit is a bit thin for him to be considered an ATG.

No clue how you read into my post that I was making any comment of any kind about Holyfield.

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:

The Great John L wrote: As did his opposition.

I dont think you can fault Holifields work ethic!??.... just on the Holifield fights alone Bowe was a great talent and I think he could have been a top ten all time great had he the discipline of Evander... great jab, chin, good speed and able to infight as well... Eddie Futch said Bowe could have been one of the greats.... sad waste of talent...

Holyfield’s work ethic?!!?? Try reading again mate. I was questioning Bowe’s opposition, which any reasonable person would have to admit is a bit thin for him to be considered an ATG.

No clue how you read into my post that I was making any comment of any kind about Holyfield.

dUH! well maybe I was thinking that Holifield was Bowes main opposition during his prime!... they did fight three times mate, try reading my posts properly in future...

silkov wrote:... they did fight three times mate, try reading my posts properly in future...

Your “duh” made sense, but where did I say anything about Bowe-Holy not fighting three times? Or anything else about Holyfield?? My only comment was that Bowe’s opposition was weak. I wasn’t being hostile, or questioning anything that you posted, so I can’t imagine you became confused because I angered you in any way. Are you still stuck in those Vitali exchanges of a few days ago? Do we need to start this exchange all over again?

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:... they did fight three times mate, try reading my posts properly in future...

Your “duh” made sense, but where did I say anything about Bowe-Holy not fighting three times? Or anything else about Holyfield?? My only comment was that Bowe’s opposition was weak. I wasn’t being hostile, or questioning anything that you posted, so I can’t imagine you became confused because I angered you in any way. Are you still stuck in those Vitali exchanges of a few days ago? Do we need to start this exchange all over again?

I've forgotten all about the Vitali stuff mate, unlike some it seems (not you) I simply was pointing out that Bowes main/most important career opponent Holifield was actually known for his conditioning.... I know a lot of his other opposition was poor and shot etc but then Bowe was in pretty poor condition himself aside from the Holifield fights... I dont really blame Bowe for much of his opposition because this was the state of the division at the time, and still is sadly!...

If you watch the Holifield fights you can see that Bowe had all the tools to be an outstanding champion, I think he was far better than Lewis... or at least could have been... I've never seen such a big guy be so good infighting and his jab was superb... the only thing wrong was between his ears...

silkov wrote:If you watch the Holifield fights you can see that Bowe had all the tools to be an outstanding champion, I think he was far better than Lewis... or at least could have been... I've never seen such a big guy be so good infighting and his jab was superb... the only thing wrong was between his ears...

Yes, I think he did have the tools to be an ATG, but he didn’t have the conviction or accomplishments. That said, I do have him in my all time top 30 HW list, although I’m having a hard time with that “he was far better than Lewis” comment. I know it is your opinion, but perhaps you meant to say that he “could have been better than Lewis” if he had stepped his career up a notch? Bowe certainly was a talented large HW, but in addition to some questionable work ethic, and somewhat limited experience, he also had some very noticeable defensive shortcomings.

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:If you watch the Holifield fights you can see that Bowe had all the tools to be an outstanding champion, I think he was far better than Lewis... or at least could have been... I've never seen such a big guy be so good infighting and his jab was superb... the only thing wrong was between his ears...

Yes, I think he did have the tools to be an ATG, but he didn’t have the conviction or accomplishments. That said, I do have him in my all time top 30 HW list, although I’m having a hard time with that “he was far better than Lewis” comment. I know it is your opinion, but perhaps you meant to say that he “could have been better than Lewis” if he had stepped his career up a notch? Bowe certainly was a talented large HW, but in addition to some questionable work ethic, and somewhat limited experience, he also had some very noticeable defensive shortcomings.

Well I did say he 'could have been' better than Lewis... he was a better all rounder than Lewis and had a better chin... but Lewis ultilized his talent better so I rate him higher... Bowe did have a lazy defence, great chin though... watching the Holifield fights its not hard to imagine him having problems later on due to the punches he is taking flush... especially as he is probably weight weakened in the 2nd and 3rd fights...

silkov wrote:Well I did say he 'could have been' better than Lewis... he was a better all rounder than Lewis and had a better chin... but Lewis ultilized his talent better so I rate him higher... Bowe did have a lazy defence, great chin though... watching the Holifield fights its not hard to imagine him having problems later on due to the punches he is taking flush... especially as he is probably weight weakened in the 2nd and 3rd fights...

Bowe did have a good chin, but Golota was able to drop him, and while Golota was a good puncher, he wasn’t nearly as hard a puncher as Lewis. I think Bowe’s rather ordinary defense meeting Lewis’s speed and power would have led to a mid rounds TKO win for Lewis. Of course, Lewis getting caught somewhere along the way is also a possibility, but less likely.

silkov wrote:1. Muhammad Ali
2. Larry Holmes
3. Jack Johnson
4. Joe Louis
5. George Foreman
6. Sonny Liston
7. Joe Frazier
8. Jim Jeffries
9. Ezzard Charles
10. Gene Tunney
11. Rocky Marcinao
12. Evander Holifield
13. Jack Dempsey
14. Lennox Lewis
15. Mike Tyson
...........................veiws anyone?... lets keep it clean, children maybe watching!... 8)
also add to my poll as to who is number one!...

i see you have purposely taken marciano out of ur top 10 heavyweights of all time.

no offense, but rating tunney and charles over marciano and dempsey as heavyweights is ridiculous. marciano accomplished alot more at heavyweight than charles did.



tunney and charles are way too high on ur list, especially tunney





also joe louis at # 4 is ridiculous, hes top 2

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

silkov wrote:1. Muhammad Ali
2. Larry Holmes
3. Jack Johnson
4. Joe Louis
5. George Foreman
6. Sonny Liston
7. Joe Frazier
8. Jim Jeffries
9. Ezzard Charles
10. Gene Tunney
11. Rocky Marcinao
12. Evander Holifield
13. Jack Dempsey
14. Lennox Lewis
15. Mike Tyson
...........................veiws anyone?... lets keep it clean, children maybe watching!... 8)
also add to my poll as to who is number one!...

i see you have purposely taken marciano out of ur top 10 heavyweights of all time.

no offense, but rating tunney and charles over marciano and dempsey as heavyweights is ridiculous. marciano accomplished alot more at heavyweight than charles did.

tunney and charles are way too high on ur list, especially tunney

also joe louis at # 4 is ridiculous, hes top 2

Well, you're a Tunney hater and a Marciano-Walcott-Dempsey nuthugger (in this order).

I find Tunney at #10 perfectly adequate.

Btw, Archie Moore said Charles would have beaten Marciano in his prime, and he should know. So Charles at #9 isn't absurd either.

Decagon wrote:1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. Jack Johnson
5. Joe Frazier
6. Sonny Liston
7. George Foreman
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Rocky Marciano
10. Lennox Lewis
11. Jack Dempsey
12. Mike Tyson
13. Gene Tunney
14. Ezzard Charles
15. Jersey Joe Walcott
16. Jimmy Young
17. Jim Jeffries
18. Riddick Bowe
19. Max Schmelling
20. Jack Sharkey
21. Michael Spinks
22. Ken Norton
23. Floyd Patterson
24. Chris Byrd
25. Sam Langford
26. Earnie Shavers
27. Archie Moore
28. Jerry Quarry
29. Joe Jeannette
30. Harry Wills
31. Max Baer
32. Ike Ibeabuchi
33. George Godfrey
34. Tim Witherspoon
35. Sam McVey
36. Hasim Rahman
37. Jimmy Bivins
38. Roland LaStarza
39. Ingemar Johanssen
40. David Tua

good list until i read chris bryd at 24, thats ridiculous. no way he deserves to be that high. bryd over sam langford?? bryd over archie moore? bryd over harry wills??




hasim rahman, no way does he deserve to be that high considering who hes lost too.





where elmer ray? the man had one of the best undefeated streaks in heavyweight boxing history, beat very good opposition including two top 20 heavyweights of all time and was one of the most dangerous avoided contenders of the 1940. he also was very all around talented. he was a puncher swarmer with good size 6'2 195lb long reach 80". he could swarmer all over you with effective agresion and decision you, or he could put your lights out with 1-2 punches. elmer ray certainly accomplished more than alot of the guys on ur list. i think ray would have beat bivins.




i think roland lastarza is too high. he did not beat good opposition, and his career highlight is the first marciano fight. outside of that, lastarza avoided the dangerous black HW contenders of his day because he feared risk losing his promised return title shot match with marciano. lastarza misses out on fighting many of the top heavyweights of that era. clarence henry INCREDIBLY UNDERATED rates over lastarza IMO.


in terms of fighting ability, lastarza was defintley at valdez, henry, baker, walls, prime laynes level. but he didnt accomplish as much as these guys.




david tua at 40 is too high IMO. he was way to easy to outbox.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: good list until i read chris bryd at 24, thats ridiculous. no way he deserves to be that high. bryd over sam langford?? bryd over archie moore? bryd over harry wills??

hasim rahman, no way does he deserve to be that high considering who hes lost too.

where elmer ray? the man had one of the best undefeated streaks in heavyweight boxing history, beat very good opposition including two top 20 heavyweights of all time and was one of the most dangerous avoided contenders of the 1940. he also was very all around talented. he was a puncher swarmer with good size 6'2 195lb long reach 80". he could swarmer all over you with effective agresion and decision you, or he could put your lights out with 1-2 punches. elmer ray certainly accomplished more than alot of the guys on ur list. i think ray would have beat bivins.

i think roland lastarza is too high. he did not beat good opposition, and his career highlight is the first marciano fight. outside of that, lastarza avoided the dangerous black HW contenders of his day because he feared risk losing his promised return title shot match with marciano. lastarza misses out on fighting many of the top heavyweights of that era. clarence henry INCREDIBLY UNDERATED rates over lastarza IMO.

in terms of fighting ability, lastarza was at valdez, henry, baker, walls, prime laynes level. but he didnt accomplish as much as these guys.

david tua at 40 is too high IMO. he was way to easy to outbox.

This is my view on Decagon's list too. Solid effort, but a somewhat forced attempt to get 1990s and 2000s fighters in there (as long as they're not called Klitschko). Moreover pre-1925 fighters stand few chances with Decagon, unless they're called Johnson, Dempsey or Jeffries.

Btw, Archie Moore said Charles would have beaten Marciano in his prime, and he should know

archie moore also said the ref gave marciano a standing 8 count and robbed moore.


later on, film proved this archie statement to be bullshit because marciano was up at 2 and the ref counted to 3 before letting the fighters continue. NO STANDING 8 COUNT like moore described.



moore was a classic bullshiter, he was always bitter about the marciano losss. we cant take what moore says seriousely.



moore is a complete con artist. dont take what he says seriosely. for christs sake, he cant even tell the truth about his age.





i think a 51-52 marciano takes 2 out of 3 from a prime charles, thats my opinion.

tunney did not accomplish enough at heavyweight to rate top 20. he had just 8 fights at heavyweight, with his best 2 wins coming over a far past his prime very rusty jack dempsey. his other best wins came over an over the hill 5'9 175lb tommy gibbons, a green johnny risko, and average tom heeney. tunney never fought black fighters and there were 3 outstanding heavyweight challengers out there godfrey, sharkey, gains who tunney never fought.

tunney simply did not have enough fights at heavyweight to really test himself.

* did you know tunney avoided a prime gibbons? wonder how tunney would have done vs gibbons

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:tunney did not accomplish enough at heavyweight to rate top 20. he had just 8 fights at heavyweight, with his best 2 wins coming over a far past his prime very rusty jack dempsey. his other best wins came over an over the hill 5'9 175lb tommy gibbons, a green johnny risko, and average tom heeney. tunney never fought black fighters and there were 3 outstanding heavyweight challengers out there godfrey, sharkey, gains who tunney never fought.

tunney simply did not have enough fights at heavyweight to really test himself.

* did you know tunney avoided a prime gibbons? wonder how tunney would have done vs gibbons

Dempsey twice, Risko, Heeney, Gibbons and Greb (at heavyweight) is as good or better as the opposition Dempsey fought and beat. Plus, Tunney's achievements at light-heavyweight matter for his HW ranking too, of course.

(btw, Gibbons came it at 179 comapred to Tunney's 181 according to boxrec, and he had won his previous 11 bouts, including against HOFers Kid Norfolk and Georges Carpentier).

pundit wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:tunney did not accomplish enough at heavyweight to rate top 20. he had just 8 fights at heavyweight, with his best 2 wins coming over a far past his prime very rusty jack dempsey. his other best wins came over an over the hill 5'9 175lb tommy gibbons, a green johnny risko, and average tom heeney. tunney never fought black fighters and there were 3 outstanding heavyweight challengers out there godfrey, sharkey, gains who tunney never fought.

tunney simply did not have enough fights at heavyweight to really test himself.

* did you know tunney avoided a prime gibbons? wonder how tunney would have done vs gibbons

Dempsey twice, Risko, Heeney, Gibbons and Greb (at heavyweight) is as good or better as the opposition Dempsey fought and beat. Plus, Tunney's achievements at light-heavyweight matter for his HW ranking too, of course.

(btw, Gibbons came it at 179 comapred to Tunney's 181 according to boxrec, and he had won his previous 11 bouts, including against HOFers Kid Norfolk and Georges Carpentier).

Agreed, Tunney must be one of the most underrated champions... just one defeat in his whole career and look at his opposition... miles ahead of Marcianos overall opposition imo... Tunney was one of the cleverest champs ever and could punch as well...

Agreed, Tunney must be one of the most underrated champions... just one defeat in his whole career and look at his opposition... miles ahead of Marcianos overall opposition imo

whole career doesnt come into play here. were talking about tunneys HEAVYWEIGHT career only.



lets take a look.......



tunney @ heavyweight beat

old jack dempsey 2x
green johnny risko
tom heeney
charley weinhart
tommy gibbons



marciano beat

old joe louis
archie moore
ezzard charles 2x
jersey joe walcott 2x
roland lastarza 2x
rex layne
harry kid mathews
don cockell


it appears marciano defintley beat the better opposition at heavyweight, i think this is clear to everyone.

pundit wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:tunney did not accomplish enough at heavyweight to rate top 20. he had just 8 fights at heavyweight, with his best 2 wins coming over a far past his prime very rusty jack dempsey. his other best wins came over an over the hill 5'9 175lb tommy gibbons, a green johnny risko, and average tom heeney. tunney never fought black fighters and there were 3 outstanding heavyweight challengers out there godfrey, sharkey, gains who tunney never fought.

tunney simply did not have enough fights at heavyweight to really test himself.

* did you know tunney avoided a prime gibbons? wonder how tunney would have done vs gibbons

Dempsey twice, Risko, Heeney, Gibbons and Greb (at heavyweight) is as good or better as the opposition Dempsey fought and beat. Plus, Tunney's achievements at light-heavyweight matter for his HW ranking too, of course.

(btw, Gibbons came it at 179 comapred to Tunney's 181 according to boxrec, and he had won his previous 11 bouts, including against HOFers Kid Norfolk and Georges Carpentier).

norfolk was blind and far gone when he fought gibbons in 24.


carpentier was practically shot when he fought tommy gibbons


so these wins dont count as much





tunney avoided a prime gibbons, and fought gibbons when gibbons was past his prime. gibbbons was still dangerous, but nowhere near prime.

Dempsey twice, Risko, Heeney, Gibbons and Greb (at heavyweight) is as good or better as the opposition Dempsey fought and beat.

no there not. remember dempsey was far past it, gibbons was past it, risko was green.






dempseys wins over willard, fulton, Gunboat smith, carl morris, gibbons, jack sharkey, billy miske, bill brennan, carpentier, joe bonds, john lester johnson, meehan count for more than tunneys wins @ heavyweight.


i think tommy gibbons would have beaten the 1926-27 dempsey. as would billy miske.

. Plus, Tunney's achievements at light-heavyweight matter for his HW ranking too, of course.

no they dont. what tunney did at lightheavyweight has nothing to do with his heavyweight career.


think about it, do sugar ray leonards achievements at welterweight matter for his middleweight ranking? hell no



it all depends on WHAT YOU DO IN THAT WEIGHT CLASS. what you do in that weight class matters IN THAT WEIGHT CLASS ONLY.





fact is tunney did not have enough fights at heavyweight

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: marciano beat

old joe louis
old archie moore
over-the-hill ezzard charles 2x
old jersey joe walcott 2x
mediocre roland lastarza 2x
mediocre rex layne
harry kid mathews
fatman don cockell

calling roland lastarza and rex layne mediocre shows ur true level of intelligence