Rid**** Bowe...

[CarlosG815]

Yeah, this type of stuff always spins me out a little. Talking about someone being better than everyone for one fight and if he had trained and was in shape for more than a few fights he would have been great and was the greatest but just for those couple of fights.

Talent is as much determination, will, training, habits etc etc. Bowe was also punch drunk very early on. He got hit way too much to ever be really good. He was brilliant offensively for a time there, but overall, he just didn't have it all together.

You have to put things together for more than a few years at most. You also have to do it against the best. Bowe did it against one of the best, but that's it. Consistency is as important as anything else in boxing.

It's like when people say that for that one night Douglas could have beaten any other HW in history. ****, that makes me laugh. He didn't actually perform that much better than he ever had. He didn't strike magical fairy dust in his dreams the night before and go from ok contender/lucky champ to Joe Louis and Ali combined for 30 minutes.

The guys who had beaten him before that night and after that night would probably have done it again just the same. Holyfield would have knocked him out that night and any other, just like he did in his next fight. He made too many mistakes, just like Bowe got hit too much and couldn't sustain a high level for any great length of time. Bowe would always have had a short run because he went to **** from being hit just as much as from lack of training. Lack of training shows up in some areas, but it doesn't make you go from legendary to shot hack.

Being great is not about one night, one fight, or even a few good fights. As they always say "It's easy to become champion, but to keep it? That's a true champion". What Dempsey said about a champion being someone who gets up when he can't? That also goes for greatness in being able to come back from a loss/losses and change it up to win again. It's just getting up from the floor, it's also getting back up from a loss or period of bad form.

I don't see what point you are trying to make, Benny. Who is a better heavyweight from 1990 onward? The later part of the 90's Bowe was still a force, and the 2000's haven't had anybody worth talking about. Who is the best heavyweight of the last 20 years?

[Kid McCoy]

Golota deliberately fouled his way out of both fights, he took a terrible beating in the 2nd fight and both fighters was never the same after it.. Bowe v Golota II was one of the most brutal fights of all time, they was deliberate fouls by Golota and they can only be put down to him wanting out of the fight as there is no other reason for him to commit such fouls.. Golota was a headcase.

He fouled out of a fight he was winning handily? By the same logic Bowe was trying to foul out against Coetzer, except the referee allowed him to foul at will without any points deductions. Even with all the deductions Golota was still ahead. Whatever beating Golota took, Bowe got a worse one and looked close to being KO'd in that second fight. And bear in mind that Golota was a 10-1 underdog going in, so it's not as if he was seen as some major threat. I can't see how any case can be made for Bowe based on those fights, other than his ability to absorb a beating.

[BennyST]

you obviously listen and read everything i ever say about him... but i have hit a sore spot with you, you are wanting to label Bowe as a bum for not fighting the top fighters of the 1990s but not label Lewis with the same ticket.. you make me laugh as you are a clown who i never read your posts as they are always ****** and never worth reading.. i only read this one because you replied to my thread.. live with it clown because you know that everything i have sais to be the truth.. you ****sucker

Dont ****ing read my posts then, its as simple as that.. put me on your ignore list if i bother you that much.. one thing for certain is that your posts dont bother me because i dont read them and the reason i dont read them is because you talk a load of dogshyte about everything so i always just skip past all your posts, you are someone who i think knows nothing about boxing which is why i dont bother reading anything you post.. so do yourself a favor and dont bother reading any of my posts that way you wont get so pissed off..

This topic is about Rid**** Bowe and Lewis has been brought up in the topic several times by several posters so i have replied and addressed those posts... who the f@ck do you think you are to tell me what i should write and when i should be writing it... you are no f@cker just some daft **** who gets pissed off because you know nothing about the sport

Sure mate. Didn't think it would pop that big a blood vessel.

Well, I guess I'll just let you keep on with your truth.

Pretty funny though huh? I knew you'd bring up stuff about talking the truth.

[Holtol]

I think people get consistancy and greatness a little confused. Some people are great at being consitant and thats good and there is something to be said for that . But just because something is consitantly good does not mean its great. Some one else can be inconsistent but at moments is greater then everyone else. Who is greater? There are many exsamples of this in all sorts of different discplines.

[BennyST]

I don't see what point you are trying to make, Benny. Who is a better heavyweight from 1990 onward? The later part of the 90's Bowe was still a force, and the 2000's haven't had anybody worth talking about. Who is the best heavyweight of the last 20 years?

No, I realise that. I'm certainly not saying he wasn't brilliant there for a time. Man, I loved watching his fights. He was an offensive machine and for a guy as big as he was...It was impressive.

Nor am I comparing him to Douglas as such. He was a hell of a lot better than Douglas. But to say a short period of time, from 92 to 95, when he first beat Holyfield to when he last beat Holyfield makes him the best HW of the last twenty years? Klitschko is a better HW, Holyfield is a better HW, Lewis is a better HW. He had a great run through that time and in such a short time, but it wasn't some amazing thing of dominance where he was unbeatable.

He wasn't a force in the latter part of the nineties because his whole career only lasted about seven years, apart from his comeback. He had forty or so fights in just six years and jumped in to fights with Holyfield x 3, Donald, Coetzer, Hide, Dokes etc after such a short time.

Nonetheless, by the end of that short period he was shot to ****.

Basically, what I am trying to say is that he was certainly very good when he was champion. No one could say otherwise. He beat the 'man' and was the Undisputed champ. But it lasted only a few short years and what he did in those years isn't nearly enough to say he's 1) the best HW of the last twenty years or 2) that on his best night he was one of the GOAT or the best fighter of the last twenty years and would have beaten anyone.

He's not and wasn't. Just my take though.

[sonnyboyx2]

No, I realise that. I'm certainly not saying he wasn't brilliant there for a time. Man, I loved watching his fights. He was an offensive machine and for a guy as big as he was...It was impressive.

Nor am I comparing him to Douglas as such. He was a hell of a lot better than Douglas. But to say a short period of time, from 92 to 95, when he first beat Holyfield to when he last beat Holyfield makes him the best HW of the last twenty years? Klitschko is a better HW, Holyfield is a better HW, Lewis is a better HW. He had a great run through that time and in such a short time, but it wasn't some amazing thing of dominance where he was unbeatable.

He wasn't a force in the latter part of the nineties because his whole career only lasted about seven years, apart from his comeback. He had forty or so fights in just six years and jumped in to fights with Holyfield x 3, Donald, Coetzer, Hide, Dokes etc after such a short time.

Nonetheless, by the end of that short period he was shot to ****.

Basically, what I am trying to say is that he was certainly very good when he was champion. No one could say otherwise. He beat the 'man' and was the Undisputed champ. But it lasted only a few short years and what he did in those years isn't nearly enough to say he's 1) the best HW of the last twenty years or 2) that on his best night he was one of the GOAT or the best fighter of the last twenty years and would have beaten anyone.

He's not and wasn't. Just my take though.

full of contradictions from your earlier post on the subject but that is typical of you.

[CarlosG815]

No, I realise that. I'm certainly not saying he wasn't brilliant there for a time. Man, I loved watching his fights. He was an offensive machine and for a guy as big as he was...It was impressive.

Nor am I comparing him to Douglas as such. He was a hell of a lot better than Douglas. But to say a short period of time, from 92 to 95, when he first beat Holyfield to when he last beat Holyfield makes him the best HW of the last twenty years? Klitschko is a better HW, Holyfield is a better HW, Lewis is a better HW. He had a great run through that time and in such a short time, but it wasn't some amazing thing of dominance where he was unbeatable.

He wasn't a force in the latter part of the nineties because his whole career only lasted about seven years, apart from his comeback. He had forty or so fights in just six years and jumped in to fights with Holyfield x 3, Donald, Coetzer, Hide, Dokes etc after such a short time.

Nonetheless, by the end of that short period he was shot to ****.

Basically, what I am trying to say is that he was certainly very good when he was champion. No one could say otherwise. He beat the 'man' and was the Undisputed champ. But it lasted only a few short years and what he did in those years isn't nearly enough to say he's 1) the best HW of the last twenty years or 2) that on his best night he was one of the GOAT or the best fighter of the last twenty years and would have beaten anyone.

He's not and wasn't. Just my take though.

I can not agree in the least with regards to Klitschko or Lewis being greater in the last 20 years. Not at all. Holyfield a very good case can be made, but the other 2 seems like an attempt to put Bowe in the same class as less skilled fighters. Those 2 guys just aren't as good and their resume's are not better than Bowes.

[BennyST]

I think people get consistancy and greatness a little confused. Some people are great at being consitant and thats good and there is something to be said for that . But just because something is consitantly good does not mean its great. Some one else can be inconsistent but at moments is greater then everyone else. Who is greater? There are many exsamples of this in all sorts of different discplines.

I'm not mixing up being good consistently with being great for a short time. We're talking about Bowe as one of the greats and being the best of the last twenty years, when he had a brief run from 92-95 when he won, lost and won the title from Holyfield and in between beat a few solid guys. That's good. Not great and it also lacks the consistency needed to be considered as among the best of the last twenty years.

In the same period as Bowe started his pro career, won the title from Holyfield, lost it, won it again, then got beaten up by a psycho nut puncher and retired, Holyfield won the Undisputed HW title from Douglas, beat George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Rid**** Bowe, Mike Tyson, Bert Copper, Michael Dokes, Alex Stewart, Ray Mercer and Bobby Czyz.

After Bowe retired, Holyfield went on to win the HW title again, unify it against Moorer, defend it, lose it, and win it again.

Does all that get thrown out the window because Bowe beat Holyfield twice, but looked great while doing it? Did he even look great? A great, legendary fight/fights, doesn't automatically mean the guys in them are great. It was a brutal war because they had no defense and those fights no doubt probably ruined Bowe and screwed him mentally. The reason I brought up Douglas is because so many people say on that Tyson night, he could have beaten anyone and was an ATG for that one night! It's complete crap though. I think he fought that good numerous times throughout his career, sometimes he won and sometimes he lost. He also fought much worse than that quite often too.

[BennyST]

I can not agree in the least with regards to Klitschko or Lewis being greater in the last 20 years. Not at all. Holyfield a very good case can be made, but the other 2 seems like an attempt to put Bowe in the same class as less skilled fighters. Those 2 guys just aren't as good and their resume's are not better than Bowes.

Well, ok. That's cool. I certainly can't see it though. Just in terms of names at the moment without taking into consideration title winning efforts, defenses, length of reign etc....just champions or particularly top contenders.

Bowe: Holyfield x2
Pinklon Thomas
Tony Tubbs
Michael Dokes
Larry Donald
Herbie Hide
Jorge Luis Gonzalez
Bruce Seldon
Bert Copper

Holyfield: Bowe
George Foreman
Larry Holmes
Pinklon Thomas
Michael Dokes
Buster Douglas
Mike Tyson x 2
Michael Moorer
John Ruiz
Bobby Czyz
Ray Marcer
Bert Cooper
Hasim Rahman

Lewis: Mike Tyson
Evander Holyfield
Mike Weaver
Razor Ruddock
Tony Tucker
Frank Bruno
Ray Mercer
Tommy Morrison
Andrew Golota
Shannon Briggs
Oliver McCall
Tua
Rahman
Vitali Klitschko

Wlad Klit: Chris Byrd x 2
Ray Mercer
Calvin Brock
Sam Peter x 2
Lamon Brester
Sultan Ibragimov
Tony Thompson
Ruslan Chagaev
Rahman
errrr...
Eddie Chambers

[Holtol]

I'm not mixing up being good consistently with being great for a short time. We're talking about Bowe as one of the greats and being the best of the last twenty years, when he had a brief run from 92-95 when he won, lost and won the title from Holyfield and in between beat a few solid guys. That's good. Not great and it also lacks the consistency needed to be considered as among the best of the last twenty years.

In the same period as Bowe started his pro career, won the title from Holyfield, lost it, won it again, then got beaten up by a psycho nut puncher and retired, Holyfield won the Undisputed HW title from Douglas, beat George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Rid**** Bowe, Mike Tyson, Bert Copper, Michael Dokes, Alex Stewart, Ray Mercer and Bobby Czyz.

After Bowe retired, Holyfield went on to win the HW title again, unify it against Moorer, defend it, lose it, and win it again.

Does all that get thrown out the window because Bowe beat Holyfield twice, but looked great while doing it? Did he even look great? A great, legendary fight/fights, doesn't automatically mean the guys in them are great. It was a brutal war because they had no defense and those fights no doubt probably ruined Bowe and screwed him mentally. The reason I brought up Douglas is because so many people say on that Tyson night, he could have beaten anyone and was an ATG for that one night! It's complete crap though. I think he fought that good numerous times throughout his career, sometimes he won and sometimes he lost. He also fought much worse than that quite often too.

I don't think the Douglas who beat Tyson would beat everyone in history. The last 20 years I have not seen really any performances equaling his though. I have watched most of Lewis,Holyfields,Klitschko's, fights. Its posible that I am misjudging talent.