BoxRec

There is no case at all for putting Bowe anywhere near Tyson because his only impressive wins were against Holyfield. A fighter whose entire reputation is based on beating one guy did not achieve enough to rate close to someone as accomplished as Mike who beat quite a few of the divisions elite.

Aside from Holyfield I cannot think of any Bowe opponnents that compare to Tyson's best foes. Guys like Coetzer. Herbie Hide and Jorge Luis Gonzalez were never rated among the best 5 heavyweights currently active whereas Spinks, Ruddock, Smith and Berbick were.

Would someone like to dig up ratings by ring magazine for 1986-1996?

Coetzer is not in the class of Lennox Lewis, Oliver McCall, Evander Holyfield, Frank Bruno and others. Donald also does not make the cut. These wins compare favorably to those of many heavyweights but do not compare to Tyson's better wins.

A fight with Ruddock pre-title would have been far more impressive than taking on Coetzer. Bowe was evidently offered a fight with Ruddock but it did not go through.

Ambling Alp wrote:

pundit wrote:I revise my earlier rating. My order now is:

1 Lewis
2 Tyson
3 Holyfield
4 Bowe

Prime Tyson was a force Holyfield never was.

Pundit,
Not the "Prime Tyson" BS.
Yes, Prime Tyson had some devastating knockouts.
Prime Tyson had a lot of trouble with Tucker (who injured his hand early in the fight)
Prime Tyson had trouble with Jesse Ferguson (Who Bowe knocked out in two rounds)
Prime Tyson had a lot of trouble with James Tillis (who Holyfield beat fairly easily)
Prime Tyson looked mediocre against Smith.
Prime Tyson got knocked out by Buster Douglas (who Holyfield knocked out)

There is no excuse for a 30 year old (Tyson) who hadn't been in many "wars" to lose to a 34 year old (Holyfield) who had been in a lot of wars.
You had it right the first time when you had Holyfield ahead of Tyson.

Alp, I have to disgaree with every single fight you listed that gave Tyson trouble.

First of all Tyson comfortably beat Tucker on points and being stunned by Tucker in the first round doesnt automatically make it as a hard fight, what other rounds apart from the first did Tucker get a good punch on Tyson?

On Fergusson you have got to be joking, Tyson had absolutley no trouble in dispatching Jesse, this fight in my view was one of the most impressive versions of Tyon as he showed his brutal body attack for the first time as well as trademark right to the body and uppercut which knocked Fergusson down. All Ferugsson did is lay on the ropes for Tyson to beat on and offering very very little in return, Ferugsson come to think of it was one of Tyson's msot easiest wins.

As for Tillis as he did was run and running doesnt give you rounds, some say this was the best version of Tillis who fought Tyson because according to Quick's biograpgy just before he fought Tyson he found a cure for his allergies which made him run out of gas in his earlier fights(Weaver, Thomas, Page) And during the Tyson bout he did not show he was gasping for air like he did against Weaver or Page.

Smith? Well the greatest fighter in the world is going to have trouble against another fighter whoese entire gameplan is to survive by holding and not fighting back.

And for Douglas its a sham if you use this fight to analyize a prime Tyson, Tyson negelcted his headmovement, jab, and soley looked for the one punch to end it......and arguably he did! I also heard that Tyson was so unprepared for this fight that he even was floored by Greg Page in sparring. And it wasnt just Tyson who was unpreared you should of looked at his abymisal corner - They used a freakin baloon with ice in to put down swelling and not a proper swelling compress! Thats how prepared the whole Tyson camp was!

The Douglas who fought Holyfield had no intention in defending his belts and just fought for his paycheck, Douglas was close to 250 pounds when he fought Holyfield and when he was tagged by that right in the 3rd he touched his nose saw blood and refused to get up. Douglas was in much better shape and mindsed when he fought Tyson.


Tyson
Holyfield
Bowe
Lewis

kovit wrote:I still rank Tyson #1, then Holyfield #2, Lennox Lewis at #3, and Riddick Bowe at #4, because Tyson beats more champions in his time of his reign than Holyfield, Lewis, and Bowe.

I count 11 ex HW champs for Tyson
8 for Lewis, though it comes to 12 if you count the WBO title

11 ex-titleholders, 0 legitimate heavyweight champions. (Unless you are so desperate that you are going to count Tyson's win over Holmes)

Counting the number of wins over Alphabet soup titleholders shouldn't be the criteria for rating these guys.

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:

pundit wrote: I don't think so. Tyson was near untouchable in the late 80s. Holyfield never was.

What happened in 1996 is relatively irrelevant in comparison. Tyson was gone by then. Some deteriorate ealrier, others later.

Pundit, I strongly disagree with all 3 of your points.

- Tyson untouchable in the late 1980's. Well that is one myth.
He had a lot trouble with an inured Tucker in 1987.
Tyson struggled with Ferguson in 1986.
Tyson had a of trouble with James tillis in 1986.
Tyson struggled with Smith in 1987.
Tyson got knocked out by Douglas in 1990.

That's 5 different opponents that Tyson had trouble or lost to.

Watch Holyfield against Tillis,Thomas,Dokes, Rodriques, Stewart, before he won the title.)
The 1996 Holyfield-Tyson fight is irrelevant?
Tyson wasn't considered gone by any means. He was a big favorite going into the Holyfield fight. Tyson looked better against an improved Bruno in 1996 then he did against Bruno in 1989.

Some fighters detoriate earlier, some later? Well shouldn't one factor when rating the career's fighters be how long they can fight at a high level?

Sure. But Tyson had 3 or 4 years at the highest level; that's enough. Tyson the super-class heavyweight wasn't a one fight fluke (like, say, Riddick Bowe). This said, had he maintained his late-80s level for, say, 10 years, we would probably compare him with Ali and Louis, not with Holyfield.

As for your other points -- come on. Tyson wasn't at risk of losing any of the 80s fights you list. He didn't make minced meat out of Tucker or Smith as people had expected, but he still won handily. By a similar token, near-prime Holyfield edged out far too close wins only over guys in their mid-40s. And prime Holyfield had a hard time with midget Vaughn Bean. Not everyone fights 100 percent all the time. Prime Ali or prime Louis also had not-so-great but safe fights in between awe-inspiring ones. It's no different with Tyson or Holyfield.

As for Holyfield in 1996, this was indeed Holy's finest. But few would say that the post-prison Tyson with his messed up mind was still prime, even though he was still good enough to prevail in Bruno's reitrement fight. So it wasn't a prime vs. prime competition and you need to compare the Holyfield of this fight with Tyson's best.

And here my nod goes to Tyson, simply because he was THE world's dominating heavyweight at his prime in a way Holyfield never was. He unified the 3 major belts within one year, blasted away highly regarded heavyweights like Berbick and Thomas, and when he met the guy considered the other great heavyweight of the era he took him out in one minute. Holyfield was a great warrior who surprised people repeatedly, but prime Tyson was a bigger force than prime Holyfield -- this is what it comes down to.

When I was referring to Ferguson, Smith, Tillis, Tucker and douglas.I was showing that Tyson was far from "untouchable". He had atleast 5 fights during that period in which he didn't dominate, and one where he was knocked out.

Holyfield was in his prime when he fought Bean? come on. He was almost 36 and well past his prime.

Holyfield didn't blow away Foreman and Holmes, but those fights were exactly real close either.

Where is the evidence that Tyson was past his prime when Holyfield beat him in 1996? Tyson had less trouble with an improved Bruno in 1996 than he did with Bruno in 1989.

Tyson was the dominaint heavweight for a few years. Yes that that is true. Did you notice that Lewis, Holyfield, and Bowe weren't hadn't came along yet. When they did Tyson was no longer the best even though he was still young.

Yes Tyson did beat Berbick and Thomas. However a few cool knockouts aren't enough to rank him ahead of holyfield. By the way Holyfield also knocked out Thomas. As well as Dokes and Tillis ie the same kind of guys Tyson beat.

RazorKO wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:

pundit wrote:I revise my earlier rating. My order now is:

1 Lewis
2 Tyson
3 Holyfield
4 Bowe

Prime Tyson was a force Holyfield never was.

Pundit,
Not the "Prime Tyson" BS.
Yes, Prime Tyson had some devastating knockouts.
Prime Tyson had a lot of trouble with Tucker (who injured his hand early in the fight)
Prime Tyson had trouble with Jesse Ferguson (Who Bowe knocked out in two rounds)
Prime Tyson had a lot of trouble with James Tillis (who Holyfield beat fairly easily)
Prime Tyson looked mediocre against Smith.
Prime Tyson got knocked out by Buster Douglas (who Holyfield knocked out)

There is no excuse for a 30 year old (Tyson) who hadn't been in many "wars" to lose to a 34 year old (Holyfield) who had been in a lot of wars.
You had it right the first time when you had Holyfield ahead of Tyson.

Alp, I have to disgaree with every single fight you listed that gave Tyson trouble.

First of all Tyson comfortably beat Tucker on points and being stunned by Tucker in the first round doesnt automatically make it as a hard fight, what other rounds apart from the first did Tucker get a good punch on Tyson?

On Fergusson you have got to be joking, Tyson had absolutley no trouble in dispatching Jesse, this fight in my view was one of the most impressive versions of Tyon as he showed his brutal body attack for the first time as well as trademark right to the body and uppercut which knocked Fergusson down. All Ferugsson did is lay on the ropes for Tyson to beat on and offering very very little in return, Ferugsson come to think of it was one of Tyson's msot easiest wins.

As for Tillis as he did was run and running doesnt give you rounds, some say this was the best version of Tillis who fought Tyson because according to Quick's biograpgy just before he fought Tyson he found a cure for his allergies which made him run out of gas in his earlier fights(Weaver, Thomas, Page) And during the Tyson bout he did not show he was gasping for air like he did against Weaver or Page.

Smith? Well the greatest fighter in the world is going to have trouble against another fighter whoese entire gameplan is to survive by holding and not fighting back.

And for Douglas its a sham if you use this fight to analyize a prime Tyson, Tyson negelcted his headmovement, jab, and soley looked for the one punch to end it......and arguably he did! I also heard that Tyson was so unprepared for this fight that he even was floored by Greg Page in sparring. And it wasnt just Tyson who was unpreared you should of looked at his abymisal corner - They used a freakin baloon with ice in to put down swelling and not a proper swelling compress! Thats how prepared the whole Tyson camp was!

The Douglas who fought Holyfield had no intention in defending his belts and just fought for his paycheck, Douglas was close to 250 pounds when he fought Holyfield and when he was tagged by that right in the 3rd he touched his nose saw blood and refused to get up. Douglas was in much better shape and mindsed when he fought Tyson.


Tyson
Holyfield
Bowe
Lewis

Razor-
The Tucker fight was very competitive. tucker won 4 rounds and a few others were close. Tucker landed some other good shots in that fight.

Tyson certainly was winning the Ferguson fight. however Feruson was a 3rd rate fighter who still was somewhat compeititve. He was in no danger of being knocked out when the referee disqualified Ferguson. (It was later officially nexplicably changed to a TKO)

The Tillis fight was very close. Tyson only won 6 of the 10 rounds. Tillis landed almost as many clean punches as Tyson.

The Douglas fight does count against Tyson. Enough with the lame excuses. Why don't we use excuses for Tyson's opponents when Tyson wins? Tyson got knocked out.
I agree that Douglas was out of shape when he fought Holyfield. However that's not Holyfield's fault. He would have beaten Douglas anyway.

Tyson did not beat the very beat of his era but his resume is still very impressive.

The Great John L wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:As for Biggs, I was just pointing out that he wasn't old nor had he been in a lot of fights. It's interesting that so many of Tyson's opponents were supposedly at their best when they fought Tyson, but then when they lose to someone else not that long afterwards, they declined a lot. What a coincidence.

Actually, I don’t really think that Biggs was that great when he fought Tyson either, but basic logic should tell you that he had declined after the Tyson fight when you examine his competition and wins before and after the Tyson fight. That, plus the simple viewing of Biggs pre and post Tyson performances. The fact that Biggs is mentioned as one of Bowe’s better opponents is pretty good evidence for those of us who lack respect for his resume.

Thomas was also on the decline when he fought Tyson, as evidenced not just by watching his eroded skills, but also by his lack of success against decent competition beginning well before the Tyson fight. I don’t think I even have to discuss Dokes, as I’m sure you have to agree that he was a mere shell when he fought Bowe.

Ambling Alp wrote: The Willie Meehan comparison is very valid. Meehan beat Dempsey in 4 round decisons. that doesn't compare to Bowe's great fights with Holyfield.

Yes we agree on both parts. It is relevant, and Meehan beating Dempsey in 4 rounds isn’t the same thing as Bowe beating Holyfield over 12. However, Fat Willie did beat Dempsey twice, and in fact beat quite a few fringe/journeymen types as well.

Ambling Alp wrote:So Bowe should have fought Bruno, Ruddock or Tucker?
If he would have beat Ruddock people would have said that Ruddock was damaged goods after he got crushed by Lewis. (Tyson fans even say that Ruddock was damaged goods before Ruddock fought Lewis.)

No, I wouldn’t have said that. But we’ll never know because Bowe’s other great matchups with Boogie Man, Dokes, Tillery, etc, got in the way of any real opponents.

Ambling Alp wrote:Tucker seemed to be fading the time Bowe was on top. If Bowe would have beaten Tucker, he wouldn't have gotten anymore respect then he did beating thomas and Dokes. Bruce Seldon and Herbie Hide both stopped Tucker.

I don’t agree at all with this statement. Tucker was approaching 40 when he lost to those guys in ‘95+, but had quite a bit left in the early 90’s while Bowe was rolling through all those top contenders. Do you really think Tucker was as gone in ’91 as Dokes was?

Ambling Alp wrote: Which leaves us with Frank Bruno. If not fighting Bruno is all that keep Bowe from being regarded as belonging in the same league as Lewis, Holyfield and Tyson, then he can't be far behind. Hard to imagine Bowe losing to Bruno.

Obviously, Bruno isn’t the only thing missing. Try ANY other top contender besides his meal ticket.

Ambling Alp wrote:Would it really have been any different if Bowe beat Bruno,Ruddock and Tucker?

Not to you, but they are certainly way better names than anyone else on his resume besides his meal ticket. So yes, I think most would have a much better opinion of his accomplishments.

Ambling Alp wrote:John L., You said that Bowe deserves to be considered with Lewis, Holyfield, and Tyson, but not alongside them. Maybe we aren't that far apart. About where do you rank Bowe all time? Top 15, 20, 25, where?

I currently have him at 21.

A win over Tucker wouldn't have improved Bowe's reputation very much. It didn't do much for Lewis, and if Bowe beat Tucker after Lewis did it would have meant even less. I guess that Bowe could have fought Tucker early is career maybe and it would have menat a little something.

You have Bowe at #21? Well that not as low as I originally thought you had him.However I think he was better tna that?
I guess you would have Ali, Louis, Holmes, Foreman, Frazier, Marciano, Dempsey, Tunney, Jeffries,Johnson and Liston, Lewis, Holyfield and Tyson ahead of him. Who else do you have a head of Bowe?

We have gone around and around about Bowe-Tyson, but the crux of the arguement seems to go down to this:

Bowe beat one "1st Tier" opponent.
Bowe beat no "2nd tier opponents"
Bowe beat several "3rd Tier " Opponents (Hide, Donald, Seldon etc)

Tyson never beat a "1st Tier " opponent.
Tyson beat several "2nd Tier" opponents. (Bruno,Tucker, Thomas etc.)
Tyson also beat some "3rd Tier" Opponents.

Bowe lost one fight in his career. It was a close decision to a 1st tier opponent.

Tyson lost 3 fights in close to his prime. Two to a 1st Tier opponent (Holyfield). One to a 2nd tier opponent (Douglas).

This is a pretty close call. If you look at it objectively, you have to admit that Bowe was at least close to Tyson.

Ambling Alp wrote: The Douglas fight does count against Tyson. Enough with the lame excuses. Why don't we use excuses for Tyson's opponents when Tyson wins? Tyson got knocked out.

Still, a focused Tyson would normally have beaten Douglas (and with a correclty counting ref he would have won even this bout). As Holyfield. Holyfield would normally beat Moorer, even though he failed to do so at a critical point in his career. Don't you think?

Btw, I fail to see why Tyson's win over Bruno when Bruno was 35 and about to retire should have much significance. Bruno was scared of Tyson.

As for the rest, none of what you say is really wrong but it just fails to convince me. Holyfield had two good runs, one ended by Bowe and one by Lennox, but there where many fights in both runs that gave cause to substantial doubts. They were good but not great. Then again Holy was able to surprise people just when they had written him off (Bowe II, Tyson). But this isn't enough for me to rank him above people who dominated the divison -- in fact the more I think about it the more convinced I am that Holy belongs behind Lewis and Tyson.

But all this is a matter of judgement, and I have no problem if you assess it differently.

Ambling Alp wrote:We have gone around and around about Bowe-Tyson, but the crux of the arguement seems to go down to this:

Bowe beat one "1st Tier" opponent.
Bowe beat no "2nd tier opponents"
Bowe beat several "3rd Tier " Opponents (Hide, Donald, Seldon etc)

Tyson never beat a "1st Tier " opponent.
Tyson beat several "2nd Tier" opponents. (Bruno,Tucker, Thomas etc.)
Tyson also beat some "3rd Tier" Opponents.

Bowe lost one fight in his career. It was a close decision to a 1st tier opponent.

Tyson lost 3 fights in close to his prime. Two to a 1st Tier opponent (Holyfield). One to a 2nd tier opponent (Douglas).

This is a pretty close call. If you look at it objectively, you have to admit that Bowe was at least close to Tyson.

Here I am losing you Alp.

What about Michael Spinks? If he is not first tier, who is?
Larry Holmes? A few years beyond peak, sure, but still quite a force and Tyson pulverized him (while Holy many years later on edged out a close decision agasint a grandpa).

Bowe vs. Tyson is NOT close. You can't compare a one-oponent fighter -- Bowe -- with a guy who had umpteenth succesful title fights. If you don't fight anyone you don't lose often, of course. After all Bowe ducked Lewis openly, out of fear to get embasrassed again. If you ask me this should count as worse than a loss. Plus, Bowe really has another two very bad losses against a second tier opponent to his record -- Andrew Golota.

Holyfield may rate above Tyson due to the overall competition he beat. Holyfield's entire reputation is not based on beating one guy since he also holds wins over Dokes, Bowe, Moorer and others. However, this is irrelevant to Bowe's ranking because Holyfield beat far better competition overall than Bowe.

I don't believe the Tucker fight was scored closely by judges or observes. Tyson seems to have won quite handily.

In addition to champions there are some contenders that could rank ahead of Bowe. I think Tim Witherspoon had better wins than Bowe did aside from the Holyfield fights, there are also guys like Harry Wills.

Cojimar 1945 wrote:Holyfield may rate above Tyson due to the overall competition he beat. Holyfield's entire reputation is not based on beating one guy since he also holds wins over Dokes, Bowe, Moorer and others. However, this is irrelevant to Bowe's ranking because Holyfield beat far better competition overall than Bowe.

I think for Holy Tyson -- and in fact for Holy Tyson Lewis -- there are legit arguments either way. But not for Bowe. Bowe was essentially a fighter of great but disappointed hopes. In terms of potential he is up with the other three, but not in terms of what came of this potential.

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote: The Douglas fight does count against Tyson. Enough with the lame excuses. Why don't we use excuses for Tyson's opponents when Tyson wins? Tyson got knocked out.

Still, a focused Tyson would normally have beaten Douglas (and with a correclty counting ref he would have won even this bout). As Holyfield. Holyfield would normally beat Moorer, even though he failed to do so at a critical point in his career. Don't you think?

Btw, I fail to see why Tyson's win over Bruno when Bruno was 35 and about to retire should have much significance. Bruno was scared of Tyson.

As for the rest, none of what you say is really wrong but it just fails to convince me. Holyfield had two good runs, one ended by Bowe and one by Lennox, but there where many fights in both runs that gave cause to substantial doubts. They were good but not great. Then again Holy was able to surprise people just when they had written him off (Bowe II, Tyson). But this isn't enough for me to rank him above people who dominated the divison -- in fact the more I think about it the more convinced I am that Holy belongs behind Lewis and Tyson.

But all this is a matter of judgement, and I have no problem if you assess it differently.

Thats Tyson's fault if he wasn't focused against Douglas. The Douglas loss counts against him. The Moorer loss counts against Holyfield.
You can make excuses for any fighter that loses a fight. Not having foucus is the fighter's own fault. Othe fighters have personal lives too. You don't hear excuses for Tony Tubbs or Pinklon Thomas losing because they had drug problems. Tucker hadn't hurt his hand against Tyson and you barely even hear about that.

The referee didn't cost Tyson the fight against Douglas. Douglas could have gotten up sooner if he had to. Watch the tape. He was listening to the referee's count, ready to get up.

Bruno actually improved somewhat towards the end of his career. He wasn't so robotic like he was early in his career. In his fight before he fought Tyson, Bruno beat Oliver McCall which was the biggest win of his career. Bruno didn't fight scared the 2nd time against Tyson. He came to fight and threw some bombs. He was just way too slow for Tyson.

Ambling Alp wrote:

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote: The Douglas fight does count against Tyson. Enough with the lame excuses. Why don't we use excuses for Tyson's opponents when Tyson wins? Tyson got knocked out.

Still, a focused Tyson would normally have beaten Douglas (and with a correclty counting ref he would have won even this bout). As Holyfield. Holyfield would normally beat Moorer, even though he failed to do so at a critical point in his career. Don't you think?

Btw, I fail to see why Tyson's win over Bruno when Bruno was 35 and about to retire should have much significance. Bruno was scared of Tyson.

As for the rest, none of what you say is really wrong but it just fails to convince me. Holyfield had two good runs, one ended by Bowe and one by Lennox, but there where many fights in both runs that gave cause to substantial doubts. They were good but not great. Then again Holy was able to surprise people just when they had written him off (Bowe II, Tyson). But this isn't enough for me to rank him above people who dominated the divison -- in fact the more I think about it the more convinced I am that Holy belongs behind Lewis and Tyson.

But all this is a matter of judgement, and I have no problem if you assess it differently.

Thats Tyson's fault if he wasn't focused against Douglas. The Douglas loss counts against him. The Moorer loss counts against Holyfield.
You can make excuses for any fighter that loses a fight. Not having foucus is the fighter's own fault. Othe fighters have personal lives too. You don't hear excuses for Tony Tubbs or Pinklon Thomas losing because they had drug problems. Tucker hadn't hurt his hand against Tyson and you barely even hear about that.

The referee didn't cost Tyson the fight against Douglas. Douglas could have gotten up sooner if he had to. Watch the tape. He was listening to the referee's count, ready to get up.

Bruno actually improved somewhat towards the end of his career. He wasn't so robotic like he was early in his career. In his fight before he fought Tyson, Bruno beat Oliver McCall which was the biggest win of his career. Bruno didn't fight scared the 2nd time against Tyson. He came to fight and threw some bombs. He was just way too slow for Tyson.

To be honest a couple of unfocused losses don't count very much in my book. For me it's more relevant what a fighter could do at his best, especially if he did so repeatedly and against different opponents.

Hence, Tyson losing to Douglas or Lewis losing to McCall and Rahman doesn't weight very heavily for me. Holyfield didn't lose to Moorer because of lack of focus but because he went through a rough patch, but that doesn't have much weight either.

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:We have gone around and around about Bowe-Tyson, but the crux of the arguement seems to go down to this:

Bowe beat one "1st Tier" opponent.
Bowe beat no "2nd tier opponents"
Bowe beat several "3rd Tier " Opponents (Hide, Donald, Seldon etc)

Tyson never beat a "1st Tier " opponent.
Tyson beat several "2nd Tier" opponents. (Bruno,Tucker, Thomas etc.)
Tyson also beat some "3rd Tier" Opponents.

Bowe lost one fight in his career. It was a close decision to a 1st tier opponent.

Tyson lost 3 fights in close to his prime. Two to a 1st Tier opponent (Holyfield). One to a 2nd tier opponent (Douglas).

This is a pretty close call. If you look at it objectively, you have to admit that Bowe was at least close to Tyson.

Here I am losing you Alp.

What about Michael Spinks? If he is not first tier, who is?
Larry Holmes? A few years beyond peak, sure, but still quite a force and Tyson pulverized him (while Holy many years later on edged out a close decision agasint a grandpa).

Bowe vs. Tyson is NOT close. You can't compare a one-oponent fighter -- Bowe -- with a guy who had umpteenth succesful title fights. If you don't fight anyone you don't lose often, of course. After all Bowe ducked Lewis openly, out of fear to get embasrassed again. If you ask me this should count as worse than a loss. Plus, Bowe really has another two very bad losses against a second tier opponent to his record -- Andrew Golota.

Michael Spinks? Listen Michael spinks was one of my favorite fighters and arguable the great lightheavyweight of all time.
However he wasn't a great heavyweight. He beat an aging holmes twice (the second time very close) Cooney and Stefan Tangstad. By the time he fought Tyson, he had been off over a year, had bad knees and looked like he was scared to death of Tyson. At heavyweight, Spinks was closer to the level of Tony Tucker and Pinklon Thomas than he was Holyfield,Tyson, Lewis or Bowe.

Holmes? Tyson fans have to be very desperate to make a big deal out this win. This is like a making a big deal out of Marciano beating a washed up Louis.
Holmes was 38 years old when he fought Tyson. He had not had a fight in 2 years. He had not won a fight in 3 years.
Not only wasn't Holmes a great heavyweight at this time, he wasn't even at the level of someone like Larry Donald.

Yes Holyfield should have beaten Holmes more easily. However it wasn't that close. I certainly don't count this as a big deal for Holyfield.
It should be pointed out that before Holmes fought Holyfield he had 5 tuneup fights before the upset over Ray Mercer. The Larry Holmes who beat Ray Mercer and fought Holyfield was much better than the rusty holmes that fought Tyson. Don't just go by me, watch the tapes if you haven't seen these fights.
Holmes wasn't nearly the fighter that he was in the late 70's/early 80's when he fought Mercer and Holyfield, but he was certainly better than he Holmes that fought Tyson.
Which brings back to a crucial point: Tyson never beat a great heavyweight. Bowe did.

Ambling Alp wrote:

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:We have gone around and around about Bowe-Tyson, but the crux of the arguement seems to go down to this:

Bowe beat one "1st Tier" opponent.
Bowe beat no "2nd tier opponents"
Bowe beat several "3rd Tier " Opponents (Hide, Donald, Seldon etc)

Tyson never beat a "1st Tier " opponent.
Tyson beat several "2nd Tier" opponents. (Bruno,Tucker, Thomas etc.)
Tyson also beat some "3rd Tier" Opponents.

Bowe lost one fight in his career. It was a close decision to a 1st tier opponent.

Tyson lost 3 fights in close to his prime. Two to a 1st Tier opponent (Holyfield). One to a 2nd tier opponent (Douglas).

This is a pretty close call. If you look at it objectively, you have to admit that Bowe was at least close to Tyson.

Here I am losing you Alp.

What about Michael Spinks? If he is not first tier, who is?
Larry Holmes? A few years beyond peak, sure, but still quite a force and Tyson pulverized him (while Holy many years later on edged out a close decision agasint a grandpa).

Bowe vs. Tyson is NOT close. You can't compare a one-oponent fighter -- Bowe -- with a guy who had umpteenth succesful title fights. If you don't fight anyone you don't lose often, of course. After all Bowe ducked Lewis openly, out of fear to get embasrassed again. If you ask me this should count as worse than a loss. Plus, Bowe really has another two very bad losses against a second tier opponent to his record -- Andrew Golota.

Michael Spinks? Listen Michael spinks was one of my favorite fighters and arguable the great lightheavyweight of all time.
However he wasn't a great heavyweight. He beat an aging holmes twice (the second time very close) Cooney and Stefan Tangstad. By the time he fought Tyson, he had been off over a year, had bad knees and looked like he was scared to death of Tyson. At heavyweight, Spinks was closer to the level of Tony Tucker and Pinklon Thomas than he was Holyfield,Tyson, Lewis or Bowe.

Holmes? Tyson fans have to be very desperate to make a big deal out this win. This is like a making a big deal out of Marciano beating a washed up Louis.
Holmes was 38 years old when he fought Tyson. He had not had a fight in 2 years. He had not won a fight in 3 years.
Not only wasn't Holmes a great heavyweight at this time, he wasn't even at the level of someone like Larry Donald.

Yes Holyfield should have beaten Holmes more easily. However it wasn't that close. I certainly don't count this as a big deal for Holyfield.
It should be pointed out that before Holmes fought Holyfield he had 5 tuneup fights before the upset over Ray Mercer. The Larry Holmes who beat Ray Mercer and fought Holyfield was much better than the rusty holmes that fought Tyson. Don't just go by me, watch the tapes if you haven't seen these fights.
Holmes wasn't nearly the fighter that he was in the late 70's/early 80's when he fought Mercer and Holyfield, but he was certainly better than he Holmes that fought Tyson.
Which brings back to a crucial point: Tyson never beat a great heavyweight. Bowe did.

I can only say that I disagree on crucial points. Spinks was a fine heayweight, edging a 35 year old Holmes (my top 3 ATG heavyweight) twice after the latter had been pratically unbetable for 6 or 7 years is a superb achievement. And Spinks' win over top notch challenger Cooney was very impressive as well. Spinks is in the league of Riddick Bowe easily.

Plus, of course the 38 year old version of Holmes was better than the fat and immobile 42 year old version that jabbed itself through 12 rounds with Holyfield.

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:

pundit wrote: Here I am losing you Alp.

What about Michael Spinks? If he is not first tier, who is?
Larry Holmes? A few years beyond peak, sure, but still quite a force and Tyson pulverized him (while Holy many years later on edged out a close decision agasint a grandpa).

Bowe vs. Tyson is NOT close. You can't compare a one-oponent fighter -- Bowe -- with a guy who had umpteenth succesful title fights. If you don't fight anyone you don't lose often, of course. After all Bowe ducked Lewis openly, out of fear to get embasrassed again. If you ask me this should count as worse than a loss. Plus, Bowe really has another two very bad losses against a second tier opponent to his record -- Andrew Golota.

Michael Spinks? Listen Michael spinks was one of my favorite fighters and arguable the great lightheavyweight of all time.
However he wasn't a great heavyweight. He beat an aging holmes twice (the second time very close) Cooney and Stefan Tangstad. By the time he fought Tyson, he had been off over a year, had bad knees and looked like he was scared to death of Tyson. At heavyweight, Spinks was closer to the level of Tony Tucker and Pinklon Thomas than he was Holyfield,Tyson, Lewis or Bowe.

Holmes? Tyson fans have to be very desperate to make a big deal out this win. This is like a making a big deal out of Marciano beating a washed up Louis.
Holmes was 38 years old when he fought Tyson. He had not had a fight in 2 years. He had not won a fight in 3 years.
Not only wasn't Holmes a great heavyweight at this time, he wasn't even at the level of someone like Larry Donald.

Yes Holyfield should have beaten Holmes more easily. However it wasn't that close. I certainly don't count this as a big deal for Holyfield.
It should be pointed out that before Holmes fought Holyfield he had 5 tuneup fights before the upset over Ray Mercer. The Larry Holmes who beat Ray Mercer and fought Holyfield was much better than the rusty holmes that fought Tyson. Don't just go by me, watch the tapes if you haven't seen these fights.
Holmes wasn't nearly the fighter that he was in the late 70's/early 80's when he fought Mercer and Holyfield, but he was certainly better than he Holmes that fought Tyson.
Which brings back to a crucial point: Tyson never beat a great heavyweight. Bowe did.

I can only say that I disagree on crucial points. Spinks was a fine heayweight, edging a 35 year old Holmes (my top 3 ATG heavyweight) twice after the latter had been pratically unbetable for 6 or 7 years is a superb achievement. And Spinks' win over top notch challenger Cooney was very impressive as well. Spinks is in the league of Riddick Bowe easily.

Plus, of course the 38 year old version of Holmes was better than the fat and immobile 42 year old version that jabbed itself through 12 rounds with Holyfield.

Holmes was looking very beatable by the time he met Spinks.

Have you actually watched any of those fights, mate?

Ambling Alp wrote:You have Bowe at #21? Well that not as low as I originally thought you had him.However I think he was better tna that?
I guess you would have Ali, Louis, Holmes, Foreman, Frazier, Marciano, Dempsey, Tunney, Jeffries,Johnson and Liston, Lewis, Holyfield and Tyson ahead of him. Who else do you have a head of Bowe?

Ali
Louis
Holmes
Johnson
Dempsey
Marciano
Frazier
Jeffries
Tunney
Lewis
Tyson
Charles
Wills
Langford
Holyfield
Foreman
Liston
Jeanette
Corbett
Jackson
Bowe

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

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

dr_devious wrote:

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

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

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