Underrated reason why Holmes was the best of his era

The sky’s the limit. Beating Mercer for nothing is now better than beating Moorer for everything.

 

Who has argued against it ? I've already stated Norton wasn't at his peak vs Holmes ? My argument is Norton was still in very good form vs Holmes as evident by his prior performances and his actual performance vs Holmes.

You're saying Norton was "shopworn" but shopworn fighters don't beat a prime Jimmy Young, KO undefeated Duane Bobick in 1 round, have a very strong argument to beating Muhammad Ali in their 3rd fight that the majority felt he won, not to mention having a 15 round war vs Holmes.

Norton's form between 76-78 was high quality after the Holmes fight he started a steady decline starting with getting sparked out by Shavers early who as I said is a bad style match up for him anyway at any point his career.

 

I like Moorer but it has to be said he was very fortunate to fight by far the worst version of Holyfield in the 90s who was probably at about 30 percent and even then Moorer only just about scrapped through.

We see what happened in the rematch against a healthy Holyfield who pummeled Moorer dropping him about half a dozen times.

 

Mike Weaver was also disciplined but he was pretty inconsistent.

 

Then my point shines even more brightly than when I made it: Foreman's two best wins are better than anything on Holmes' resume. The mountains he climbed were higher.

 

Hey man, agree to disagree. For me, Moorer was a weak heavyweight. He possessed huge power, that's a gimme, but was very beatable, particularly by a bear with a breeze block chin like Big George. It's only an opinion, and as I said in my post, George beating Moorer at the time he did and in the manner he did is one of THE sporting fairytales but from a boxing perspective, a skill perspective, Holmes beating Mercer was more impressive...for me. You disagree and that's cool, I ain't claiming I'm right, and your wrong, how can I, its only an opinion, I'm just saying what I think and giving the reasons why. If it had been Mercer holding the title I don't think George would have beaten him at that point, that's another way to look at it....

 

Not calling Moorer great mind, but his competition here is Mercer - hardly a guy who set the world alight.

Moorer in his prime would beat a 45-year-old Holmes. He couldn’t even beat Spinks at 35.

 

I agree Mercer 'didn't set the world alight' and I'm not calling him a great but title aside I think he was a much better fighter than Moorer, who he'd have knocked out and quicker than George did for me. I'm sure this has been debated on here several times in the past, but I think from memory the consensus opinion was that prime Mercer is all shades of wrong for prime Moorer.

With regards your last point, I think Holmes would likely have beaten the younger Moorer as well. Even in his 40s, his attributes cancel out Moorer's and he'd work his way to a clear victory or late knock out in a rather boring fight. Mike Moorer is, in my opinion, a great light heavyweight but is one lf our worst heavyweight champions, and rather fortuitously for George, was made for him. Go look at his record at heavyweight and tell me I'm wrong?

Hey, have a wonderful day brother man, always a pleasure.

 

A naturally bigger and stronger man, a harder two handed puncher at heavyweight, a much tougher guy with an insane chin. An olympic gold medal winner. Both were head cases and inconsistent. I feel best for best Mercer was far more dangerous.

Wouldn't you call it an alphabet salad down ?

 

Agreed Mercer was inconsistent but if he's in form I think he's a more dangerous opponent than Moorer based on his excellent chin, power, physical presence, underrated jab.

Put it this way could Moorer go toe to toe with Lewis and take his best shots whilst out jabbing him in a fight that some felt Mercer won ? I don't think so.

This maybe an unpopular opinion but I feel if Holmes would've got a shot at Moorer he could've beaten him despite the age difference. Holmes came within 1 point of dethroning McCall it's just he had an iron chin so could eat up Holmes's right hands early.

 

So now this has evolved into-

35 not being a death sentence, unless it's the current WBC heavyweight champion in 78, who wasn't quite 35.

Form after losing a fight is far more important than form going into a fight.

Ron Lyle being an amazing win. The man who spent the previous 3 fights being stopped by Ali, outclassed by Jimmy Young and having life & death with Shavers.

 

But no one has denied that but Holmes does trump Foreman but quite a significant margin in world title wins and wins over ranked opposition.

You think those 2 wins give Foreman the edge and that's your opinion which you're entitled but i personally don't think so. Foreman only had a 1 year period where he climbed a higher mountain as you put it. Is that enough to trump Holmes's 7 years of world championship consistency ? Not in my view.

I think in this case consistency for Holmes is the winner for me.

 

I must've missed Mercer being the lineal champion when Holmes beat him.

 

Yeah but Swag the context of Moorer's win over Holyfield is well documented it was the worst version of Holyfield in the 90s at probably 30 percent of his actual ability he was having health problems and well under par.

Yeah technically Moorer was Lineal Champion but it also has to be said he was very fortunate to fight a well under par opponent. And as I said above look what happened in the rematch against a healthy Holyfield he got pummeled from pillar to post.

 

Moorer was lineal champ to be fair...but as He Grant states, a case of "an alphabet salad down", as he's not getting a shot ahead of Lewis in any one-champ era (unless Prime Cus is Evander's manager).