As it stands who had a better career Fury or Bowe

[493dart]

Bowe avoided Tyson and Lewis and then got whipped twice by Golata . He wasnt THAT great...

[bojangles1987]

I really don't know which is better between Bowe's two wins over Holyfield and Fury's win over Wlad. Other than that neither guy has anything particularly special that separates one from the other.

[bojangles1987]

You know a guy is biased when they're trying to say Ruddock and Bonecrusher smith would be anything but **** stains on Klitschko

It's contradictory because Larry holmes went straight from a 2 year stint on the couch to fighting Mike Tyson.

I'm sure you know that already.

I watched Tyson-Holmes recently and Holmes actually did much better than I remember. That was a surprising fight to rewatch after who knows how many years.

Larry wins that fight convincingly in his prime.

[QueensburyRules]

I watched Tyson-Holmes recently and Holmes actually did much better than I remember. That was a surprising fight to rewatch after who knows how many years.

Larry wins that fight convincingly in his prime.

- -Tubs Lar 0-5 against standing champs holding a title won in the ring.

I don't make this Shhh up, Lar does it for me!

[Removed Now]

Looks like Tyson won.

[Marchegiano]

This debate is ******.

Rid**** Bowe is a former undisputed HW champion.

Tyson Fury has never been an undisputed HW champion.

One is a category above the other.

It's like telling me a goddamn EBU champion had a better career than a WBC champion 'cause resume doe'. No, **** you, resume is semantics, it's just more elaborate and convoluted triangle theory for ****'s sake. A title is a ****ing title. One of these men holds a title above the other....for ****'s sake.

Bowe gets **** for refusing to fight Lennox, he fought Dokes instead. Lennox has just as many undisputed title defenses as Bowe because Lennox then refused to fight his mando, Ruiz, and fought Grant instead. Tyson Fury Has never been stripped of undisputed because he's never been an undisputed. Bowe ducking Lennox and then Lennox ducking Ruiz is good argument for Bowe and Lennox not ****ing Tyson never was undisputed Fury....for ****'s sake.


You know what Ruiz is? x2 HW champion that's what. Lennox ducked him to fight the 0 time HW champion Grant. That's fine. However Bowe ducking the x3 world champ for a once world champ is somehow not just worse than Lennox but also makes him worse than champions who never achieved undisputed?


Y'all get on some ****** semantics based logic and tell yourself it's past glorification that holds up old champion but really you're a bunch of lazy kids making arguments based on ****ing boxrec knowledge and little else. Tell me about how your opinion of a man's resume trumps the ****ing official status of a goddamn title....ya goofy mook bastards ya. How the **** does a man who has never defended anything and never been undisputed trumps a defended unified and former undisputed champion? The ****? skipping ranks based on how much your ***** twitches while reading a record?

[JakeTheBoxer]

Michael Douglas beat Mike Tyson who was seen unbeatable than. Douglas is as great as Bowe.

[Removed Now]

Michael Douglas beat Mike Tyson who was seen unbeatable than. Douglas is as great as Bowe.

So Tyson Fury is better?

[Removed Now]

This debate is ******.

Rid**** Bowe is a former undisputed HW champion.

Tyson Fury has never been an undisputed HW champion.

One is a category above the other.

It's like telling me a goddamn EBU champion had a better career than a WBC champion 'cause resume doe'. No, **** you, resume is semantics, it's just more elaborate and convoluted triangle theory for ****'s sake. A title is a ****ing title. One of these men holds a title above the other....for ****'s sake.

Bowe gets **** for refusing to fight Lennox, he fought Dokes instead. Lennox has just as many undisputed title defenses as Bowe because Lennox then refused to fight his mando, Ruiz, and fought Grant instead. Tyson Fury Has never been stripped of undisputed because he's never been an undisputed. Bowe ducking Lennox and then Lennox ducking Ruiz is good argument for Bowe and Lennox not ****ing Tyson never was undisputed Fury....for ****'s sake.


You know what Ruiz is? x2 HW champion that's what. Lennox ducked him to fight the 0 time HW champion Grant. That's fine. However Bowe ducking the x3 world champ for a once world champ is somehow not just worse than Lennox but also makes him worse than champions who never achieved undisputed?


Y'all get on some ****** semantics based logic and tell yourself it's past glorification that holds up old champion but really you're a bunch of lazy kids making arguments based on ****ing boxrec knowledge and little else. Tell me about how your opinion of a man's resume trumps the ****ing official status of a goddamn title....ya goofy mook bastards ya. How the **** does a man who has never defended anything and never been undisputed trumps a defended unified and former undisputed champion? The ****? skipping ranks based on how much your ***** twitches while reading a record?

So Bowe is better because he was undisputed ? What if Tyson Fury later becomes undisputed?

[Ritz Kola]

I gotta go with Fury. Boxing was more popular in America back then so nostalgia and hype always gives those fighters an advantage in theoretic debates that they really wouldn't have today. Bowe had his time and gave it away. Bowe's best wins were Holyfield. Fury's best wins are against two long reigning dominant champions.