There's not a great deal between them. Both Lineal Champs, with neither possessing exceptional Championship runs. I'd probably lean towards Bowe, due to his Holyfield win(s) and the opinion that all three bouts, including the one loss he suffered against Holyfield, were contested at a higher quality level. Also Bowe's formative pro career is notably better than Fury's, IMO. That is to suggest: Cooper, Biggs, Tubbs & Seldon >>> Rogan, Johnson, Cunningham, Chisora.
Man, once you decide to fight Derek frigging Chisora not once but THREE times you really aren’t entitled to be taken seriously. And then the fat, fake gypsy decided to fight can crusher Wilder THREE times as well. Joseph Parker put those fights into perspective two weeks ago when he made Wilder look like the C grader that he is. Fury’s best win was against a mentally struggling Wlad who didn’t want to be there. And then he dodged the rematch.
This isn't a correct list. Holyfield in the third fight was obviously worse than Wlad. Hide was trash and shouldn't be ranked anywhere near that high. Donald was better than Hide and he's near the bottom. Chisora was quite a bit better than a washed up Thomas or Biggs. I could go on.
It's Fury. Bowe's first win against Holyfield is the only thing there that really impresses me. I prefer Fury's wins over Wilder and Wlad to the third fight with Holyfield. The draw to Wilder helps more than it hurts. As for wins over Wallin, Chisora, Cunningham, DQ wins against Golota, Hide, Gonzales, etc....Who really gives a ****?
The thing is that disappointing as Fury's post Wlad career has been, Bowe's post Holy career was decidely worse. Except for Holy one more time, when something clearly looked wrong with him, he had washed Dokes and that Brit before getting the crap beat out of him by Golota. I'll take Wilder (three times imo) and Whyte over that, poor as it is considering that it's gone more than 8 years since Wlad. So you have to rate the first Holy win quite a bit higher than the win over Wlad to make a case for Bowe and I don't think I do. On the one hand, yes, Wlad was old and would never win again (even though he looked a very fresh 41 against Joshua) and he had issues outside of the ring. On the other, you can argue that Holy fought the wrong fight (brawling despite coming in at one of his lightest HW weights) and won the rematch with better preparation and strategy, and that his record was uneven after Bowe, losing the title immediately after winning it back. So that can be twisted and turned in several ways, but what can't be disputed is how much more of a dominant force Wlad had been than Holy going in to the fight. Holy's struggles with Foreman, Cooper and Holmes would be ridiculed if he was active today and he would be seen as an average champ in a weak era, which also was pretty much the view at the time. The wins over Tyson gave a whole new outlook on Holy and might actually have made him overrated. Anyhow, he would have much more of a career than Wlad after, of course, but wasn't nearly as dominant going in, so this is not cut and dry in any sense imo.
I edited that post and gave it a much more extensive take. Don't know if you're familiar with Bowe's career but you can read my take on it there.
Thanks for the elaboration and when I have more time I will respond in more depth to defend Bowe’s position. BTW, I am no fan of Bowe, I can assure you.
I prefer Bowe to Fury, but I think he let himself and the fans down. Fury also to an extent, but if he does actually face Usyk them he's done the most important part.
I'd be happy to debate you these points, but first I'd need to see your list of their combined best 20 wins ordered.
Bowe by a hair, but Fury has the potential to surpass him if he gets past Usyk and challenges other top contenders afterwards if he even has anything left in the tank.