Larry Holmes vs. Michael Moorer in 1994

I don't think Holmes had the work rate to keep up with Moorer. Foreman didn't either, but he had the equalizer. Holmes didn't.

I say Moorer wins a comfortable UD.

 

this

 

moorer. foreman had the power and the edge to be a competetive boxer back then. holmes was pretty good too but didn't have the power.
moorer ud

 

The whole Moorer was beating Foreman 9 rounds to none before the stoppage is stupid. Any logical observer would have Foreman winning a minimum of 3, if not 4, rounds before the stoppage. This would have made the fight near even for Foreman had Moorer regained his footing.

Holmes may not have carried Foreman's power, but he possessed a lot more speed. Holmes would have landed the same type of shots, with much more regularity. There's now way Moorer survives that either.

Homes tko 7, in 1994

 

Moorer by UD.

 

Holmes was very confident in the ability of his jab to neutralize a southpaw. "When in doubt, stick it out!" was the advice he gave brother Mark on how to deal with a middleweight division saturated with world class southpaws.

Beyond that, Larry had the right lead to get the job done. (Even at 53, he was able to land it with mechanized precision.)

In 1993, Holmes retired veteran New England club fighter Paul Poirior. The key punch for Larry was a right handed body shot which rippled completely through Poirior's torso and separated his rib cartilage. Paul says that was by far the hardest punch he was ever hit with, and Poirior had previously been stopped by Alex Stewart and Tony Tucker, very capable punchers in their own right.

Oddly, the hand speed of Holmes never really deserted him. He has height and reach on Moorer, and unlike Foreman, used straight punches. Michael didn't really have a heavyweight chin, having been dropped over a dozen times. (Of course nobody even came close to putting Larry on the deck after he turned 40.)

Compiling a huge, insurmountable points lead on Foreman is one thing. Only a peak Holyfield was ever able to do this to Holmes though. As a heavyweight, I just don't think Moorer was in that class.

 

******ed poster and a ******ed judge.

 

exactly.

 

Moorer wins this by competetive but convincing decision. Agree with the post who said Holmes didnt have the Foreman equalizer. But i do think Holmes would decision Foreman in 94.

 

I've always said that. If they actually got in there in the latter stage of their career, Holmes would do a number on Foreman, stylistically wrong for Big George and I think he knew it very well too.

 

As I said, if you had Foreman losing 9 rounds to none you are stupid, and know nothing about boxing. Foreman had drilled Moorer round after round with right hands, with no mention of them by the HBO crew. Then they were suddenly surprised when George Foreman landed yet another flush right hand that sent Moorer down. The fight is on youtube. If you rewatch it, you'll see that I'm right.

Your agreeing here further shows your lack of knowledge on this subject. Moorer's poor work rate had him barely getting mostly questionable verdicts over Botha, Schultz, and Holyfield. These are the fights that Atlas' corner antics became a bigger story than the fighter his was training. Moorer did not have a high work rate.

Moorer's most impressive victories were over Cooper and Holyfield. Moorer's bout with Cooper was one of the best I ever paid for. Cooper is nothing like Holmes style wise. Evander Holyfield has almost never looked good while facing a smaller fighter moving away from him. Holyfield looked awful against Moorer in their first fight, of course; but further evidence of this was shown against Czyz and Bean.

Holmes was capable of a high enough work rate to deal with Moorer. Holmes was also faster and more accurate than George Foreman. Holmes would land on Moorer at a high percentage. If Moorer ate 20 or so flush right hands from Foreman, you could expect double that from Holmes in the same time frame. As I stated before, I don't think it would get that far.

 

I'm sad to say Holmes probably gets outworked/outsped, he was probably too unconditioned by this stage. However it wouldnt be all 1 way, Holmes was on a decent run and some people thought he beat McCall at this stage, and he'd beat Frgusson. The version who beat Mercer and fought Holy could win though

HOLMES IS WAY GREATER THAN FOREMAN

 

Tough call. I went with Moorer by decision but a Holmes decision win wouldn't surprise me at all. Holmes was still very good in those days. In '95 (at age 45 1/2) he lost by just a point to Oliver McCall for the WBC HW Title.

 

I think Holmes would have beat Foreman in those days as well.