1951 Archie Moore vs 1987 Evander Holyfield

Ooh that is an awesomely intriguing one. I gotta think about it a little.

 

Moore is one of the greatest fighters to ever lace then up. But, I think I have to give a slight edge to Holyfield here. Both are immensely skilled, but, Holyfield has some significant advantages in height and reach. And, Holy has quick, educated footwork. It would be an amazing fight.

 

Gooood one.
I'll chew on this one.

 

I have to ponder on this one too,Fergy. Would be a hell of a fight.

 

It's a good un, mate.

 

If Qawi could give him that amount of trouble, i definatelly favor Archie over '86 Holyfield. Archie will avoid much more punchels, land much more, change angies, counter Holyfield and set up some mean traps for him. But after that Holyfield's development improved a lot. So for '87 i say 50/50.

 

Going with the Mongoose but wouldn't bet one dime on this fight.

 

I'd say the key to this fight is, Can Archie hurt Evander in an exchange. I'd say yes and he'd have to, to get the win.

 

The younger (and smaller) Holyfield was, the smarter he was. He would also find the "key" to Arcie Moore.

 

I would favour Archie moore spec if holyfield is without steroids in his system

 

why not just have Moore fight his equals either side of his Natural Stature Size - 5'10/11 and in & around 180 - 190lbs.

SMALLER Fighters near always lose to Bigger Fighters, a division or two up.

Holy beats him, but MOST L-HWs in history wouldn't too often - he'd still and always would have that little bit 'Moore'.

 

NOTHING to do with Weight - STATURE = HEIGHT & Weight...

the L-HW of the past (Moore) = the Middleweight / S-MW of today, the CW's & HW's today STATURE Wise ARE Bigger (Tall), animals than the past fighters.

Completely Separate Divisions - a Step too Far... as I said at the beginning, the Little Man 'USUALLY' loses to the BIGGER Man.

 

Moores too clever, Evander would be lost in a labyrinth of fists.