How much is Bowe's win over Holyfield worth in historical terms?

E

Whenever I think of Bowe, I always get an overwhelming feeling of sadness.
He had so much potential and his early year's really showed that.
The first Holyfield fight was one of the best heavyweight fights in years,it was up there with the best of the 70 s imo.
Even after losing to the real deal he showed he was still a top fighter.
But after the second Golota fight that was it, no coming back really.
Very sad ending to what could have been a great career.

 

Sure, it was just a general observation about Bowe's career.

In Holyfield 1, Bowe looked like an ATG.

 

Resume yes, H2H it depends - Walcott for example is a tougher fight for Louis than Foreman.

 

Okay...in your opinion, Walcott is better/tougher than Foreman. Honestly, I don't think so, but I'm not going to argue about it.

You've probably written about many of Joe Louis's rivals. Who else, besides Walcott, were better than George?

 

I didn’t say tougher… he’s a harder match up for Louis than Walcott and probably beats Foreman.

 

English is not my first language. Did you mean 'insult' or 'Inuit'? I am trying to find other close words but it is very hard.

 

I think you and I both speak proto-Enochian though?

But seriously, I think Tyson's wins get unappreciated by the context of youth in his first title victory, the hellish fights his body went through leading into three years hard time and still coming back to get a title, and maybe an over-playing of Holmes' rustiness and age, and a pet peeve of mine in the downgrading of Spinks as opposed to the elevating of Tyson in what was for me an awe-striking blowout performance to bring legacy points, but for many other posters, an alternate universe that makes the win of little value. Bowe/Holyfield might be unfairly flattering to Bowe because of its level of competitiveness more than it should be, whereas Tyson suffers from ease of handling with several of his best names. Still, maybe Bowe's victory is going to be singularly better than any of Tyson's, admittedly, but I take a minority opinion perhaps on how disparate these values truly are, my friend.

 

I am reminded of a pertinent quote, Ikra:

"Although you might see people from time to time, they are most likely products of your imagination. Simple mathematics tells us that the population of the Universe must be zero. Why? Well given that the volume of the universe is infinite there must be an infinite number of worlds. But not all of them are populated; therefore only a finite number are. Any finite number divided by infinity is zero, therefore the average population of the Universe is zero, and so the total population must be zero."

~Leon Spinks

 

Giving Holmes his first and only KO defeat was damn impressive, certainly better than beating Bowe. Taking Tucker's, Biggs' and Spinks' ZEROES was very impressive. You don't always get analogous victories due to differing career trajectories. A lot of things have to work right for that to happen. In the end, quantity has a quality all its own.

 

It was basically a throwaway line. I don't begrudge Mike his wins over Holmes and Spinks. If my memory is correct Joe Louis said any version of Rocky would be trouble because he didn't like crowders. In that vein I have seen it said that the best iteration of Mike always beats the best iteration of Holmes. Who knows?

 

I won't really argue if anyone thinks Tyson's win over Spinks is better. But beating a well prepared ATG in his prime is a very rare thing. Spinks is of course also an ATG, but not at HW.

 

I don't think we were talking about that at all. My point from the very beginning was that presenting dry statistics in the context you provided them is somewhat pointless. Best regards.