This does not change the fact that he won. Are you also going to look at Holmes' near losses to Shavers, Weaver, Snipes, Witherspoon and WIlliams? I will also remind you that Moorer was a 35-0 lineal champion when a 45 year old comeback Foreman faced him. Those other guys were nobodies at the time, and Holmes was a reigning champion who was either at or near prime... I agree that Holyfield looked like **** in that fight, had a bum shoulder, etc. Fair enough. But, we can't ignore the fact that Moorer had claim as the man. If you deny him that, then you have to deny that same claim to every other lineal champ who ever defeated a declining champion... Also Moorer's wins over Cooper, Stewart and Botha were all respectable and Moorer even regained strap after losing the belt. I think its a bit unfair that you slap him on the hand for the Tua loss as he was past it... and on the comeback trail. Foreman was behind, I agree, But we can't ignore the fact that he legitimately KNOCKED HIM OUT. This was not a victory that was taken via poor judging, bad officiating, or politics. Moorer got his ass kicked, Plain and simple..... i would rank holmes's victory over mercer much higher, it was a comprehensive victory over a prime, in shape, and dangerous mercer who would go on to give holyfield and lewis all they could handle. I'm well aware of what both of their abilities were at that point in time. What you have to credit Foreman for ( not that you're interested ), Is that this was a man who traditionally had poor stamina, lousy defense, and a myriad of other things that often plagued him in his first career. At 40 years old and after 10 years of inactivity Foreman exploded the age old myth that " you can't teach old dogs new tricks. "
I think Mercer was a better fighter than Moorer but Moorer was the most consistanly conditioned of the 2 and was Mercer in top form when he fought Holmes?, Jesse Furgeson? Was it the same Mercer than fought Evander and Lewis. I dont believe so. Still Foreman came out a winner by KO and later in the fight, proving he overcame some of his earlier stamina issues.......Holmes fought better opponents Weaver,Witherspoon,Williams but most would argue that he lost those fights.....If the comeback is the issue Foremans was better and proberly one of if not the best ever after 10 years off, his age and weight loss
I think Witherspoon, and Norton were better than Moorer. Shavers is debatable. I want to re-score Shavers vs Ali one day.
The two comebacks compaired , i have to say George got to a point where he would fight almost anyone... Larry did have the knee pads out for a while and only took decent purse fights... it was more of a long road back for George like a biblical journey, where as Larry took a fight here and there until a major name took the bait.. George started getting taken a lot more serious when he disposed of Cooney and Adilson... Larry got taken a lot more seriously after beating Ray Mercer, the Holyfield fight and the McCall fights were the compensation that came after that... Georges pinnacle was indeed the Moorer bout even though he did meet Holyfield, Morrison and Briggs... Georges comeback was of a slightly better standard .. Larrys was really a money making cruisade and he would tell you that himself... I say the Moorer win for George and the Mercer win for Holmes was a better result for George because Mike was the better technical boxer and of a better caliber... But in ATG terms.. Holmes all round opposition was better than Georges.. YES.. George met your Ali, Frazier and Norton.. but Holmes did beat a monsterous amount of world class heavys who went on in his absence to win versions of the title.. In fact its a close one but i say on ability apart from Opposition alone, Larry was better than George , but its only by a nose.. two atg's imo.......
No way that Shavers, Berbick, Cooney or Weaver are better wins than that undefeated version of Moorer. Shavers basically lost every time he fought a live contender, Cooney was good but relatively unproven and went south even harder than Moorer did after losing. As for Weaver, i believe some tend to over-rate him. He is better than his record indicates and gave Holmes a scare, but he did lose most of his big fights, the Tate (close comeback) and Coetzee bouts aside. As for Norton, Mercer and Witherspoon, they were about the same level, but none of them had the status as THE champ like Moorer had. Moorer has a weak jaw, but he is pretty good otherwise, fast hands, powerful and he has that southpaw stance.
I think George's whole comeback was motivated by money. The only reason he came back in 1987 was because he was nearly broke. The main difference between George and Larry is that Larry has always been honest and up-front about his motivation for fighting and/or making a comeback: his love of money. Foreman made it sound like his comeback was launched only to fun his charitable organizations and his youth ministry and church. I'm sure George had many noble ideas and reasons that contributed to his boxing comeback, but I think George's main reason for coming back was to enrich himself personally. Holmes would admit to that; Foreman would not!
The draw with Dokes was a fantastic effort too. The majority thought he won a close affair and Dokes at that time was regarded the 2nd best Heavy in the world. Silly bugger had 2 fights in almost 3 years when he should have been peaking.
I don't see how. Mercer was an 18 fight contender, whereas Moorer was a 35-0 lineal world champion. Holmes earned another shot at a big payday, while Foreman absolutely made history.... The magnitude of these wins as well as the status of the two opponents are in no way shape or form comparable in my opinion.
This does not change the fact that he won. Are you also going to look at Holmes' near losses to Shavers, Weaver, Snipes, Witherspoon and WIlliams? I will also remind you that Moorer was a 35-0 lineal champion when a 45 year old comeback Foreman faced him. Those other guys were nobodies at the time, and Holmes was a reigning champion who was either at or near prime... uhh what does shavers and witherspoon have to do with a comeback holmes, this thread is about there comeback careers, keep your head in the game son. I agree that Holyfield looked like **** in that fight, had a bum shoulder, etc. Fair enough. But, we can't ignore the fact that Moorer had claim as the man. If you deny him that, then you have to deny that same claim to every other lineal champ who ever defeated a declining champion... Also Moorer's wins over Cooper, Stewart and Botha were all respectable and Moorer even regained strap after losing the belt. I think its a bit unfair that you slap him on the hand for the Tua loss as he was past it... and on the comeback trail. AHAHA....i never thought i would see the day where someone trys to talk up stewart, cooper, and frans botha. stewart's single most notable achievement in the ring is getting blasted out in ONE round by the iron one. his second most notable achievement is being dominated by holy, and then getting ktfo later down the stretch. his third most notable accomplishment is loosing a split with foreman in a fight most thought he was screwed out of. now, who did cooper and botha ever beat? cooper looked promising fighting cans for his first 20 fights or so but once he stepped up to c level opposition or higher he usually took a thrashing. what did botha accomplish, his best victory is axel shultz, which i believe he was stripped due to steroid usage. botha made his name being cannon fodder for elite and even just good fighters. Foreman was behind, I agree, But we can't ignore the fact that he legitimately KNOCKED HIM OUT. This was not a victory that was taken via poor judging, bad officiating, or politics. Moorer got his ass kicked, Plain and simple..... it would be wrong to rob him of the victory as its absolutely legit. however if they were to fight 10 times i would give moorer atleast 8 victories. this matters when were analysing how good foreman is. you do realise that foreman got his ass kicked for all but 2 seconds of the fight, right? I'm well aware of what both of their abilities were at that point in time. What you have to credit Foreman for ( not that you're interested ), Is that this was a man who traditionally had poor stamina, lousy defense, and a myriad of other things that often plagued him in his first career. At 40 years old and after 10 years of inactivity Foreman exploded the age old myth that " you can't teach old dogs new tricks. the story of the foreman comeback isnt in an old dog learning new tricks, but rather an old dog being the benefactor of creative match making. his whole comeback career was him being stuck in with people that would make him look good. vander went on to become a great heavyweight but at the time hes was seen as a blown up 205 lbs cruiser who was light on pop, add to that the fact that he would come right to you, which is exactly where foreman thrives. then he was stuck in the duke and had his ears boxed off for twelve rounds. now if you can be outboxed by morrison i have to say youve really accomplished something. hell, it was no secret this guy avoided pure boxers like the plague, as evidenced by him ducking a 37 yo tnt tucker for shultz. (oh yeah, howd he do in that fight anyway?) so outside of getting his ass handed against a so so like moorer before comming threw with a lucky punch what did comeback foreman achieve? he lost to all the good fighter he faced and even some bad ones(stewart,shultz if were honest). if you ask me, moorer and comeback foreman were both built largely on flukes(in moorers case the fluke was the first holy fight).
Witherspoon for sure. Nortons a bit better at that stage in his career. Weaver overall has a decent resume but he was a journeymen when Holmes fought him. Shavers is probably a tad better. I'd rate Moorer over Cooney, Berbick, Williams, etc.
I'm a Moorer fan (if there's such a thing) but Mercer would of ****ed Moorer up bigtime head to head. Moorer was 35-0 but Mercer had more heavyweight wins than Moorer anyway and was never on the verge of losing like Moorer against Cooper and Stewart. Moorer is certainly a better win for historical purposes but the win over Mercer deserves credit. Especially given the manner of victory in each.