Better Victory: Marciano over Moore or Tyson over Holmes?

marciano's win over the 38 yr old moore for me is the more impressive as has been said moore was active and top contender, holmes was coming straight into the tyson fight after nearly two years out .if holmes had a couple of warm up fights before the tyson fight i think my choice would probably of been different given holmes standing as an ATG

 

Moore and its not even close. Archie was probably at the peak of his abilities, impressively cleaning out the HW top 10 while actively defending the Light Heavyweight title. There was a great deal of speculation that Marciano was actually ducking the deserving Moore before the fight was made.

Holmes was coming off two upset loses to Spinks, close fights or not, and 2 years of inactivity. Nobody gave Larry a realistic chance, and schooling the green streaky Mercer years later and giving Evander "I always fight down to my competition" Holyfield a decent go doesn't change that.

Maybe Ezzard Charles beating Louis is a better win than Marciano/Moore? I guess a case of bias ruling out common sense.

 

With Tyson, it's not just the names of his victims but the way he dominated them.

Perhaps Moore's successful activity and overall quality evens up with a Holmes who, although leagues better at his best than the much smaller Moore at heavyweight, had deteriorated profoundly and been inactive for a couple of years. But Tyson tore through Holmes in a way Joe Frazier, Sonny Liston, or even George Foreman, or Rocky Marciano himself, never could.

On the other hand, it is pretty unrealistic to believe Moore enters Round 9 against rampaging Tyson. Or that Moore floors an advancing Mike with one right.

 

Good point, Marciano was down against the light hitting Moore, Tyson crushed Holmes.

 

I think both were good wins but while Holmes was not prime it was a dominant performance by Mike and a devastating KO over Holmes. If I have to pick I would have to say Moore he had only lost 1 disputed decision (which he avenged 3 times) over ATG and 1 DQ in over 50 fights and was on his best win streak ever and on top of that beat #1 Heavyweight contenders Bob Baker and Nino Valdez 2 times also 32-3-1 HVWT Clarence Henry, KO'd Burt Whitehurt(who went the distance with Liston 2 times) beat Harold Johnson 3 times, Joey Maxim, Jimmy Slade, also KO'd Hvwt Embrell Davidson, Hvwts Karel Sys, Abel Cestac,Bob Satterfeild KO 3, 76-7 Alberto Lovell, Ko'd Jimmy Bivens 2 times and also beat Oakland Billy Smith and Phil Muscato by Ko

I know people do not like to say Moore was prime here but I say this was the best win streak of his career and a time when he put it all together. This was the best Archie Moore and the most capable to fight Marciano

Both were good wins...Marciano vs Moore the better

 

Those were pretty much my thoughts, Archie was on the best patch of his career whereas Holmes was going through the worst period of his career.

 

atsch

The words light hitting and Archire Moore should never ever be used together. Only the most KOs in history and against strong competition his entire career. He was a killer against similar sized fighters and he also stopped his fair share of big sturdy heavies, overcoming 20 lb weight differences and several inches in height against Bob Baker and JJ Parker.

This content is protected

From this site:

.....the Old Mongoose as Archie was called scored more KOs than any other fighter in the history of the sport.For the sake of argument let us use the Fight Fax numbers, 194 wins, 23 losses, 11 draws and 141 KOs. Nobody can prove otherwise one way or the other..

It should be understood from the beginning that Archie did not achieve this record by knocking over a bunch of stiffs. After turning pro in September 1935 he climbed into The Ring's annual top 10 ratings by 1943 and remained there in one division or another until 1962 when he was still #9 at heavyweight. During this time he fought an unbelievable number of top ten fighters including at quick count a total of 11 future [url]Boxing Hall of Fame

This content is protected

[/url] members over a total of 22 fights.I might have missed one or two. He scored 5 KO's over these fighters and many more over top ten ranked men. Oddly enough he was not known as a slugger but was more of a boxer puncher. He would outpoint his foes until he saw the chance to lower the boom. He did certainly have plenty of punching power.

....

During his days as a heavyweight Archie defeated many top heavyweights including #1 ranked Nino Valdes twice, Bob Baker, and Alajandro Lavorante plus a draw with Willie Pastrano who went on to drop back to 175 and become a belt holder there. Earlier he had met such greats as Jimmy Bivins 5 times, Bob Satterfield, and Ezzard Charles 3 times, all fighters who fought at both 175 and heavyweight. Against Bivins he was stopped the first time but won the last 4, 3 of them by KO. Between 1958 and 1962 Ring Magazine broke with their usual policy and rated Moore in the top 10 at heavyweights and also recognized him as the 175 pound champion at the same time.

 

Exactly, its difficult to think of fighters riding a greater hot streak than Moore was going into the Marciano fight.

Charles win over Louis might even be better than Tyson/Holmes. Louis retired a winner against a top heavyweight in Walcott, came back in roughly the same amount of time, and continued to beat top 10 fighters and names until he ran into Marciano. The fact that Tyson knocked out Holmes in highlight fashion is the only arguing point and that is pretty shallow.

 

Is that supposed to be sarcastic?

 

This. :deal

Moore beat a string of HW contenders to earn his shot, including the #1 rated Nino Valdes; and he would remain the consensus top contender for a year or so afterward, until his loss to Patterson.

 

First hagler now Holmes. I agree with Merchant's comments Homes being ready for the wrecking ball. Ever since his first bout in 83 Holmes has been nothing but a sluggish heavyweight with dull reflexes. You might as well be a punching bag

I was more impressed with the win over Moore. Much more of a struggle

 

Thats the fundamental problem that I have when people overrate wins because of a struggle. Just because you eeked out a win against a very good fighter it doesn't make the win any better than if you were to blow them out in 1 round. Boxing is a sport not every win has to be a "Rocky-type life and death struggle" to be credible. Winning with a buzzer beater shot isn't any better than winning by a considerable margin.

Thomas Hearns beat a very good version of Pipino Cuevas. The fact that Cuevas was unable to penetrate Hearns jab and get off his punches shouldnt take away from that fight.

A reporter once asked Mike Tyson in the post fight press conference after he beat Michael Spinks if it was easy.

He replied "...they're never easy, I put 8 hard weeks in training to make it easy..."

And he was right.....In my book the dominant win is always better if all else is equal.

 

Holmes was washed-up, rusty, old. The fight was a mismatch going in, and proved to be.

It's to Holyfield's discredit that he let an older Holmes go the disatnce. Did Holmes benefit from being active going in to that fight ? Yeah, I think so, but he was flabby and 42 by then, so that off sets any disadvanatge in activity he had against Tyson. I mean, i wouldn't argue that he was better for Holyfield. Still, he would have been better against Tyson had he fought a tune-up against someone of Mercer's caliber. Or at least he could have argued that he earned his shot.

Holmes looked awful against Tyson. And simply because Holyfield and Mercer had shitty fights against Holmes 4 years later doesn't exonerate him.
I give Tyson full credit for the manner in which he took that old has-been apart, but it's not one of Tyson's most meaningful wins.

Going in to the Tyson-Holmes fight, many people voiced their disapproval and said the fight shouldn't be sanctioned, and nothing Holmes did in those 4 rounds made them revise that stance. I think they had a pretty good point, and I wont buy into the revisionism. Holmes was done.

 

An interesting question. Both Holmes and Moore were top older fighters, however after Marciano defeated Moore, Patterson destroyed him, and Moore was up and down like a yo-yo vs Durelle. Moore's best win at heavy post Marciano was likely vs Parker.

By contrast, after Tyson, no one destroyed Holmes. He was competitive vs a prime Holyfield ( Who better than Patterson ), and almost beat Oliver McCall. Holmes upset a prime Ray Mercer, who was better than Parker by a good margin.

I would say Tyson's win is a more impressive, and his performance was far more impressive.

 

....I...think it's sarcasm...