What's a more impressive victory. George Foreman beating Michael Moorer or Larry Holmes beating Ray Mercer
Holmes was more impressive overall in his victory. But the better achievement was Foreman over Moorer.
Foreman's win is more impressive IMO. Compare the "second career" (best win in "second career") of Foreman, and Holmes, but there are some other similarities. Both losers, Moorer and Mercer were undefeated until then. However, Foreman's fight was for the title, it ended in a knockout, and at the time of the fight Foreman was 2-3 years older than Holmes.
Interesting talking point; I did a thread on this recently, but Mercer was WBO champion and gave up his belt to fight Holmes (for more money) rather than Moorer. (Keep in mind the WBO wasn’t as established yet.) Had he been defending that belt, Holmes would have become WBO champion.
Yes, I get it. The point is that the WBO is still not (as it is today) recognized for a major world title. If Foreman, instead of Moorer, beat Morrison and won the WBO title, and then his career continued the same (without the fight with Moorer), it would have an impact on the HW ATG list as well. P.S. I accepted that the moment the WBO becomes a major world title is the fight for the undisputed world champion between Bernard Hopkins (IBF, WBA and WBC champion) and Oscar De La Hoya (WBO champion); 2004 year.
