A Discplined Riddick Bowe...

Before you jump all over me like flies on ****, listen to what I said. Grant was closer in similarity to Bowe than Gonzalez was to Lewis, even though they all had noticable differences. In addition, I would not count out Grant's abilities simply because he had no amatuer career. The man was a 31-0 professional when Lewis faced him and a solid #1 contender who had beaten Andrew Golata, Lou Savarese, Obed Sullivan, Jorge Luis Gonzalez, David Izon, Alfred Cole, Lionel Butler and Ross Purity.. I know it sounds like I'm just reading names off of boxrec ( and truth, I was ), but you can't deny that that is a hell of a respectable streak. Grant was also 28 years old, 6'7", 250 Lbs and in chizzeled physical shape - something Riddick Bowe wasn't for much of his career. Anyway, I only posted the clip, because I wanted to point out that Lewis looked very good against men with similar traits, just as you did with Gonazalez.

 

Bowe was a big tall guy, but he fought well on the inside and the outside, thats why I posted that video, not compare anything. He had a lot of skills started boxng at a young age. Grant for his limited skills did progress suprisingly well and quickly, but he showed his true colors in the Savarese and Golota fights, were he started getting tagged and dropped. To me it was a well executed run to the title (similar to Foremans second career :yep), but I never felt Grant would make it out of the first round with Lewis. In no way did Grant resemble any type of fighting style or skills that Bowe had. The only thing they had in common was they were both African American boxers.:hey

 

Well they had the one commonality of both getting decked by Andrew Golata. The only difference is that Grant scored a genuine victory, Bowe didn't.

Here let me ad one of these for good measure : :hey

 

Sorry but you are wrong

Bowe was outjabbed by everyone whothrew a jab at him.

Had holy jabbed more he would have won the first fight.

Bowe had horrible defense horrible without his chin he would probably have been kod besides early Wlad i cant think of an elite hw with bigger defensive holes.

And yes he had relativelly poor footwork.

Bowe has infighting skills over Lewis ( Not mentioning chin its a physical attribute not a skill) nothing else

If Bowe stays on the outside against Lewis he gets destroyed inability to handle a jab + no defense equals disaster in an outside fight fight against Lewis the only chance Bowe would have is to make it an infight if Lewis was willing to go there If Lewis choses to stay on the outside there is nothing Bowe can do.

Bowe gets stopped in 5 round tops only his chin keeps him in the fight.

 

You're not very familiar with amateur boxing, are you?

 

:dead:dead

 

Yes I fought in the amatuers, but I dont remember them stopping fights after two standing eights? My point was it wasnt dominating like so many seem to think

 

Sorry, then i take my words back.

But, at any rate, amateur bouts are stopped much faster than professional ones and this one was no exception.

 

Yes and apparently Bowe had a tough fight in the semis where Lewis was able to get a bye so he had one less fight to get to the final.
Im not hating on Lewis, he was a well disciplined fighter who progressed through the pro ranks, and was smart enough to make the change to a real pro trainer, so he could improve himself. There is no excuse for knuckleheads like Mike Tyson and Riddick Bowe, who in my opinion had more natural physical talent, but blew it by being lazy and or stupid. Throw Holyfield, the overachiever in that mix, another well disciplined fighter with some limitations, and it would have been one of the best eras in heavyweight boxing had they all faced each other at their respective bests.

 

Now, this is a post that I agree with. It is shameful that the perspective primes of Tyson, Bowe, Lewis and Holyfield never crossed. If they had, we would have likely seen multiple fight sagas, and the nineties may very well have exceded the 70's as a golden era for heavyweight boxing.

 

In my opinion, they're very close as it is. Not in the eye of the public, but still. The second half of the 70's .... basically was ****. A shot Ali who held the title hostage, a shot Frazier, green Holmes, and only a few significant fights of Foreman before he retired. I'm talking about heavyweights only, of course.

 

What do you think would have happened if Ali retired after Manilla? Would Young be able to take the title and hold it for a while?

 

I agree completely. The 1970's sucked from about 1976 onward. However, I think that when people are referring to the golden era of heavyweights, they are not just talking about the 70's in a broad general sense. They are typically reflecting on the time frame from about 1969-1975. Old Fogey likes to make references to Leon Spinks when searching for a weak link in order to make a case for another era being comparable or better. The 90's weren't much better from about '96 and beyond. Riddick Bowe was gone. Tyson and Holyfield were washed up, and we really weren't seeing any interesting triliogies or good matchups anymore. Hell we were venturing into the eras of Chris Byrd, John Ruiz, Larry Donald,etc..

 

Well, a lot depends on whether the judges appreciate Young; he should've held the title as it is. If a fight is sanctioned between him and Foreman for the vacant title, then he'd win it and hold it perhaps until the late 70's when Holmes or Norton beats him. But Norton was the #2 contender at the end of '75 (Foreman being #1, Young #3); if for some reason the vacant title was held between Young and Norton then Norton obviously wins it, but he'd probably lose to Foreman or someone else soon which might give Young another shot.

Either way, despite being an outstanding fighter, i don't think Young would've held on to the title long and longetivity never was his strongest point in the first place.

Well, i'd like to hook in on that latter part of the late 90's. I don't think it was that bad. Lewis was still very close to his peak. The titles were being unified. Tua was at his peak and had a GREAT fight with Ibeabuchi. The Klitschko's were coming up. Tyson, while past his best, still had exciting fights. Lewis vs Briggs, Lewis vs Grant, good scraps. It wasn't until Lewis retired (which is a coincidence) that the shitstorm came.

 

It's possible that the late 90's could have been a bit more exciting and competitive than the late 70's, but neither were very good time periods for heavyweight boxing. When we compare the haydays of both eras, which were the early to mid 90's vs the early to mid 70's, I think the 70's come out as being substantially better. On the flipside, the 90's COULD HAVE BEEN a better era if the proper matches were made and done so in a timely fashion, but the reality of things is that they weren't. There are also some other things that made the 90's a tad inferior. You had some of the hugest upsets in ring history, Tyson-Douglas, Lewis-McCall, Moorer-Foreman.. You had two 40+ ex-champs coming back from long periods of inactivity who breached the top 10 and one of whom even won the lineal title. You had too many nobodies winnig alpha-belts, like Seldon, McCall, etc. You had two Non-heavyweights win the lineal title, one of whom is commonly recognized as the period's best participant. You had one of the division's key players ( Tyson ) who was abscent for half the decade. You had too many matches that weren't made, and people throwing belts in the trash.......

During the first golden era, you at least had the very best of the best holding the title, and the very best possible matches being made. Sure, there were some questionable decisons and shitty matches being made in the latter part of the decade, but 1969-1975 was a pretty strait up solid time for heavyweight boxing....