1985-86 Larry Holmes vs 1952 Archie Moore

I don’t mind that argument as the term ATG is broad and extremely opinionated. But he was a top tier contender as judged by his accomplishments. I don’t look at him not as an ATG hw champ (he wasnt) but as an ATG contender for the belt. I can only think of 1-3 people I’d put up there w him that never won it. Wills, Bivins, Povetkin and maybe one or two more r comparable. But just as far as strength of resume goes there r few that compare

 

Holmes beat out 14-0 David Bey who was just off of a UD win over Greg Page, before taking a decision against 16-0 Carl Williams who had just beaten out James Tillis. After these fights, he dropped a loss against Michael Spinks, before coming back and arguably winning against him in their next match.
Yes, Moore beat more men in 1952 than Holmes beat in 85-86, but if you go back and watch the footage, you can tell that Holmes would easily win this fight. I'd bet Williams on beating Moore, too.

 

not the best version of larry but i think he has a style/size advantage.

would like to see it.

 

I don’t think Williams beats Moore. They even have common opponents who Moore beat out (I know that’s not a determining factor but it says a small something).
I have no problem w picking Larry here. I have a problem w some ******s who find it laughable that he would have a chance, those people don’t know much about the sport. I don’t think this version of Holmes was good enough to win as I think that version of Moore was better than any version of Norton and Spinks.

edit thought u meant Cleveland Williams. Carl Williams isn’t on the level. Good fighter not on the level though

 

I think we are overlooking the fact that Holmes was kind of robbed in the Spinks rematch and most of the observers felt like he deserved the victory.

 

A good big man will almost always beat a great smaller man, think Foster-Tiger.

 

This just simply isn’t true. Styles r more important along w ability. We’ve seen countless posts on this that shows weight meant nothing in determining a fight. Holmes for example was beaten by all men smaller than him. Usyk just ran the gauntlet against men much bigger. Mike Tyson, Holyfield Marciano Frazier were all smaller than their opponents. I think if u have a big man who’s style is built for little men they can have great success like Wlad and Lewis and Foreman were built to beat on smaller men.

Archie would be the most skilled man Holmes had ever faced. And at that stage of his career I don’t think he over comes it. Norton’s cross guard is amateurish in comparison and Moore was better in every way except height and reach.

 

This content is protected

52 Moore

This content is protected

56 Holmes.

If u can watch these two fights and still pick Holmes…God bless u. I just don’t c it. Holmes looks awful. Slow. Can’t keep his hands up. Out of breath. I’ll keep it at that.

 

I'm not talking simply about height, Williams would have a nine inch reach advantage in this situation along with multiple tens of pounds over Moore, and it's not like he was a slouch when it came to boxing either, he's no Carnera.
These differences when it comes to modern heavyweights and their opposition is not what I'm referencing, but rather the difference from old legendary heavyweights and light heavyweights that would qualify as cruisers today, and large heavyweights with skill.
The Holmes of the Spinks fights was ready to retire, and a much worse example, but he still edged out Spinks in their second match. If you want to see Holmes in peak shape in 85, just go back and watch any bits of Holmes Vs Williams- He competed well in a jabfest with the younger man and snuck that right hand in more times than you can count.

This content is protected

 

Lmao well Archie for sure wins that but some here may still pick against him.

 

You wanted the horns.

If you want to claim lies about me per Marciano then put up or shut up. You stated "It’s just that u hate Marciano and ur rather obsessed w him."

The vast majority of posters on the forum know this is a lie. I barely ever post about him. I'm more than happy to put my money where my mouth is. How about a thread on whether i "hate and am rather obsessed with Marciano"? If the majority is no you get banned for 6 months, if it is a yes i get banned for 6 months.

Put ur money where ur mouth is. Back up ur slanderous lies.

There was also a question in that post you quoted, conveniently ignored. You claimed "I’ve predicted almost every fight I’ve watched the last ten years w the exception of AJ Ruiz 1.

I asked where can i find your picks before every one of these fights? No self respecting poster would make such a monumental claim without a reasonable amount of proof.

 

We are talking heavyweight bonzo. You know this but can't stay on the rails. There's a reason for this. Lack of intelligence?

So disingenuous. You build these guys up way beyond what most of them are AT HEAVYWEIGHT and continue clinging to LHW. Men under 200 pounds ruled because the big guys of the time were lacking talent. They simply weren't good enough to put the smaller far more skilled fighters in their place. A guy like Holmes would run RAMPANT in that era.

Weight matters in many but not all instances. I've said for years that functional weight advantage diminishes as the weight rises. There's a huge difference between 180 pounds and 200+ and over pounds in similarly talented fighters. The gap between 220 odd and 260 is far less tho it may tighten in the future and may have quite a bit in recent years. But it's still lesser than 180-190 vs top fighters over 200 pounds.

Hopefully in future you can spell the names properly of all these fantastic heavyweights Archie beat, many of whom much of the forum haven't heard of. Jesus, you thought Carl Williams was Cleveland Williams just before and you are harping on about people not knowing the era LOL

I've saved your 10 wins for the separate post it deserves.

 

At long last we've got 10 concrete goddamn names. Even my dog jumped up in astonishment when i scrolled to that point of your post. Co-incidence? I'm not sure.

Jimmy Bivins - These are goods wins but we have to keep them in context. The year after Bivins KO'd Moore he lost three on the trot vs Walcott, Murray then Charles. Murray wasn't all that lets be honest. He lost to Murray again the year after, the same year Moore beat him. This tells us Bivins was off the pace regarding the best in the heavyweight division. It's common sense. He lost to Morrow in 49 just after losing to Moore. Bivins was good but he's not elite at heavyweight and was beaten on a reasonably routine basis.

Nino Valdez - Agreed, he's just not that good. I'd take Tex Cobb over him.

Bob Baker - Reasonable boxer that lacked a punch. KO'd in 2 1/2 minutes by Bob Satterfield the year before he went 8 with Archie. No great shakes.

Clarence Henry - Cruiser that wouldn't remotely get near a ranking in Holmes era...at any weight i'd say.

Bob Satterfield - Glass cannon, huge puncher but too many flaws.

Harold Johnson - Neither over 180 in their series and at times both below 175. Does little for his heavyweight resume. We know he's an amazing 175.

Joey Maxim - No interest in LHW wins in a vs Holmes discussion.

Curtis Sheppard - Light Heavy/Cruiser no chance of a ranking in Holmes era of heavyweights.

Jimmy Slade - Mostly a LHW with very very little in the W column. Was ko'd 2 fights prior to the Moore fight by a no name yet went the distance with Archie.

Alejandro Lavorante - Extremely short of good wins.

I love Archie but his heavyweight resume is light on. Charles for example is miiiiiles ahead at heavyweight and some don't consider even he an ATG at heavy.

I made a mistake earlier, my 3 didn't work. McGrain rates Moore #38 at heavy. For context Norton is #22. Charles is #17. Young and Witherspoon are both ahead of him.

 

The vote is 19-1 in favor of old Holmes, very fair IMO. 9 out of 19 favor him by KO. I lean that way, i think it's a realistic result.