I am back to add my two cents. First thing, I would consider myself very knowledgable about Boxing, I cover it for many websites have gone back and forth with Jim Lampley,Larry Merchant,Max Kellerman etc. That doesnt make me the know all of Boxing, but I do know a helluva a lot. And I can go to any Boxing fight in the country and get a free seat. As for the Holyfield/Bowe debate, I agree with both sides. I would easily say that Holyfield will go down in History as a much better Heavyweight than Big Daddy. That being said, They did fight 3 times and had 3 wars. You could say that Riddick had his number. I would say that Bowe would win at least 65% of the time if they fought, so yes that might make him better than Holyfield one on one, but put their careers side to side and Holyfield's dwarfs Bowes. Sometimes a fighter just has another guys #, look at Mosley/Forrest. Thats not to say that Mosley might not comeback and have a better career though. You cant judge everything on 1 series of fights, but also if a guy beats another 2 outta 3 times chances are he is better than him.
To add even more to back up my point, look at Andrew Golota. Take away the low blows and he was destroying Bowe in the first fight, and winning the second also. So I would say that he was a better fighter than Bowe against each other, but as a career goes Bowes was much better and he will always go down in history as being a higher regarded fighter.