Underrated reason why Holmes was the best of his era

Whilst I personally disagree on the Moorer win being better than any of Holmes's (unless relative to age and you solely concentrate on the result, as opposed to quality of performance), all your points are fair, Swag, and your underlying key point is undeniable - I suspect almost all posters contributing to this thread agree Foreman has the highest quality couple of wins, whilst Holmes has greater depth to his win resume.

 

Cheers mate. I rate Foreman's win over Moorer higher not because of the performance but because of Foreman's achievement in victory, not performance.

Winning the title at 45 years old, 20 years after you lost it no less is a monumental achievement and unheard of. Very very few would've achieved that (ironically, I think Holmes is the only other heavy off the top of my head who could've done such a thing).

 

You do realise a fact can be misleading don’t you? It doesn’t sound like it.

 

Holmes has spoken of it &, to absolutely no one’s surprise, he completely dismisses the victory. The burning, keep-you-up-at-night envy

 

Yes if misrepresented, which hasn't happened in this thread.

 

Right but the Holmes fight was his last top performance .... he then crushed Stephens and was after forced rot take on Shavers in a title elimination fight, a terrible stylistic match up , was crushed nd that was the start of the fall .. Le Doux came after the Shavers fight ..

 

Yes but you're missing out the context that Norton performed very well against Holmes and pretty much every boxing fan considers that to be Norton's last great performance.

Hence your comment about Norton being shopworn prior to the Holmes fight is false when Norton had notable performances vs Ali 3, Bobick, Young. And your other theory about Norton coming into the Holmes fight as shopworn is also false based on how well Norton performed in the Holmes fight.

Yes Norton started to decline "after" the Holmes fight which is a totally different thing. Norton also had to fight against Shavers who is a horrible style match up for him at any point in his career and it was all downhill from there after he got brutally KO'ed.

 

Holyfield beat Oquendo at 44, and most feel he beat Valuev at 46. I've never seen these wins cited as rationale for rating Holyfield highly.
Likewise Vitali is possibly the best heavyweight at 40 plus yet but he doesn't seem to get much in terms of legacy points for being so good at age 40.

It seems like there is a lot of inconsistency in how the age achievement is being applied. If its a big legacy boost for Foreman it should be for these other guys as well plus Holmes who beat Mercer at 42.

 

Holmes victory over Mercer was a better win than George's over Moorer when viewed dispassionately...Moorer was not a strong champion and his chin meant he was made for George, who was being resoundingly beaten until he landed the equaliser. Holmes outboxed and outfoxed the younger Mercer and made him look rather silly, it just didn't have the touch of Hollywood about it that George's win did....

 

This content is protected

 

Obviously, or I would think obviously, because they didn’t defeat an unbeaten 26-year-old lineal champion to rise to the official top of the division.

& Holmes, at least, gets a tonne of credit for Mercer in my experience.

 

a very interesting point I never thought of before but true … Mercer was a much better heavyweight than Moorer.

 

That’s quite a mountain you’ve set yourself to climb, as Moorer was at least as good a Heavy (I’d argue, better) & gave up the Heavyweight crown.

 

I’ll be interested to read that reasoning.

 

No...the context is that I believe Holmes was overrated. It is fairly obvious that the younger version was the better man. I am a bit shocked that anyone would argue against that.