Who ranks ahead of Riddick Bowe respective two/three wins over Evander Holyfield?

No. Evander was 30 yrs old, been too much smashed on already. Holyfield that beat Foreman KO's Bowe.

 

Under that interpretation, even the first Holyfield fight wouldn't be as impressive as what Schmeling or Frazier pulled off. So I think my broader point about the relative value of wins would remain the same.

 

I don't. Holy fought the wrong fight in #1. I think their 2nd fight was a more accurate representation of what happens when both are at their peak.

 

If anything, that would make Bowe's first victory even less impressive, yes? That he beat a past-prime Holyfield who was also fighting the wrong fight?

 

Not sure I'd call Holy past prime.

 

Let me back up, since my original response was to a different poster.

My original point was that beating Holyfield in the first and third fights is an inferior feat to beating Joe Louis once or Muhammad Ali once. I find matches close to fighters' primes most persuasive. Rematches where aging fighters beat on each other doesn't really improve the picture much.

The first poster said that Holyfield was past prime even in fight #1. My response was essentially, "OK, in that case, there would be an even greater distance between the value of Bowe's wins compared to Schmeling's or Frazier's." (Since beating aging/worn out Holy is inferior to near prime Louis or Ali.)

Your post came next. You pointed out that Holyfield lost even the first fight (where I think you and the other poster both agree he was closer to his prime than the other two) because of poor strategy. Here again, I'm saying that your observation strengthens my original point about the inferiority of Bowe's wins to Schmeling's and Louis's (albeit from a different direction).

If Holyfield was in prime and fought the first fight perfectly, Bowe's victory still wouldn't measure up. And beating up older Holyfield later on doesn't improve the original win much. Once you start adding other considerations -- wrong fight strategy, past prime Holyfield, or whatever -- it only gets worse.

 

Well said my friend. I agree whole-heartedly.

But my comment was in response to this one made by you "I think the first Holyfield fight proved sufficiently that Bowe had Holyfield's number prime for prime."

 

Holyfield had an off night, at 30 yrs old, in the first Bowe fight. If he was anything less than great, he would/should have been stopped. see: the weight difference at least. Holyfield that beat Alex Stewart, that some people criticize Holyfield, would have KOed Bowe.

I don't know what Frazier did when he was a 30 yr old heavyweight. Is that when he fought Foreman first time?

 

And Holyfield was about to KO Bowe before fan man. Looking at about an 8th/9th round KO.

 

Look at 7:50 of that video. Holyfield was on his way to a KO win.

 

Yes. That was my error. I should have said something more like, "AT BEST, the first Holyfield fight proved sufficiently that Bowe had Holyfield's number prime for prime."

Beating late period Holyfield while eroded yourself adds little to the first victory, IMO.

 

I have Bowe ahead of all those guys.

 

Good breakdown. I agree that Schmeling and Frazier's wins top Bowe's. I also don't believe Holyfield ever beat Bowe.

In my opinion, Louis was in his prime when he lost to Schmeling. I think distractions outside of the ring simply didn't allow him to perform at his best. Holyfield, at 30, wasn't in his, having already amassed an all-time great record at cruiserweight before stepping up to heavyweight. However, the fact that he minded his own health preserved him somewhat, unlike Ali, who let himself go in exile.

 

Holyfield is amazing!

Why?

He beat Bowe!

So why is Bowe such a big name?

He beat Holyfield!