It's 1994 and moorer decides to fight Holmes instead of foreman

[MagnaNasakki]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

Dropped big daddy

Evander had underrated power. For a guy who isn't given credit as having more than an average heavyweight dig, he stopped damn near everybody beneath his level, rocked Bowe regularly(As bad as Golota did), destroyed Tyson, had the iron chinned Foreman reeling all over the place several times...

Holyfield wasn't a dangerous one punch threat, but if the second and third hit you, you were in trouble.

[Bill1234]

Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki

Foreman didn't throw a single right hand with power till the 7th. Moorer took away that great left jab and seemed in no danger.

Circling away from the power hand is a guideline for rookies. It's not, de facto, the right decision. The fight was absolutely unfolding in Moorer's favor in every aspect. He had a couple shaky moments in the 7th that should have altered his tactics. They didn't, and he got OPed.

Larry Holmes isn't OPing anybody in the 90's. The speed to do what he did to Frazier and Weaver was gone.

Holmes had multiple 1 punch KOs in the 90s. He once again took Weaver out with 1 right hand when Holmes was 51, he devastated Curtis Sheppard with a sharp right cross, took out Anthony Willis with a right to the temple when Holmes was stepping back, and he knocked Michael Greer unconcious with a right hook.

His 3 biggest fights of the 90s were against guys with absolute granite chins and not dropping or hurting them should not be a knock against Holmes's power.

In my opinion Holmes in the 90s up until about 1996, when he was focussed, would have given anyone in the decade trouble. The most focussed I saw Holmes in the 90s was against Mercer, Holyfield (Holmes was not even 100% in his comeback form for that), McCall, and Ribalta. He looked good against McCall until his stamina let him down and McCall's constant pressure enabled McCall to finish 1 point ahead.

I'm not sure why he was so motivated against Ribalta but he absolutely whooped him in every possible way and all but stopped him.

I think Holmes could've given Moorer a run for his money with his jab at that point. Holmes's jab still had a lot of pop to it, which Holyfield even admitted. Moorer at that point may have been quicker and had better movement, but Holmes would've still been stronger and still was able to guide people into hard right hands.

I maintain my thought that it'd be a 50/50 fight.

[MagnaNasakki]

Originally Posted by Bill1234

Holmes had multiple 1 punch KOs in the 90s. He once again took Weaver out with 1 right hand when Holmes was 51, he devastated Curtis Sheppard with a sharp right cross, took out Anthony Willis with a right to the temple when Holmes was stepping back, and he knocked Michael Greer unconcious with a right hook.

His 3 biggest fights of the 90s were against guys with absolute granite chins and not dropping or hurting them should not be a knock against Holmes's power.

In my opinion Holmes in the 90s up until about 1996, when he was focussed, would have given anyone in the decade trouble. The most focussed I saw Holmes in the 90s was against Mercer, Holyfield (Holmes was not even 100% in his comeback form for that), McCall, and Ribalta. He looked good against McCall until his stamina let him down and McCall's constant pressure enabled McCall to finish 1 point ahead.

I'm not sure why he was so motivated against Ribalta but he absolutely whooped him in every possible way and all but stopped him.

I think Holmes could've given Moorer a run for his money with his jab at that point. Holmes's jab still had a lot of pop to it, which Holyfield even admitted. Moorer at that point may have been quicker and had better movement, but Holmes would've still been stronger and still was able to guide people into hard right hands.

I maintain my thought that it'd be a 50/50 fight.

You make a good argument. I just can't see it. It's the movement.

[Bill1234]

Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki

You make a good argument. I just can't see it. It's the movement.

I agree that Moorer's movement would be the main thing troubling Holmes and possibly being the reason Moorer would've been able to win.

[AnthonyJ74]

Originally Posted by Bill1234

Holmes had multiple 1 punch KOs in the 90s. He once again took Weaver out with 1 right hand when Holmes was 51, he devastated Curtis Sheppard with a sharp right cross, took out Anthony Willis with a right to the temple when Holmes was stepping back, and he knocked Michael Greer unconcious with a right hook.

His 3 biggest fights of the 90s were against guys with absolute granite chins and not dropping or hurting them should not be a knock against Holmes's power.

In my opinion Holmes in the 90s up until about 1996, when he was focussed, would have given anyone in the decade trouble. The most focussed I saw Holmes in the 90s was against Mercer, Holyfield (Holmes was not even 100% in his comeback form for that), McCall, and Ribalta. He looked good against McCall until his stamina let him down and McCall's constant pressure enabled McCall to finish 1 point ahead.

I'm not sure why he was so motivated against Ribalta but he absolutely whooped him in every possible way and all but stopped him.

I think Holmes could've given Moorer a run for his money with his jab at that point. Holmes's jab still had a lot of pop to it, which Holyfield even admitted. Moorer at that point may have been quicker and had better movement, but Holmes would've still been stronger and still was able to guide people into hard right hands.

I maintain my thought that it'd be a 50/50 fight.

Holmes was never a big puncher, and the guys he KO'd in the 90s were all trialhorses and has-beens/never-were's. And Holmes' lack of stamina and his reduced speed would allow Moorer to have his way. Although Holmes could fight effectively in spurts, he often times fought lazily and tried to use his rope-a-dope stuff to rest or to avoid having to go chase his opponent.
I think Moorer would have the power to make Holmes pay for laying against the ropes, and he'd definitely have the speed and quickness to score on Holmes.
Holmes would probably try his best to make the fight a non-fight; he'd lay on the ropes, smother, and wrestle in an attempt to shut Moorer's offense down.
Holmes could look good against plodding, slow guys who didn't press him all that hard, but against faster, more mobile fighters, he definitely looked his age.

[Bill1234]

Originally Posted by AnthonyJ74

Holmes was never a big puncher, and the guys he KO'd in the 90s were all trialhorses and has-beens/never-were's. And Holmes' lack of stamina and his reduced speed would allow Moorer to have his way. Although Holmes could fight effectively in spurts, he often times fought lazily and tried to use his rope-a-dope stuff to rest or to avoid having to go chase his opponent.
I think Moorer would have the power to make Holmes pay for laying against the ropes, and he'd definitely have the speed and quickness to score on Holmes.
Holmes would probably try his best to make the fight a non-fight; he'd lay on the ropes, smother, and wrestle in an attempt to shut Moorer's offense down.
Holmes could look good against plodding, slow guys who didn't press him all that hard, but against faster, more mobile fighters, he definitely looked his age.

Holmes's power was about on par with Holyfield. Not a 1 punch knockout guy, but could still whack and it wasn't good if he landed 2-3 solid punches in a row.

He really didn't fight lazy until the 8th or 9th but then he would come on stronger in the 11th and 12th, so really he was more conserving energy at selected rounds. He fought at a good pace most of the time, certainly no less of a pace than many of the younger guys.

Holmes would be looking to establish his jab against Moorer and would try to steer Moorer into his straight right. I wouldn't see much wrestling aside from walking Moorer backwards or spinning him into the ropes or a corner. I agree that he looked worse against quick guys like Holyfield, but he was still getting good shots in and was definitely not being beaten up or overwhelmed.

Holmes didn't have the power to hurt Mercer, Holyfield, or McCall (very few did) but he did have the power to hurt Moorer, which could make things interesting.

[AnthonyJ74]

Originally Posted by Bill1234

Holmes's power was about on par with Holyfield. Not a 1 punch knockout guy, but could still whack and it wasn't good if he landed 2-3 solid punches in a row.

He really didn't fight lazy until the 8th or 9th but then he would come on stronger in the 11th and 12th, so really he was more conserving energy at selected rounds. He fought at a good pace most of the time, certainly no less of a pace than many of the younger guys.

Holmes would be looking to establish his jab against Moorer and would try to steer Moorer into his straight right. I wouldn't see much wrestling aside from walking Moorer backwards or spinning him into the ropes or a corner. I agree that he looked worse against quick guys like Holyfield, but he was still getting good shots in and was definitely not being beaten up or overwhelmed.

Holmes didn't have the power to hurt Mercer, Holyfield, or McCall (very few did) but he did have the power to hurt Moorer, which could make things interesting.

Holmes was very cagey and had a good defense. I'm sure he'd make things competitive with Moorer, but I don't see him throwing enough punches or having enough stamina to win enough rounds for victory. And I'm not certain that Holmes had the power to hurt Moorer. Moorer was hurt by big punchers (Foreman, Tua, Cooper) or phenomenal combination punchers (Holyfield[who could bang a little]). Holmes wasn't a big puncher and he didn't throw rapid-fire combinations like Holyfield. Holmes still had a good right hand, but it wasn't like a Lewis or Bowe right hand.

[zadfrak]

Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki

MM is underrated. Fantastic boxer. Quick, stellar jab, southpaw, which most heavyweights were clueless dealing with.

I don't even think his chin was that awful; He was fighting bigger, heavier men than he should have. He was a lightheavyweight/cruiserweight fighting heavyweights. His attempts to gain in size backfire: He just got dense and fat.

Holmes last hurrah was Mercer. Everything after that, he looks very, very faded.

Agreed.

And in this matchup--Larry is doing something he hasn't done since his olympic trials--face a southpaw. Larry was never going to sign a contract fighting a southpaw that late in his career. Not one with the accuracy of a guy like Moorer.

In 94, MM would land about 70% against that old holmes defense. After about the 3rd round, Larry would give up on trying to box him in ring center and would back himself to the ropes--just like he did against Neilsen. Save those legs. But MM was a lot more accurate than Super Brain Neilsen. And a lot faster and didn't telegraph. But the accuracy and activity level would simply force Holmes to keep those hands way up there to parry and deflect punches. the problem is, he couldn't really punch out of that and needed those hands lower to punch. His hand placement was in 1 position like the Mercer fight even for defense and another position to punch. He got outworked by guys like Ferguson and Harris and Navarre, but they were quicker and don't telegraph intentions like a Mercer. Southpaw Moorer is about 2 grades above that and kept his own hands up high himself. He might eat a shot to the top of the head but he is definately parring a lot of old version Larry Holmes punches.

I'd like Larry's chances much much better if he was a body puncher and could use that to set traps against Moorer back then. And if Moorer was a looping type puncher. Even then, he'd get countered, but he could possibly slow down Moorer or get him to fall for feints. But that really isn't much of a chance when the other guy is landing those darts of his.