Better Victory: Marciano over Moore or Tyson over Holmes?

Both Holmes and Moore were roughly 38 years of age when they fought their mentioned conquerors.. Moore was by far the more active fighting of the two, while Holmes was coming off a two year abscence from the sport.. Holmes however was a natural heavyweight, a recent all time great heavyweight champion, had lost far fewer times and was never stopped in a pro fight.. Holmes was basically dominated in 4 rounds, winning perhaps only one of them, but Moore managed to extend Marciano 9 rounds and even decked him once.....

Although Moore might have been considered a bit more of a live opponent due to his recent activity, Holmes' status as a recent HW champ, better record, and Tyson's easy performance against him, probably made it a slightly better win.. The other thing I might ad, is that Tyson's legacy does not rest on the shoulders of beating a past prime Holmes, whereas Archie Moore is one of the very first victories that anyone ever mentions when Marciano's name pops up..

 

Moore was the clear number one contender for Marciano's belt while Holmes came back after being out of it for two years. Moore fought on another 8 years on top level and as the lhw champ. Holmes had a decent comeback later on but I think Moore was the clearly better win.

 

I think this is a no brainer.
Moore was old but had been very active ,in that year alone, he had 3 fights prior to challenging Marciano.
Moore had stopped Harold Johnson in 14, in defence of his LH title,out pointed the highly ranked Nino Valdes and only 3 months previously kod Bobo Olson ,in another title defence.
After the Marciano fight ,he would go another ,11 fights before losing to Floyd Patterson.
Holmes had not fought in 2 years and his two previous fights had both been losses ,albeit very close ones.
Holmes has since said he wanted more time to prepare for Tyson ,but Don King pushed him to take the date on offer.
Moore was an active rated contender ,and the reigning Light Heavy Champ.Holmes was a former Champ who was coming out of a 2 year retirement without a tuneup.
BIG DIFFERENCE .

 

It's weighing the fact that Holmes was the greater fighter vs his inactivity.

I voted for Moore being the better win. He was coming off an amazing 45-1 recent record. It doesn't just show his capability, but his confidence was also off the charts. Marciano just hammered him.

Holmes on the hand, although he was tricky and had more left than sometimes given credit for, was fairly inactive and i think a very good, active boxer is more dangerous than a great but inactive boxer.

I disagree.. i think Walcott & Charles were just as important wins for Rocky.

 

Both Holmes and Moore were well past their primes, but I'd say Marciano's because Moore wasn't quite as shot.

 

I would vote for Moore because he was active and winning.

Holmes compares more with Louis. His inactivity makes it tough to judge him by this point.

 

precisely why I incorporated the phrase: " one of ", implying that there were more than one, but his name is commonly placed among that list nonetheless.

 

Holmes fighting Tyson was viewed as a scandal at the time, and not without justification.
Holmes had been out of the ring 21 months, had announced his retirement 14 months earlier, and was not deserving of an instant shot at "unified/undisputed champion" Tyson.
He was simply a "name" to put on the poster and to keep folks interested as Tyson kept up his busy schedule knocking suckers out.

Despite all the revisionism going on about Tyson-Holmes, it's still a meaningless win, although I cant fault the way in which Tyson took apart the old man.
Holmes was there for the payday, I think he knew he couldn't win. The fight was the mismatch everyone knew it would be.


Archie Moore was an active and deserving heavyweight contender when he fought Marciano. Maybe he benefited from a weak era, that's open to debate, but he was a serious and hungry fighter still, and he earned his shot.

 

A very true and reasonable perspective..

 

I tend to think that Tyson's dominating win didn't give Holmes any justice and at that stage of their careers I feel that Holmes was the more capable fighter.

So I gave Tyson the edge.

 

you guys a probably fight about moore being better at the time he fought marciano then holmes was when he fought tyson but you have to keep in mind that tyson is the only man to ever ko Holmes. that counts for something.

 

Are you implying Holmes was shot? He went on to a pretty decent career. People forget Holmes went back into retirement for a longer period of time, came back out fought a few bums and then fought more competiviely against Holyfield. He really only lost to Tyson Holyfield and then Mcall late in his comeback, and was robbed against Nielson in Europe.
I dont know which win ranks higher, but people seem to overplay Holmes rustiness. If Holmes would have had a couple tuneups against pre Holyfield fight caliber fighters would it have made any difference? Nahh.... Holmes fought pretty well against Tyson in the early rounds, using his movement and his whole gameplan was to move early and fight Tyson hard in the second half of the fight, but Tyson was just too good at cutting off the ring. Holmes got caught by that beautiful righthand and just never recovered from it, didnt have too much to do with him being rusty.

 

Holmes is arguably top3 at HW all time, Moore isnt top50 at HW, Holmes has about 30-40lbs on Moore and arguably better P4P in my mind, both are past prime at 38. Holmes in many peoples eyes won the Lineal title back in his prior fight. Holmes would go on to do far better in his HW comeback than Moore would manage

Holmes and its not close

 

I factored in the size as well, but Marciano wasnt a big guy either. Pound for pound they were both on the same level size wise.