Anthony Joshua vs Rid**** Bowe

No, Its totally relevant. What's "irrelevant" is your reference to what Butler did later, as if to try and sell people on the notion that he was the same fighter in 1989 that he was in 1995 which he clearly wasn't.. Lionel would start his career with an abysmal 6-10 record before putting together any sort of streak.. And Bowe got him in only his second bout.

debuting against an 8-0 guy >>>>>>> debuting against an 0-1 guy.

And why was Lionel served up to Bowe? Because they viewed him as a stepping stone to a title shot?

Then at least it was more respectable on the surface than an olympic hopeful facing an 0-1 nobody, who nobody ever figured was going to do anything.

Irrelevant.. At the time he was 8-0. Butler was 0-1. And the eventuality of what they did later changes nothing about their value at the time they met Bowe and Joshua.

That may be true of some of the 90's journeyman but not the specific ones Bowe fought in his first 17 fights. If he had spent that first 17 fights beating up Jesse Ferguson, Oliver McCall and Ross Purity then we might have an argument. But he fought guys like Garlng Lane, Don Askew, Mike Acey and of course the 0-1 Lionel Butler who wouldn't do anything of note for years to come... In fact about 7 or 8 of those first 17 bouts were against guys with losing records.. Joshua has only faced TWO guys with losing records, and on the whole he's beaten much larger men as well.

 

Anthony Joshua looks like he could be the real thing. In the ring, he's just a destroyer.

When someone started a thread last week asking for the names of the 15 best heavyweights of all time, I started to make a list. When I got to around 15, I was like, at this point, Anthony Joshua could probably hold his own with everyone I haven't included so far ... or even be favored to beat the rest.

Can you imagine Joshua in there with the smaller, weaker champs like Braddock or Leon Spinks or Jimmy Ellis or Ernie Terrell? I think he'd break some of them in half.

He still needs to fight better comp. Without question. But, to me, at this point, he's like those turn-of-the-century guys who were talented and dominant but may not have fought the best comp compared to later fighters.

In the ring, Joshua doesn't remind me of Frank Bruno. He's more Liston than Frank Bruno inside the ring. Maybe he'll be better than Liston. Maybe he'll be one of the greats.

We'll see. But I think it's clear already he's not a flash in the pan. He's a force, if we're being honest.

He's got some flaws. But he's a force.

 

Lets make this real simple.

Who is a better win. Leo or Butler?

Bulter is the better win. The End.

 

The Butler of 1992 onward would have been the better win. But not in 1989.

 

Wrong answer. 0-1 Butler is a better win than some 8-0 skid mark from Italy.

Beating guys with 3 wins and 77 loses doesn't count for anything.

Everybody knows a fighters record gets a boost when their victims go on to get good wins.
Don't rewrite the game just cos you didn't like being corrected.

 

And neither does losing to the one and only opponent you've ever fought :good

 

You know John that's what I'm thinking. He does get a little better with every fight. A little more polishing and we very well could be looking at a 5 year title run. He actually reminds me a little bit of early Lennox Lewis when he was with Davenport.

I wonder if Povetkin being out of the other sweepstakes if he'd sign to fight Joshua. I think so. No other options. He isn't getting any younger and I don't think Heymon signs another Povetkin contract ever for his guy. That's an interesting fight for both guys.

 

That opponent being Phil Jackson who woulda beat Leo and all 8 of his conquests in one week.

 

they were both zero risk debuts, as you would expect for decent prospects.

you guys are arguing about whether zero is more or less than zero.

 

They were both abysmal opponents. Agreed.. But if I had to draw straws on which was the more meaningful debut, I'll take a win over an 8-0 prospect over an 0-1 nobody any day, regardless of how their careers unfolded later on in hindsight. It might have been different if Butler at least had an amateur career to speak of, or a trainer in his corner with recognition, or maybe if his debut loss consisted of flooring the champ as Pete Rademacher did.... But none of the above was the case.. While Emanuele Leo was a mediocrity he at least had SOME boxing exposure with those 8 wins over tomato cans... Butler had nothing... Zip....

 

Two problems with that statement:

1. There's no way to prove it

2. Its irrelevant given that Butler lost to him anyway.

 

Butler got more out of facing Jackson than Leo did those 8 guys outa boxercise.

Spin it how you want , but Butler was the better win.

 

My eyes tell me that 0-1 Butler was more of a threat than 8-0 Leo.

 

Give me a break... Phil Jackson was labled as mediocre even when he fought Ruddock in 1992 and that was when Phil had accumulated a 24-0 record.. So what did that make him when he only had TWO pro bouts? Ans whatever benefit Butler got out of fighting Phil, it wouldn't show until years later and after he had compiled a record of about 6-10. He was regularly being chosen as a soft touch for debuting or materializing prospects. I'll also ad that Joshua was 6'6", 230 lbs when he took on Leo who was 6'3", 230 lbs, so at least he was fighting a man of comparable size.. Bowe was 6'5", 226 taking on Butler who stood 5'11", and weighed 202.. all this on top of facing a man who 0-1..

 

Yes I'm sure that's exactly what Bowe's management saw when selecting him, along with the other 15 or 16 obscurities he fought early on. Say what you want about Dominic Brazeale, Charles Martin and Dillian white.. They were better than anything Bowe beat in his first 17 fights and Joshua looked better in beating them as well.