Better Victory: Marciano over Moore or Tyson over Holmes?

I agree, Tyson was all wrong for Larry a better Pro version of the short and powerfull amatuer Nick Wells who KO'd Larry 2 times...Tyson had that right hand and it was more acurate and versatile than Shaver,Weaver or Snipes and Iron Mike was a finisher, once you were hurt. Tyson was all wrong for any version of Holmes IMO

 

This is not even close - Marciano over Moore by a landslide - when Marciano KO'd Moore, it was Archie's first defeat in 22 fights, going back 4 and a half years to a decision lost to Harold Johnson. It was also the first time Archie ever lost to a heavyweight! After Rock's retirement Old Man River would go to the well a further 43 times himself - over the next 8 years he went 38-3-2 (25) and one pf the draws was to future light heavy titlist Willie Pastrano when Arch was 45 or 50 (depending on who you beleive) - one listless defeat to 21 year old Patterson for the vacant title and the stoppage by 20 year old Clay in the last real fight of his career - to put things in perspective Archie Moore had more fights in his career than Larry Holmes, Mike Tyson, Evander Holyfield and Lennox Lewis put together. Not only that but he actually had more fights as a heavyweight than either of that esteemed quartette did individually - totalling well over 60 ventures into the land of the big boys, and when you consider his only actual losses at heavyweight were to Marciano, Patterson and Clay he has to be considered one of the most worthy and talented losing challengers in history. Plus he was in the pomp of his own title days and it was the fight everyone really wanted to see - Arch had pretty much removed every other argument from all the other heavyweight contenders - I personally think overall Archie was a better fighter all round than Larry - especially the Larry of that night whocame straight out of a 2 year retirement with no other fights and little or no time to prepare by the looks of it and he pretty much spoiled for a couple of rounds then put on an Ali impersonation for a couple of minutes and then got Knocked Out - that night he really didn't have much coordination or strength or power or anything - he was in no kind of shape whatsoever also - Tyson for that matter fought like a bull in a china shop.

 

larry holmes was not larry holmes when he fought Tyson. hell, he wasnt even sherlock holmes!

Moore was on his A-game, fought his best fight and wiped out the heavyweight division to get his shot and was a reighning linear champ himself at that time to boot.

 

moores chilling KO win over THE HOT PROSPECT aljandro lavorante in 62 proves his worth. lavorante was a ring magazine cover boy, had a good amatuer record and world rated after koing zora folly. Moore was KOing rated heavys at way way past his best. Holmes was not.

Holmes basicly had 6 weks in the gym after 2 years fishing and enjoying beer when he fought tyson. the holmes who beat mercer would have beat all the guys who tyson defended against and even that was holmes running at 50%. the holmes tyson fought was running at 20%.

 

This. :deal

 

This has gone from choosing the better victory to a Moore lovefest extolling which victim was at a better stage in his career.

Sit a nonfan down to watch both fights and ask him which is the better whuppin'.

I want to impress a new girlfriend as a badass gym fighter. That night, as I tell of my exploits over coffee, I can choose between saying, "The guy knocked me down in the second, but I got him in the ninth;" or: "I laid the guy out cold inside of 4 lopsided rounds."

Moore was a 41-year-old light heavyweight coming up to challenge Rocky Marciano!

Yet, as compared to Holmes' efforts, Moore put in the much better performance. Because he could. It took Rocky 9 rounds to finally turn him back.

Holmes was a 38-year-old, all-time-great natural heavyweight, 4 inches taller, certainly never knocked out, with a seething grudge that gave him a lot to showcase. Larry is on record, three full months before the fight, claiming in typical self-assuredness that he would win by knockout.

But, from the introductions, he was reduced to a quivering nonentity. Who ever, before or after, did that to Holmes? He lost every round, got knocked down as soon as he opened up, and within the round was left flat on his back for 45 seconds.

Moore had many moments and gave Marciano a tough fight. The proud Holmes began like a pleading senior citizen and was left in smoking remains, compliments of his adversary.

Everything we saw Holmes accomplish at 42, he would have loved to do at 38. Hence, the weird bellow at the close of his schooling of Mercer. He had so much inside, so much to prove! But he didn't. Because he couldn't.

With Tyson safely in prison, he largely redeemed himself afterward, yes, against inferior opponents to the man who had knocked him out, in a much better win.

 

Better win: Marciano over Moore

Better performance: Tyson over Holmes

/End Thread

 

I agree.....Tyson doesn't get enough credit for the Holmes win. EVen Holmes himself tries to downplay the loss by harping about how unprepared he was, how he only had a few months to train, how he had been off two years, blah, blah, blah. The fact of the matter is that Holmes was in fine condition as late as April of 1986, when he controversially lost the Spinks rematch. The Tyson/Holmes talk began about the time of the Tyson/Biggs fight. Larry started training in late 1987 for the Tyson fight......So, Larry was really only inactive for 1 1/2 years at most.....And I'm sure Holmes trained his butt off for the Tyson fight. It's just that he got blasted out so spectacularly that Holmes being the egomaniac that he is fills the need to downplay his loss and overplay his supposed poor preparations for the Tyson fight.............I think Holmes would have been blasted out by Tyson even if he had taken 5 tune-up fights prior..........

Oh, and don't get Holmes supporters going about the Holmes right uppercut that got caught in the ropes against Tyson in the 4th round....Because we all know if that punch had landed it would have changed the whole course of the fight!!!:yep

 

No way! The Holmes that beat Mercer was no better than the Holmes who lost to Tyson. Larry was moving around pretty good against Tyson and using his tricks. The Holmes who fought Mercer was more flatfooted and was not, at least to me, as quick of hand nor foot. Mercer was a c level fighter compared to Tyson. Holmes could fight more relaxed against Mercer. That Holmes against Tyson get blown out just as quick, maybe even quicker, against '88 Tyson.

 

Both Tyson & Marciano were prime, unbeaten fighters when these fights took place....

Both Moore & Holmes were past prime fighters when this took place.....

Differences were, Holmes was an ATG HW who had never been close to being stopped in his entire life... Moore was nothing more than a LHW that had lost numerous times even at LHW, he was never a HW despite being a great p4p fighter.

Tyson over Holmes was a better victory + Rocky hit the deck vs Moore too... not a good look.

 

Rocky's win. Moore was being championed by many writers. The Ring were calling for Marciano to defend against Archie. It was seen at the time as a big fight. Moore was the top contender.

Holmes was just a name going into that fight. Nobody really gave him a chance. The fact that he went on to do well later on is a red herring. He was not ready for Tyson at all. Mike blew him away, couldn't have done any more but it's nowhere near as significant.

 

There's still a lot of revisionism on this thread about Tyson-Holmes.

Nevermind that the New Jersey State boxing commision and the WBC were actually roundly criticized by many people for even sanctioning Tyson v. Holmes mismatch.
Nevermind that Holmes looked totally off during the fight, and even scared and nervous (which he admits to in his autobiography).
Nevermind that he got pummelled and beaten into a heap and ringsiders feared he'd been killed.
Nevermind that Holmes's comments after the fight belied that he was purely there for the 3 million dollars.

People still trying to say this was a good opponent and a good win.
Again, I cant fault Tyson. He took Holmes apart.
But let's not twist the facts of this fight. It was a meaningless win.

 

Not exactly meaningless.

It was the first time in a lot of years Holmes was going to be facing a finisher. And Tyson looked better against Holmes than say the Tucker or especially that Smith bout. There really weren't an abundance of worthy title challengers anyway so Holmes was not all that bad of choice at the time.

 

Interesting points ...many here consider the victory over Moore as one of Marciano's defining achievements ...the facts are that Moore had been extremely active and successfully going into the Marciano bout. In my opinion it was a bigger victory for Rocky than Tyson's win over Holmes ... still, I cannot imagine this same Moore going more than a few rounds with that Tyson ...