Rate these heavyweight champs.
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
Re: Rate these heavyweight champs.
wouter,wouter wrote:Joe LouisTantum wrote:I would like to know in what order you place all the recognized heavyweight champions since and including Joe Louis.
So, the fighters in question are...
Joe Louis
Ezzard Charles
Jersey Joe Walcott
Rocky Marciano
Floyd Patterson
Ingo Johansson
Sonny Liston
Muhammad Ali
Joe Frazier
George Foreman
Leon Spinks
Larry Holmes
Mike Spinks
Mike Tyson
Buster Douglas
Evander Holyfield
Riddick Bowe
Michael Moorer
Old George Foreman
Lennox Lewis
Vitali Klitschko
Wladimir Klitschko
Larry Holmes
Joe Frazier
Muhammad Ali
Evander Holyfield
Lennox Lewis
Rocky Marciano
Sonny Liston
Ezzard Charles
Joe Walcott
George Foreman
Floyd Patterson
Mike Tyson
Wladimir Klitschko
Riddick Bowe
Michael Spinks
Old George Foreman
Buster Douglas
Ingemar Johansson
Vitali Klitschko
Michael Moorer
Leon Spinks
I basically like your rankings, except Foreman seems a little low.
Any reason for Foreman being on the low side?
Re: Rate these heavyweight champs.
I think his resume is just not that impressive. He twice beat Frazier, but that's about it. Beating Norton and Lyle, in no matter how impressive style, don't rate as spectacular accomplishments in my book.yancey wrote: wouter,
I basically like your rankings, except Foreman seems a little low.
Any reason for Foreman being on the low side?
Re: Rate these heavyweight champs.
Ali #4? Wow. Although I wouldn't agree, i can respect the opinion that Louis should be over him, but Holmes and Frazier? If you don't mind, can you please explain your reasoning?wouter wrote:Joe LouisTantum wrote:I would like to know in what order you place all the recognized heavyweight champions since and including Joe Louis.
So, the fighters in question are...
Joe Louis
Ezzard Charles
Jersey Joe Walcott
Rocky Marciano
Floyd Patterson
Ingo Johansson
Sonny Liston
Muhammad Ali
Joe Frazier
George Foreman
Leon Spinks
Larry Holmes
Mike Spinks
Mike Tyson
Buster Douglas
Evander Holyfield
Riddick Bowe
Michael Moorer
Old George Foreman
Lennox Lewis
Vitali Klitschko
Wladimir Klitschko
Larry Holmes
Joe Frazier
Muhammad Ali
Evander Holyfield
Lennox Lewis
Rocky Marciano
Sonny Liston
Ezzard Charles
Joe Walcott
George Foreman
Floyd Patterson
Mike Tyson
Wladimir Klitschko
Riddick Bowe
Michael Spinks
Old George Foreman
Buster Douglas
Ingemar Johansson
Vitali Klitschko
Michael Moorer
Leon Spinks
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
I knew that I would get a lot of flack about Bowe, but I don't think he gets his due on this forum. Yes, he should have a better career, but he should be judged by what he did do.
Walcott lost to great and not so great fighters throughout the early, middle, and end of his career.
Charles lost to Layne,Valdez, and Harold Johnson as a heavyweight.
Patterson's losses were to better opponents, but it's hard to imagine Bowe losing to Johannson,Quarry, and Ellis.
Outside of Bowe's close loss to Holyfield, he had no losses. His competition wasn't that good, however, it's doubtful that Charles, and certainly Walcott, would have done as well.
Neither Walcott,Charles, or Patterson beat anyone nearly as good as a prime Holyfield.
I concede that Bowe didn't have as long of a career as the others, and . they had more "good wins" than Bowe. However, I think the gap is a little closer than what many people believe. Still,they have an advantage over Bowe there.
However, there are atleast 3 major factors in Bowe's favor that should be taken into consideration that trump this.
1. If he was close to his best, Bowe would have beaten all 3 head to head. Watching them all on film, it's difficult to argue against that.
2. Bowe beat a fighter (Holyfield) that was much better than anyone the other 3 beat.
3. Bowe was more consistent. He only lost one fight his career and that was a close one to Holyfield. Charles,Walcott, and Patterson all lost multiple fights to fighters that clearly weren't as good as Bowe.
John L. - Several of the fighters that you mentioned that Charles beat weren't heavyweights. As for some of the others-Quite frankly, beating Baski,Oma, Beshore really aren't that big of a deal. Pound for pound, yes Charles was obviously better. But we are rating them just as heavyweights.
Goodnight Irene- Winning the title at a young age? Well, I never understood why that is such a big deal. What difference does it make if you win the title at 21, or 25, or 30? We are judging his career, not just what they did at the age of 21.
As for winning the title twice, well I have never understood the big deal about that either. If Patterson hadn't lost to Johansson in the first place, he never would have won the title twice.
As mentioned I do agree with you that it was impressive that Patterson was as good as he was for that long.
Walcott lost to great and not so great fighters throughout the early, middle, and end of his career.
Charles lost to Layne,Valdez, and Harold Johnson as a heavyweight.
Patterson's losses were to better opponents, but it's hard to imagine Bowe losing to Johannson,Quarry, and Ellis.
Outside of Bowe's close loss to Holyfield, he had no losses. His competition wasn't that good, however, it's doubtful that Charles, and certainly Walcott, would have done as well.
Neither Walcott,Charles, or Patterson beat anyone nearly as good as a prime Holyfield.
I concede that Bowe didn't have as long of a career as the others, and . they had more "good wins" than Bowe. However, I think the gap is a little closer than what many people believe. Still,they have an advantage over Bowe there.
However, there are atleast 3 major factors in Bowe's favor that should be taken into consideration that trump this.
1. If he was close to his best, Bowe would have beaten all 3 head to head. Watching them all on film, it's difficult to argue against that.
2. Bowe beat a fighter (Holyfield) that was much better than anyone the other 3 beat.
3. Bowe was more consistent. He only lost one fight his career and that was a close one to Holyfield. Charles,Walcott, and Patterson all lost multiple fights to fighters that clearly weren't as good as Bowe.
John L. - Several of the fighters that you mentioned that Charles beat weren't heavyweights. As for some of the others-Quite frankly, beating Baski,Oma, Beshore really aren't that big of a deal. Pound for pound, yes Charles was obviously better. But we are rating them just as heavyweights.
Goodnight Irene- Winning the title at a young age? Well, I never understood why that is such a big deal. What difference does it make if you win the title at 21, or 25, or 30? We are judging his career, not just what they did at the age of 21.
As for winning the title twice, well I have never understood the big deal about that either. If Patterson hadn't lost to Johansson in the first place, he never would have won the title twice.
As mentioned I do agree with you that it was impressive that Patterson was as good as he was for that long.
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
Neither Klitschko ever became champion.zoz wrote:Muhammad Ali
George Foreman
Lennox Lewis
Joe Louis
Evander Holyfield
Mike Tyson
Larry Holmes
Rocky Marciano
Riddick Bowe
Joe Frazier
Vitali
Wladimir
Sonny Liston
Ezzard Charles
Joe Walcott
Old George Foreman
Floyd Patterson
Ingemar Johansson
Michael Moorer
Mike Spinks
Buster Douglas
Leon Spinks
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
I couldnt disagree more. Frazier had just defeated Muhammad Ali, and he himself was undefeated, and Frazier was the favorite going into that fight. Foreman knocked Frazier down six times in two rounds, and nobody really outside of George was ever able to knock Frazier down, let alone out.I think his resume is just not that impressive. He twice beat Frazier, but that's about it. Beating Norton and Lyle, in no matter how impressive style, don't rate as spectacular accomplishments in my book.
Norton himself, in my opinion, won two out of three against Ali. Yet Foreman demolishes him inside of two rounds as well. Foreman was every bit the power hitter that Louis, Marciano and Dempsey was. Lyle was completely legit and is completely UNDER RATED, and their fight is arguably the greatest brawl in heavyweight history.
Forget the losses to Ali and Jimmy Young. Think of what else he done in between and beyond. He once fought five men in a single night, exhibition or no exhibition, that was an incredible stunt. Or how about the Wepner fight when George only had a handful of bouts and knocked Wepner's eye out of its socket!
Let's not forget that after a decade he completely transformed not only his demeanor, but his style as well and was actually a better fighter than he was in his prime and his power never really went away. It was evident when he fought Holyfield that he still was the powerhouse he was in his prime (Holyfield says still to this day that Foreman was the hardest hitting man he ever faced).
Talk down all you want that Foreman beating Moorer meant nothing because Moorer wasnt as good as Joe Blow or whomever, that Moorer was a blown up lightheavyweight...Moorer did beat Holyfield when Foreman couldn't, and Moorer was a HUGE heavy favorite over a man just two days short of his 46 birthday. Foreman won it fair and square.
Who gives a damn that after he won the title he wouldn't again fight someone who was worth his salt, it still doesn't take away what Foreman done in the ring.
He was second place in the 1970's behind Muhammad Ali, and that's more than anyone else can ever say. He was one of the biggest attractions of the 1990's when he came back, and one must have to wonder...had Muhammad Ali retired after losses to Frazier and Norton, how long would Foreman have reigned as champion? It's really funny, if you think about it, that here was a man who could come back and still be a top contender and later champion in his 40's...Foreman, had Ali never been around at the time, quite possibly could have reigned as champion for a decade.
Oh and also, if beating Lyle and Norton are not great accomplishments in your book, then why is Muhammad Ali rated so high on your list when it was Ken Norton (along with Frazier and Foreman) that made Ali the legend he is today? Lyle was no slouch either, when he fought Ali he was actually ahead on the points when it was stopped in the 11th round (in my opinion it was a bad call, was stopped too early) and he almost stopped Foreman and he held alot of wins over the best of the time period.
Last edited by HomicideHenry on 30 Dec 2007, 02:58, edited 1 time in total.
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
I'm not certain what point you're making when you say Bowe would have beaten Patterson head-to-head. Weren't you ranking their accomplishments?Ambling Alp wrote:I knew that I would get a lot of flack about Bowe, but I don't think he gets his due on this forum. Yes, he should have a better career, but he should be judged by what he did do.
Walcott lost to great and not so great fighters throughout the early, middle, and end of his career.
Charles lost to Layne,Valdez, and Harold Johnson as a heavyweight.
Patterson's losses were to better opponents, but it's hard to imagine Bowe losing to Johannson,Quarry, and Ellis.
Outside of Bowe's close loss to Holyfield, he had no losses. His competition wasn't that good, however, it's doubtful that Charles, and certainly Walcott, would have done as well.
Neither Walcott,Charles, or Patterson beat anyone nearly as good as a prime Holyfield.
I concede that Bowe didn't have as long of a career as the others, and . they had more "good wins" than Bowe. However, I think the gap is a little closer than what many people believe. Still,they have an advantage over Bowe there.
However, there are atleast 3 major factors in Bowe's favor that should be taken into consideration that trump this.
1. If he was close to his best, Bowe would have beaten all 3 head to head. Watching them all on film, it's difficult to argue against that.
2. Bowe beat a fighter (Holyfield) that was much better than anyone the other 3 beat.
3. Bowe was more consistent. He only lost one fight his career and that was a close one to Holyfield. Charles,Walcott, and Patterson all lost multiple fights to fighters that clearly weren't as good as Bowe.
John L. - Several of the fighters that you mentioned that Charles beat weren't heavyweights. As for some of the others-Quite frankly, beating Baski,Oma, Beshore really aren't that big of a deal. Pound for pound, yes Charles was obviously better. But we are rating them just as heavyweights.
Goodnight Irene- Winning the title at a young age? Well, I never understood why that is such a big deal. What difference does it make if you win the title at 21, or 25, or 30? We are judging his career, not just what they did at the age of 21.
As for winning the title twice, well I have never understood the big deal about that either. If Patterson hadn't lost to Johansson in the first place, he never would have won the title twice.
As mentioned I do agree with you that it was impressive that Patterson was as good as he was for that long.
When you are twenty-one, you are not as mentally &, in some cases, physically matured as you are at twenty-five or up. Precious few fighters in history (relative to the number of overall fighters) were better at twenty-one than they were at twenty-five through to thirty. We are judging their whole careers like you said, & this is a part of that. It's a record that still stands today, more than half a century on. I guess we just disagree as to whether that counts for something or not. IMO it does.
Out of nearly forty linear titleists & more than 120 years, a mere five men have re-captured the championship after losing it. That puts Patterson in very exclusive company, & he is the trail-blazer amongst that group to boot. After some 75-odd years & the failed attempts of (I think?) ten former champions, Patterson --- for the second time in his career --- made history, & beat the bookmakers' odds while doing it, in knocking Johansson unconscious.
All this was accomplished with what was essentially a natural Light-Heavyweight frame. How many times did Patterson have a size advantage against his opposition? Now how many times was Bowe at a size disadvantage against his opposition?
I like Bowe, & I feel he is undersold. I actually am one of the few that pick him to beat a prime Lewis, & I feel he won that second fight with Holyfield. However, his title reign was very short & his career revolved almost totally around his centrepiece victory over Holyfield, which while more impressive than any of Patterson's wins, doesn't entitle him to a superior accomplishment ranking. I'd be curious on this --- do you rank Douglas' career as more-accomplished than Patterson's, allowing for his miracle triumph against Tyson?
Last edited by Goodnight, Irene on 30 Dec 2007, 03:17, edited 1 time in total.
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
"I couldnt disagree more. Frazier had just defeated Muhammad Ali, and he himself was undefeated, and Frazier was the favorite going into that fight. Foreman knocked Frazier down six times in two rounds, and nobody really outside of George was ever able to knock Frazier down, let alone out.
Norton himself, in my opinion, won two out of three against Ali. Yet Foreman demolishes him inside of two rounds as well. Foreman was every bit the power hitter that Louis, Marciano and Dempsey was. Lyle was completely legit and is completely UNDER RATED, and their fight is arguably the greatest brawl in heavyweight history.
Forget the losses to Ali and Jimmy Young. Think of what else he done in between and beyond. He once fought five men in a single night, exhibition or no exhibition, that was an incredible stunt. Or how about the Wepner fight when George only had a handful of bouts and knocked Wepner's eye out of its socket!
Let's not forget that after a decade he completely transformed not only his demeanor, but his style as well and was actually a better fighter than he was in his prime and his power never really went away. It was evident when he fought Holyfield that he still was the powerhouse he was in his prime (Holyfield says still to this day that Foreman was the hardest hitting man he ever faced).
Talk down all you want that Foreman beating Moorer meant nothing because Moorer wasnt as good as Joe Blow or whomever, that Moorer was a blown up lightheavyweight...Moorer did beat Holyfield when Foreman couldn't, and Moorer was a HUGE heavy favorite over a man just two days short of his 46 birthday. Foreman won it fair and square.
Who gives a damn that after he won the title he wouldn't again fight someone who was worth his salt, it still doesn't take away what Foreman done in the ring.
He was second place in the 1970's behind Muhammad Ali, and that's more than anyone else can ever say. He was one of the biggest attractions of the 1990's when he came back, and one must have to wonder...had Muhammad Ali retired after losses to Frazier and Norton, how long would Foreman have reigned as champion? It's really funny, if you think about it, that here was a man who could come back and still be a top contender and later champion in his 40's...Foreman, had Ali never been around at the time, quite possibly could have reigned as champion for a decade.
Oh and also, if beating Lyle and Norton are not great accomplishments in your book, then why is Muhammad Ali rated so high on your list when it was Ken Norton (along with Frazier and Foreman) that made Ali the legend he is today? Lyle was no slouch either, when he fought Ali he was actually ahead on the points when it was stopped in the 11th round (in my opinion it was a bad call, was stopped too early) and he almost stopped Foreman and he held alot of wins over the best of the time period." - HomicideHenry
Where is that damn nodding emoticon when you really need it!? Well done, sir.
Consider this everyone - in what many (perhaps even the majority) call the two greatest era's for talent in HW history, Foreman became champion in both, twenty full years apart.
George Foreman...
1) Only the fourth of just five two-time Heavyweight champs.
2) The oldest man to fight for the Heavyweight title.
3) The oldest man to win the Heavyweight title.
4) The longest gulf between losing & re-gaining the same title in any weightclass, ever.
5) Champion in both of the two most gifted Heavyweight eras.
Norton himself, in my opinion, won two out of three against Ali. Yet Foreman demolishes him inside of two rounds as well. Foreman was every bit the power hitter that Louis, Marciano and Dempsey was. Lyle was completely legit and is completely UNDER RATED, and their fight is arguably the greatest brawl in heavyweight history.
Forget the losses to Ali and Jimmy Young. Think of what else he done in between and beyond. He once fought five men in a single night, exhibition or no exhibition, that was an incredible stunt. Or how about the Wepner fight when George only had a handful of bouts and knocked Wepner's eye out of its socket!
Let's not forget that after a decade he completely transformed not only his demeanor, but his style as well and was actually a better fighter than he was in his prime and his power never really went away. It was evident when he fought Holyfield that he still was the powerhouse he was in his prime (Holyfield says still to this day that Foreman was the hardest hitting man he ever faced).
Talk down all you want that Foreman beating Moorer meant nothing because Moorer wasnt as good as Joe Blow or whomever, that Moorer was a blown up lightheavyweight...Moorer did beat Holyfield when Foreman couldn't, and Moorer was a HUGE heavy favorite over a man just two days short of his 46 birthday. Foreman won it fair and square.
Who gives a damn that after he won the title he wouldn't again fight someone who was worth his salt, it still doesn't take away what Foreman done in the ring.
He was second place in the 1970's behind Muhammad Ali, and that's more than anyone else can ever say. He was one of the biggest attractions of the 1990's when he came back, and one must have to wonder...had Muhammad Ali retired after losses to Frazier and Norton, how long would Foreman have reigned as champion? It's really funny, if you think about it, that here was a man who could come back and still be a top contender and later champion in his 40's...Foreman, had Ali never been around at the time, quite possibly could have reigned as champion for a decade.
Oh and also, if beating Lyle and Norton are not great accomplishments in your book, then why is Muhammad Ali rated so high on your list when it was Ken Norton (along with Frazier and Foreman) that made Ali the legend he is today? Lyle was no slouch either, when he fought Ali he was actually ahead on the points when it was stopped in the 11th round (in my opinion it was a bad call, was stopped too early) and he almost stopped Foreman and he held alot of wins over the best of the time period." - HomicideHenry
Where is that damn nodding emoticon when you really need it!? Well done, sir.
Consider this everyone - in what many (perhaps even the majority) call the two greatest era's for talent in HW history, Foreman became champion in both, twenty full years apart.
George Foreman...
1) Only the fourth of just five two-time Heavyweight champs.
2) The oldest man to fight for the Heavyweight title.
3) The oldest man to win the Heavyweight title.
4) The longest gulf between losing & re-gaining the same title in any weightclass, ever.
5) Champion in both of the two most gifted Heavyweight eras.
Foreman is one of my all-time favorites, but the only tier-A fighter he beat was Joe Frazier whose style was made to order for him.Goodnight, Irene wrote: Consider this everyone - in what many (perhaps even the majority) call the two greatest era's for talent in HW history, Foreman became champion in both, twenty full years apart.
George Foreman...
1) Only the fourth of just five two-time Heavyweight champs.
2) The oldest man to fight for the Heavyweight title.
3) The oldest man to win the Heavyweight title.
4) The longest gulf between losing & re-gaining the same title in any weightclass, ever.
5) Champion in both of the two most gifted Heavyweight eras.
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
I'd be curious to hear your reasoning on why Frazier ranks almost a dozen spots ahead of Foreman?
If it's opposition you have reservations about, it's interesting you have Holmes at #2. Across the full scope of their respective careers, Holmes' competition was considerably lesser than Foreman's. Disagree?
I notice also Marciano, Walcott, Charles & even Klitschko (who has never even held the title) rank ahead of Foreman, even though their competition is often criticised or, at best, ignored for lack of interest. Is that based partly or absolutely on competition?
If it's opposition you have reservations about, it's interesting you have Holmes at #2. Across the full scope of their respective careers, Holmes' competition was considerably lesser than Foreman's. Disagree?
I notice also Marciano, Walcott, Charles & even Klitschko (who has never even held the title) rank ahead of Foreman, even though their competition is often criticised or, at best, ignored for lack of interest. Is that based partly or absolutely on competition?
-
Cojimar 1945
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 482
- Joined: 07 Oct 2003, 15:15
rankings
Walcott and Charles could be rated ahead of Bowe because they beat more highly rated contenders than Bowe did.
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
Yes I clearly acknowledged that in my post. You probably missed that part.Ambling Alp wrote:John L. - Several of the fighters that you mentioned that Charles beat weren't heavyweights.
You may not think so, but besides Holyfield, they were probably better than anyone Bowe beat. And perhaps even you would admit that beating Ray, Bivins and Walcott (multiple times) is pretty impressive. And I only included his fights up until '51 when arguably started declining, but since you’ve mentioned a few of Charles post prime losses, I’ll add a few wins he had during those years. Wallace, Layne and Satterfield were all pretty good HWs as well.Ambling Alp wrote:As for some of the others-Quite frankly, beating Baski,Oma, Beshore really aren't that big of a deal.
Last edited by The Great John L on 31 Dec 2007, 09:20, edited 1 time in total.
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
John L- There is no question that after Holyfield, there is a major drop off concerning Bowe's opponents. However, I don't think it's as bad a many people say.
Bowe did beat decent fighters like Seldon,Coetzer,Donald,Biggs, and Tubbs. It always seemed to me that Bowe would be up against some undefeated guy or some guy that had a good record who was supposed to be good, and beat them. After Bowe beat him, then suddenly that guy wasn't any good at all. Anyway, these guys are atleast comparable to almost all of of Walcott's and Charles best wins (besides each other.) Add the fights with Holyfield and Bowe's career was better.
It's questionable how big a deal beating Elmer Ray was. Ray's career is filled almost entirely with fights against weak competition.
If you think Charles was past it by 1951, then really he didn't have that long of a productive career at heavyweight. That should be held against him when rating him as a heavyweight.
Bowe did beat decent fighters like Seldon,Coetzer,Donald,Biggs, and Tubbs. It always seemed to me that Bowe would be up against some undefeated guy or some guy that had a good record who was supposed to be good, and beat them. After Bowe beat him, then suddenly that guy wasn't any good at all. Anyway, these guys are atleast comparable to almost all of of Walcott's and Charles best wins (besides each other.) Add the fights with Holyfield and Bowe's career was better.
It's questionable how big a deal beating Elmer Ray was. Ray's career is filled almost entirely with fights against weak competition.
If you think Charles was past it by 1951, then really he didn't have that long of a productive career at heavyweight. That should be held against him when rating him as a heavyweight.
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
Since most seem to give Bowe a pass for his dreadful performances against Golota by saying he was past his prime, then you could say the same for Bowe as well, correct? And please keep in mind that Charles decline was due to an illness, although curiously most seem to doubt that it affected him until his final few years in the ring.Ambling Alp wrote:If you think Charles was past it by 1951, then really he didn't have that long of a productive career at heavyweight. That should be held against him when rating him as a heavyweight.
We could argue this forever (as we did one other time) without reaching consensus. Both are in my top 20 and are not that many places apart, so I don’t think my opinion differs that greatly from yours.
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
Goodnight Irene, in response to your earlier comments/questions:
I'm not certain what point you're making when you say Bowe would have beaten Patterson head-to-head. Weren't you ranking their accomplishments?
I don't rank fighters just on their "accomplishments" or just how I think they would do head to head against each other. I rate them on on how good they were.
I look at a fighter's record, taking into consideration the ability of the fighter and each opponent at the the time of their fights. I also look at film as well.
My point about Bowe and Patterson (and Walcott and Charles) is that judging by film, Bowe looks like he would have beaten them in a head to head fight. That doesn't by itself mean that Bowe should be rated higher. However, it's a major factor is his favor.
When you are twenty-one, you are not as mentally &, in some cases, physically matured as you are at twenty-five or up. Precious few fighters in history (relative to the number of overall fighters) were better at twenty-one than they were at twenty-five through to thirty. We are judging their whole careers like you said, & this is a part of that. It's a record that still stands today, more than half a century on. I guess we just disagree as to whether that counts for something or not. IMO it does.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree with that. Yes Patterson was a champion at the age of 21 and Bowe wasn't. If we were just rating who were the best heavyweights at the age of 21, then you would have a case.
However we are rating their entire careers, not just at one stage.
Winning the title at the youngest age is really more of an answer to a trivia question than anything else. Btw, for what it;s worth, Tyson was the WBC,WBA,and IBF champion at a younger age.
Out of nearly forty linear titleists & more than 120 years, a mere five men have re-captured the championship after losing it. That puts Patterson in very exclusive company, & he is the trail-blazer amongst that group to boot. After some 75-odd years & the failed attempts of (I think?) ten former champions, Patterson --- for the second time in his career --- made history, & beat the bookmakers' odds while doing it, in knocking Johansson unconscious.
Yes he won the title twice, and I say again it's really more of a trivia question than anything. That isn't necessarily more impressive than someone that only won it once. For one thing, it's not really fair to a long time champion. For example, Joe Louis was the champ for 12 years and was a one time champ. Imagine if he had lost to say Arturo Godoy the first time, and then won the title back in a rematch. Would that have made his career better, since he was a two time champ? Of course not. It would have been a mark against his record.
Patterson lost a to below average champion (Johansson). Beating Johannson to win it back is a lot easier to do than say Dempsey having to beat Tunney, or Corbett and Fitzsimmons trying to beat Jeffries. It should also be mentioned that several champions never got the opportunity to win the title again after losing it. And of course, Tunney and Marciano only won the title once because they retired with the title. Is that a mark against them becasue they only won the title once? Of course not.
Patterson's career would have been more impressive had he been a one time champion and beat Johansson the first time instead of losing to him.
All this was accomplished with what was essentially a natural Light-Heavyweight frame. How many times did Patterson have a size advantage against his opposition? Now how many times was Bowe at a size disadvantage against his opposition?
It's irrelevant that Patterson usually had a size disadvantage and that Bowe usually had a size advantage. Those are the breaks. If Patterson didn't have the hand speed that he had he wouldn't have been as good. If Liston didn't have his reach he wouldn't have been as good. If Shaquille O'Neill wouldn't have been so big he wouldn't have been that good. It's what you do with whatever natural talents you are blessed with that counts.
I like Bowe, & I feel he is undersold. I actually am one of the few that pick him to beat a prime Lewis, & I feel he won that second fight with Holyfield. However, his title reign was very short & his career revolved almost totally around his centrepiece victory over Holyfield, which while more impressive than any of Patterson's wins, doesn't entitle him to a superior accomplishment ranking. I'd be curious on this --- do you rank Douglas' career as more-accomplished than Patterson's, allowing for his miracle triumph against Tyson?
No I don't rate Douglas career better than Patterson. I think on the particular night that he beat Tyson, Douglas put it all together and was better that Patterson or almost anyone else for that matter. However, Douglas didn't often do that and his overall career wasn't nearly as good as Patterson's.
However, comparing Douglas career and Bowe's career isn't a close comparison at all.
Douglas wasn't nearly as consistent as Bowe. Bowe occasionally had a subpar performace, but overall was very consistent. He beat Holyfield twice and barely lost the other time. Bowe never lost a fight to anyone else. Douglas lost to several other fights.
Some of Bowe's wins are a bit underrated. If Patterson had to fight Bowe's exact competition, would he have only had one loss? This not only includes 3 fights with Holyfield, but also decent fighters like Tubbs,Seldon,Coetzer,Donald, Biggs,Cooper etc. Patterson was better than all (except Holyfield) but he probably would have lost much more than one time. Same with Charles and especially Walcott. Likewise, if Bowe had to fight, Charles,Walcott's or Patterson's competition, he wouldn't have lost as often as they did. Bowe would have been much more likley to be champion in their era's than they would have been in his.
I'm not certain what point you're making when you say Bowe would have beaten Patterson head-to-head. Weren't you ranking their accomplishments?
I don't rank fighters just on their "accomplishments" or just how I think they would do head to head against each other. I rate them on on how good they were.
I look at a fighter's record, taking into consideration the ability of the fighter and each opponent at the the time of their fights. I also look at film as well.
My point about Bowe and Patterson (and Walcott and Charles) is that judging by film, Bowe looks like he would have beaten them in a head to head fight. That doesn't by itself mean that Bowe should be rated higher. However, it's a major factor is his favor.
When you are twenty-one, you are not as mentally &, in some cases, physically matured as you are at twenty-five or up. Precious few fighters in history (relative to the number of overall fighters) were better at twenty-one than they were at twenty-five through to thirty. We are judging their whole careers like you said, & this is a part of that. It's a record that still stands today, more than half a century on. I guess we just disagree as to whether that counts for something or not. IMO it does.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree with that. Yes Patterson was a champion at the age of 21 and Bowe wasn't. If we were just rating who were the best heavyweights at the age of 21, then you would have a case.
However we are rating their entire careers, not just at one stage.
Winning the title at the youngest age is really more of an answer to a trivia question than anything else. Btw, for what it;s worth, Tyson was the WBC,WBA,and IBF champion at a younger age.
Out of nearly forty linear titleists & more than 120 years, a mere five men have re-captured the championship after losing it. That puts Patterson in very exclusive company, & he is the trail-blazer amongst that group to boot. After some 75-odd years & the failed attempts of (I think?) ten former champions, Patterson --- for the second time in his career --- made history, & beat the bookmakers' odds while doing it, in knocking Johansson unconscious.
Yes he won the title twice, and I say again it's really more of a trivia question than anything. That isn't necessarily more impressive than someone that only won it once. For one thing, it's not really fair to a long time champion. For example, Joe Louis was the champ for 12 years and was a one time champ. Imagine if he had lost to say Arturo Godoy the first time, and then won the title back in a rematch. Would that have made his career better, since he was a two time champ? Of course not. It would have been a mark against his record.
Patterson lost a to below average champion (Johansson). Beating Johannson to win it back is a lot easier to do than say Dempsey having to beat Tunney, or Corbett and Fitzsimmons trying to beat Jeffries. It should also be mentioned that several champions never got the opportunity to win the title again after losing it. And of course, Tunney and Marciano only won the title once because they retired with the title. Is that a mark against them becasue they only won the title once? Of course not.
Patterson's career would have been more impressive had he been a one time champion and beat Johansson the first time instead of losing to him.
All this was accomplished with what was essentially a natural Light-Heavyweight frame. How many times did Patterson have a size advantage against his opposition? Now how many times was Bowe at a size disadvantage against his opposition?
It's irrelevant that Patterson usually had a size disadvantage and that Bowe usually had a size advantage. Those are the breaks. If Patterson didn't have the hand speed that he had he wouldn't have been as good. If Liston didn't have his reach he wouldn't have been as good. If Shaquille O'Neill wouldn't have been so big he wouldn't have been that good. It's what you do with whatever natural talents you are blessed with that counts.
I like Bowe, & I feel he is undersold. I actually am one of the few that pick him to beat a prime Lewis, & I feel he won that second fight with Holyfield. However, his title reign was very short & his career revolved almost totally around his centrepiece victory over Holyfield, which while more impressive than any of Patterson's wins, doesn't entitle him to a superior accomplishment ranking. I'd be curious on this --- do you rank Douglas' career as more-accomplished than Patterson's, allowing for his miracle triumph against Tyson?
No I don't rate Douglas career better than Patterson. I think on the particular night that he beat Tyson, Douglas put it all together and was better that Patterson or almost anyone else for that matter. However, Douglas didn't often do that and his overall career wasn't nearly as good as Patterson's.
However, comparing Douglas career and Bowe's career isn't a close comparison at all.
Douglas wasn't nearly as consistent as Bowe. Bowe occasionally had a subpar performace, but overall was very consistent. He beat Holyfield twice and barely lost the other time. Bowe never lost a fight to anyone else. Douglas lost to several other fights.
Some of Bowe's wins are a bit underrated. If Patterson had to fight Bowe's exact competition, would he have only had one loss? This not only includes 3 fights with Holyfield, but also decent fighters like Tubbs,Seldon,Coetzer,Donald, Biggs,Cooper etc. Patterson was better than all (except Holyfield) but he probably would have lost much more than one time. Same with Charles and especially Walcott. Likewise, if Bowe had to fight, Charles,Walcott's or Patterson's competition, he wouldn't have lost as often as they did. Bowe would have been much more likley to be champion in their era's than they would have been in his.
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
I was going to leave this one alone, but I have to respond to this statement. If the rather disinterested and sometimes under prepared Bowe had fought the same guys as many times as Charles did I’m pretty confident that he would have lost at least as many as Charles did, which as I noted earlier was very few during his peak years. Also as noted earlier, with Bowe’s size and somewhat wasted talent I think he he would have been more than a handful for just about any HW in history when he was interested and prepared, but arguably his biggest fault was his suspect discipline and inconsistent work ethic. A busy schedule against top 10 HWs would not have been kind to someone with these deficiencies and I think the career choices made by Bowe and his management reflect the fact that they were very much aware of his shortcomings. The greats of the past often times had more loses than the “modern” fighters because they usually fought more often, were many times completely unfamiliar with their opponents and in general the depth of talent was much greater. Of course, I’m probably only reminding you of things that you already know.Ambling Alp wrote: Likewise, if Bowe had to fight, Charles,Walcott's or Patterson's competition, he wouldn't have lost as often as they did. Bowe would have been much more likley to be champion in their era's than they would have been in his.
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
I agree that often fighters in the past usually have tougher competition on their way up, and the top contenders would often fight each more often. And fighters did take fights on shorter notice more often than they did in Bowe's era.
However, if we are just talking about the heavyweight division during the 1940's and early 1950's, then I don't think their was much depth and I think Bowe would have lost very rarely. The 1940's is one of the worst decades in the heavyweight division. Tubbs, Seldon,Donald, Biggs, etc would have been Top 10 contenders in the 1940's and early 1950's. That Bowe beat all of them says something. Walcott in particular lost way too many times. I know the sob story about his poor management, but his opponents often had the same problems.
I'm not sure that understand your comment about a "disinterested" Bowe. In the ring, he usually took his opponents seriously.
As for your earlier comment about the Golota fights, I do hold those fights against Bowe to some extent. He really has no excuse for being battered around. That he wasn't in great shape is no excuse. However, at least he hung in there and won the fights. He was lucky that Golota was so stupid, but other fighters would have been knocked or quit against Golota in that situation. Bowe deserves a little credit for hanging in there and giving himself a chance to win which happened when Golota self destructed. Looking bad and beating Golota is better than losing to Layne or Valdes or some of the really mediocre fighters that Walcott lost to.
However, if we are just talking about the heavyweight division during the 1940's and early 1950's, then I don't think their was much depth and I think Bowe would have lost very rarely. The 1940's is one of the worst decades in the heavyweight division. Tubbs, Seldon,Donald, Biggs, etc would have been Top 10 contenders in the 1940's and early 1950's. That Bowe beat all of them says something. Walcott in particular lost way too many times. I know the sob story about his poor management, but his opponents often had the same problems.
I'm not sure that understand your comment about a "disinterested" Bowe. In the ring, he usually took his opponents seriously.
As for your earlier comment about the Golota fights, I do hold those fights against Bowe to some extent. He really has no excuse for being battered around. That he wasn't in great shape is no excuse. However, at least he hung in there and won the fights. He was lucky that Golota was so stupid, but other fighters would have been knocked or quit against Golota in that situation. Bowe deserves a little credit for hanging in there and giving himself a chance to win which happened when Golota self destructed. Looking bad and beating Golota is better than losing to Layne or Valdes or some of the really mediocre fighters that Walcott lost to.
-
Cojimar 1945
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 482
- Joined: 07 Oct 2003, 15:15
Selden, etc
I don't think Seldon, Biggs or Donald were rated highly when Bowe fought them.
Winning the title at a young age is impressive and means something but I agree with Alp here that it's not a major point.Ambling Alp wrote:I knew that I would get a lot of flack about Bowe, but I don't think he gets his due on this forum. Yes, he should have a better career, but he should be judged by what he did do.
Walcott lost to great and not so great fighters throughout the early, middle, and end of his career.
Charles lost to Layne,Valdez, and Harold Johnson as a heavyweight.
Patterson's losses were to better opponents, but it's hard to imagine Bowe losing to Johannson,Quarry, and Ellis.
Outside of Bowe's close loss to Holyfield, he had no losses. His competition wasn't that good, however, it's doubtful that Charles, and certainly Walcott, would have done as well.
Neither Walcott,Charles, or Patterson beat anyone nearly as good as a prime Holyfield.
I concede that Bowe didn't have as long of a career as the others, and . they had more "good wins" than Bowe. However, I think the gap is a little closer than what many people believe. Still,they have an advantage over Bowe there.
However, there are atleast 3 major factors in Bowe's favor that should be taken into consideration that trump this.
1. If he was close to his best, Bowe would have beaten all 3 head to head. Watching them all on film, it's difficult to argue against that.
2. Bowe beat a fighter (Holyfield) that was much better than anyone the other 3 beat.
3. Bowe was more consistent. He only lost one fight his career and that was a close one to Holyfield. Charles,Walcott, and Patterson all lost multiple fights to fighters that clearly weren't as good as Bowe.
John L. - Several of the fighters that you mentioned that Charles beat weren't heavyweights. As for some of the others-Quite frankly, beating Baski,Oma, Beshore really aren't that big of a deal. Pound for pound, yes Charles was obviously better. But we are rating them just as heavyweights.
Goodnight Irene- Winning the title at a young age? Well, I never understood why that is such a big deal. What difference does it make if you win the title at 21, or 25, or 30? We are judging his career, not just what they did at the age of 21.
As for winning the title twice, well I have never understood the big deal about that either. If Patterson hadn't lost to Johansson in the first place, he never would have won the title twice.
As mentioned I do agree with you that it was impressive that Patterson was as good as he was for that long.
Regaining the title is a major point IMO. It shows mental strength to regain the title which is why nobody had done it pre-Paterson (well that and some dodgy decisions and careful matchmaking). It's a big achievement IMO.
In terms of Bowe his size made up for a lot of his shortcomings. Turn up the level of his opponents and perhaps he would struggle more than I first might have thought.
-
jezzamundo
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3127
- Joined: 16 Jun 2004, 13:11
Muhammad Ali
Joe Louis
Larry Holmes
George Foreman
Rocky Marciano
Joe Frazier
Lennox Lewis
Sonny Liston
Evander Holyfield
Mike Tyson
Ezzard Charles
Jersey Joe Walcott
Floyd Patterson
Riddick Bowe
Ingo Johansson
Buster Douglas
Mike Spinks
Wladimir Klitschko
Old George Foreman
Michael Moorer
Vitali Klitschko
Leon Spinks
Any major disagreements with this list?
Joe Louis
Larry Holmes
George Foreman
Rocky Marciano
Joe Frazier
Lennox Lewis
Sonny Liston
Evander Holyfield
Mike Tyson
Ezzard Charles
Jersey Joe Walcott
Floyd Patterson
Riddick Bowe
Ingo Johansson
Buster Douglas
Mike Spinks
Wladimir Klitschko
Old George Foreman
Michael Moorer
Vitali Klitschko
Leon Spinks
Any major disagreements with this list?
-
dempseyfire
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5534
- Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56
Ambling Alp wrote:I agree that often fighters in the past usually have tougher competition on their way up, and the top contenders would often fight each more often. And fighters did take fights on shorter notice more often than they did in Bowe's era.
However, if we are just talking about the heavyweight division during the 1940's and early 1950's, then I don't think their was much depth and I think Bowe would have lost very rarely. The 1940's is one of the worst decades in the heavyweight division. Tubbs, Seldon,Donald, Biggs, etc would have been Top 10 contenders in the 1940's and early 1950's. That Bowe beat all of them says something. Walcott in particular lost way too many times. I know the sob story about his poor management, but his opponents often had the same problems.
I'm not convinced at all Bowe placed in the 1940s even becomes the leading black contender; Lee Q. Murray, Hatchetman Sheppard, Turkey Thompson, Jimmy Bivins, Jersey Joe Walcott, Elmer Ray . . . .that's a much tougher lot than Bruce Seldon, Herbie Hide, Jesse Ferguson, and Jose Luis Gonzales.