How good was Riddick bowe really?

No, I know more boxing than you. Like 99 percent of the people on this forum, you've never put a pair of boxing gloves on, so your opinion is based just on hearsay and what some old fart wrote in a book that you wrote.
Bowe beats anyone pre 1950, and with ease I might add.
Sure, there are some that stand a punchers chance, but that's about it.

 

You believe that you hit harder than Shavers and you are almost as fast as Ali. If you really train boxing, then you are just dumb to believe in that.

 

Aaaaaaaaaand we're done here.

 

I'm not praising Bowe for beating them,that was never the issue ,which was did he face punchers?
He did face , Hyde,Cooper,Gonzalez,Butler.
You come from punchers to top tier punchers I suppose if I was sufficiently engaged I could get you to qualify your remarks more ,but I'm not.
Suffice to say he faced some punchers, and no amount of extrapolation or equivocation is going to change that.

 

I'm not praising Bowe for beating them,that was never the issue ,which was, did he face punchers?
He did Hyde,Cooper,Gonzalez,Butler. You came from punchers to top tier punchers, I suppose if I was sufficiently engaged I could get you to qualify your remarks more but I'm not.
Suffice to say he faced some punchers, and no amount of extrapolation or equivocation is going to change that.

 

Well, no HW finished his career without facing some punchers. It doesn't mean much though, when these punchers were so mediocre.

 

Why ?! Cause someone in a book wrote that they are untouchable ?!
As I've already mentioned several times, Shavers's KO percentage against HWs that weigh 215 or more is very poor: 11 KOs in 23 fights.
I've seen plenty of boxers that can hit a truck, nowadays athletes are simply better from a physical stand point.
As great as guys like Jesse Owens and Carl Lewis were, they don't match up to Usain Bolt.

 

Things I don't see mentioned very often about Riddick Bowe:

1) He was back in the ring defending his title less than three months after beating Holyfield in a hard, taxing fight. Who does that? Sure Michael Dokes was a gimme defense, but he was 21-2 (losing only to Holyfield and Ruddock) since coming back after his layoff and had won nine straight since being starched by Ruddock. That includes a pretty wide win over Jesse Ferguson six months before Dokes' shot against Bowe. And nobody had ever blown through Michael Dokes that quickly and easily.

2) After losing to Holyfield, Bowe fought four undefeated prospects in a row. Then Bowe won the rubber match against Holyfield and was one of only two guys to stop Holyfield in his whole career. Bowe then fought another undefeated prospect. Three of those five prospects - Donald, Hide, and Golota - went on to have fairly decent careers. Not ATG careers, but they didn't wash out like some guys do after their first loss. So, yeah, fairly decent careers. I think that's a credit to Bowe.

After Mercer blew his shot by losing to Ferguson, the Bowe camp should not have taken on Ferguson for defense #2. Ferguson, in going 3-4 since 1990, really didn't do anything to earn his shot, save for beating an under prepared Mercer. Bowe should have fought someone else. Ideally Lennox Lewis. Or Holyfield again before Bowe was allowed to stagnate over the summer and autumn. Or Michael Moorer. Or Tommy Morrison. Or give Tony Tubbs a rematch. Tubbs was on a three-fight winning streak, beating Bruce Seldon, Jesse Ferguson (yep), and undefeated Alex Zolkin. Anybody top-15 but Ferguson.

I don't think Riddick Bowe is an all time great. He just didn't accomplish enough. But for a short time he was in the running.

 

Mark youve outdone yourself.

Bowe was very good albeit for a relatively short period of time.

 

I don't buy the mantra at all. Check out Holy's wins...even before winning the title he was at times sensational against "real" heavyweights. Imo he would have stomped 1990 Mike everywhere, significantly worse than Douglas (prime 80s Mike would of course have been more interesting, and I'm certain you're more than knowledgeable enough to recognize the distinction).