1985-86 Larry Holmes vs 1952 Archie Moore

Williams is a terrible matchup for Moore at heavyweight. On top of the size and dimension advantages he has a superb jab and excellent handspeed. He also had more than enough pop. Moore's only chance is to catch him and i'm not sure if he can.......Williams might not go either. Lots of advantages go William's way.

 

I don’t post my pics here dolt. I said “I” know my record. I didn’t say u would.

I didn’t start discussing Marciano u did.

 

You’re completely underrating Harold Johnson. Man is simply an ATG and a terrific HW resume. Both Nino and Baker were number 1 ranked at some point both good fighters. As was Bivins who was small but extremely talented. Clarence Henry was a good fighter and ur also underrating him.

Now give my five contenders who never won the crown with a better ten. I still don’t c it posted

 

Williams had good form. Not much pop as his KO’s against good competition is limited. His stamina sucked and chin not so great. The problem w the overtly big men. One of things that made the smaller man the dominate man pre steroids was stamina and speed. Archie would consistently beat the bigger men to the punch and he looked to me to always be busier when facing bigger men. Watch Davidson or Valdez fights. Unfortunately we don’t have more film of him fighting the big guys like Cestac or Baker or others

 

Carl Williams was 6'4 with an 85 inch reach he had a good 25 pound weight advantage over Moore a 6 inch height advantage and a staggering 9 inch reach advantage. Williams also had a very good jab a potent right he would be a very tough stylistic match up for Moore.

And whilst Moore has a respectable Heavyweight resume he was still 0-6 against fighters who held the Heavyweight title. So the fact that Moore never officially beat any Heavyweight who ever held a Heavyweight title. I think it's a bit of stretch to say he beats Holmes considering we're talking about different eras, and Moore wouldn't be classed as a Heavyweight in modern times and would have major disadvantages in height, reach, weight.

Spinks was close to 6'3 and was bigger than Moore and had a awkward tricky style where he was consistently moving.

Moore beat some decent Heavyweights like Valdes, Baker, who actually weighed over 200 pounds but even those fighters i don't think are on the same level as even a 35 year old Holmes. And Holmes at that time weighed about 220 pounds so that's a good 30+ pound weight advantage over Moore, and unlike Spinks Moore wouldn't be moving all around the ring for 15 rounds.

 

We were discussing Cleveland Williams a few posts earlier u low iq rat. The fact that ur small rat brain doesn’t even understand those same men that weighed a certain weight in one era would weigh more in the next is astounding. The fact that u put so much importance on weight tells me u never spent more than a few sessions in a boxing gym. I’ve seen first hand 185 pound men handle 240 pound men like children. Speed and strength and stamina are important. Weight doesn’t necessarily give u strength. Also studies have been done and posted on this. It was literally 50/50 on fights where one opponent outweighed another. There was no discernible advantage. Being to large is not an advantage in Boxign. Otherwise Usyk wouldn’t be champ.

anyways clown where r those five contenders w ten better wins? I’m sure ur sweating trying to find five w just as good top five wins.

 

We are not discussing prime larry here’s we are discussing the out of shape old and slow 85-86 Holmes. All the HW champs Moore lost to besides Charles was when he was over the age of 38. He never met any of them in his prime years heck the Ali fight he was collecting social security. Had he met Charles in 52 I think he finally beats him as he beat Johnson who was similar to Charles and did beat him.

 

Read my post again i said even a 35 year old Holmes is significantly better than the fighters Moore beat over 200 pounds like Baker, Valdes.

You're also forgetting Holmes in his 40s had a respectable career beating Mercer giving a prime Holyfield a competitive fight. And came within 1 point of winning on two of the judges scorecards winning Heavyweight title at age 45 against McCall who weighed 232 pounds BTW.

Moore for that time had a respectable Heavyweight record but you have to take into account wins over fighters like Bivins, Johnson, etc. Whilst they're good wins realistically in modern era they not be classed as Heavyweight fights.

And whilst as i pointed out earlier Moore has some respectable wins over Heavyweights who weighed over 200 pounds i don't think either of them are on the same level as even a mid 30s Holmes as i said.

You have to take into account Spinks had a troubling style for Holmes aswell it wasn't all because Holmes was at a advanced age. And whilst i do believe a prime Holmes would beat Spinks i still think Spinks would give him issues.

 

I saw what u wrote. I respect the opinion I just don’t agree with it. When watching film of the two at that time of their careers (u can watch Archie against 6”1 210 Davidson and 6”3 210 pound Nino)Archie looks to be the stronger man in each bout. This isn’t old Moore he was constantly moving and apply pressure, he was the one bullying Nino into the ropes. Constantly punching. He’s gonna beat Larry to the punch because he was faster at this stage and he’s gonna constantly apply pressure like Norton did but with a much better defense and a much bigger bag of tricks. I think old Larry is pretty close to prime Bob Baker with a better chin and jab though. Both had excellent hand speed and weighed about the same. Archie knocked him out in 9 I believe
Larry’s wins later on were not really all that. He had the one good win against Mercer which was a wonderful display of skill and a good showing against Holyfield. After this time he just wasn’t the same man. Archie was better than Spink not only at this point of their careers but prime for prime. He was faster stronger and had better defense. Spinks was taller but they had a similar reach 75 and 76 respectively.
The film just lends me to Archie every time.

 

In a thread referring to honest boxers

In a thread where Marciano is pitted against cruiser Holy (consensus greatest Cruiser of all time with possible exception of Usyk).

@JohnThomas1, I don't know man. Sounds like a hater to me.

 

Moore’s wins over Johnson weren't classed as HW fights during the era in which they were contested either. All 4 were contested at LHW (though Moore weighed 175.5lbs in one of these fights).

 

Speaking of which did you see my offer to back up your Marciano accusations via a poll? Just post a simple yes or no as to whether you are game to back your own assertions.

I'll wait.

 

Johnson was an ATG LHW not heavyweight. He was a "good" heavyweight. He and Moore fought a bunch of times around 175. What i'm doing is not confusing LHW with heavyweight.

Strawman that has nothing to do with anything.

 

keep avoiding the question. Five challengers with a better ten. Or don’t bother answering. I don’t care about polls. It matters because apparently u think Moore wasn’t that good a heavyweight. Well then there must be tons w better records. Please educate us all