Underrated reason why Holmes was the best of his era

An elbow to the face does tend to make fights closer. I’m not going to split hairs on who won an extra round against Holyfield. One man became champ at age 45 (nearly 46), the other did not. That’s worth more to me any day than ploughing through the 1980’s scene. But I guess it just comes down to a matter of preferences, which is why the only things I’ve bristled at is hardcore positions I’ve seen like, “No credible list could have Foreman over Holmes.”

 

Where do you rate Jesse Ferguson and Marion Wilson? Above Moorer?

 

Most of my experiences see's him rated a tad short by most.

If he pipped the close decision against Holmes or got the decision in the third Ali fight i have little doubt he would have been accepted by a great many more as an ATG, the majority in fact. He needed that touch extra for most to get there IMO.

 

Damn it you beat me to it. I’m busy with college and work so don’t have time for this thread.

But I have to assume people are trolling at this point. Now the guy, who’s power was average at best and dropped by Renaldo ****ing Snipes at the height of his powers is gonna out slug Foreman….

Not only that, but Foreman beating the lineal champion at 45 years old, winning the title back 20 years after he lost it is an inferior win to Holmes one upping the performance of glorified club fighter Marion Wilson. I think intellectual honesty and common sense have both left this thread long ago, so I no longer wish to participate it in and waste my time.

 

Gotta be quick pal!!!

Yeah there's some wild stuff going on. There's other points too.

Ray Mercer was actually a bit green against Holmes and undeniably improved some. Not to say he would have beat Holmes but he did raise his game a bit. He actually credits Holmes for showing him the importance of a good jab.

Moorer beat the world best heavyweight, who was lineal to boot. Moorer was rated around #4 when he did this. Moorer's title was the.....real.....deal, not a trinket. Moorer was a top 5 heavyweight for over 6 years. I'm pretty confident Moorer would have been rated the best heavyweight in the world by Ring when Foreman beat him. Moorer performed like a top heavyweight too, until Foreman caught him with something monumental just in the nick of time.

 

Fair enough, I prefer a list without 'era bias' myself. No list is perfect, but this list is superior in the way its set out than say, one done by the Ring 50 years ago, where IIRC the only guy in the top 5 in every division in their all-time rankings that had won his first world title in the 1960s was Eder Jofre. So this way is definitely an improvement on that, achieved by using criteria like their very own rankings (as well as achievements, etc).

 

Cheers Greg, I definitely see a rating system they way you and some other seem to. "The heavyweight division stinks today" has been said for over 100 years, and was said frequently in the 1990s too (an era looked back on as one of the best nowadays). Example- in one of the Ring polls in the mid-90s readers were asked to rate the heavyweight division out of 10, IIRC, most votes were for a '5' out of 10, with a '3' rating getting more votes than 8 or above. It's good to see lists without this being an issue.

It also seems that some people rate champions higher because they don't defend their crowns, rather than fight a top 10 ranked fighter.

 

I'm kinda wondering what your point is here? In my opinion, Mike Moorer was an ATG light heavyweight, and he was a bloody good heavyweight. His basics were good and he had phenomenal power at both weights. I'm not denigrating Moorer, my comment was merely that from a boxing perspective, old Holmes beating Mercer was, to me, more impressive than Old George beating Moorer.

From a cultural point of view, from the impact it made on the world, hell, from every other point of view, George sparking Moorer is much more significant. It was a fairy tale, it elevated George to iconic, legendary status. It has become a modern real life Hollywood boxing movie. It was, and remains, incredible.

But.

As another poster defending; and there is no need to be defending Moorer here, this is not as many seem desperate to make it, a binary conversation, Moorer reminded us, Moorer was winning that fight going away until Foreman landed the almost inevitable denouement and brought the house down. It was not a boxing masterclass, he didn't outbox Moorer...as. a spectacle it was incredible. Larry boxed Mercer's ears off. From a technical standpoint, that was hugely impressive.

It is a shame Moorer and Mercer never fought. It woukd have been a great fight. Moorer might have managed to outbox Mercer, but even then I don't know...Mercer had a wonderful jab. Ironically, perhaps if Moorer fought him before he lost to Larry her have had his best chance of beating him?

All of this x beat y, so y woukd beat x and z beat them both so z beats a really doesn't work. It's all just opinions and individual eye tests. For me, Mercer is a nightmare opponent for Moorer and yes, I think he was a better fighter. I think on his best night, perhaps his loss to Lewis, he is a handful for anyone and in particular his attributes are all wrong for Moorer, BUT Mercer didn't have that single shot shock and awe dig that Old Geroge had so who knows, maybe he could have outboxed the slightly one dimensional Mercer over 12. See, I'm not sure, how can I be, its all conjecture.

And so the circle turns...

Let's go round again....

 

My point is very simple. Foreman won out over a guy that was 35-0, lineal and good enough to be top five ranked for many years. Moorer had just beaten Holyfield who had only ever lost one fight.

Just after losing to Holmes Mercer was beaten by Jesse Ferguson of all people (18-9) and then drew with 7-9-2 Marion Wilson. Moorer did no such things and maintained a reasonable level.

Now Holmes beat Mercer handily and Foreman was behind but in no way, shape or form was the win over Mercer comparable to the win over Moorer. There's been a load of points brought forward as to why.

Who knows if Mercer would have beaten Moorer, it's totally irrelevant in the big scheme of things.

I'm not sure we can label Moorer an ATG 175, even H2H as he didn't show anything against a high level of opposition. He may have been, but it would be a reasonably solid leap of faith.

 

Thanks for this reply. Fair points, but once again, I am only commenting that for me, Holmes at his age outboxing and befuddling Mercer at that stage of both their careers was a more impressive BOXING achievement than Foreman landing his thunderous equaliser after losing every round. Less exciting, less significant sure, but more impressive as a feat of boxing. You, and others disagree. And that's entirely cool brother man, it is a fascinating discussion!!

Mercer was undoubtedly inconsistent, and fighters losses always seem to be the stick we use to beat them with...I am guilty of it myself, even in this discussion. Hopefully you can see the point I am making even if you don't agree with it. Put simply, Moorer outboxed old Geroge up until he got whacked. George never put on a clinic. Never troubled him, wad never ahead in the fight. Then he finished it. Homes out fought, out pointed and outthought a much yibnger top contender from the first round to the last. Now, for me that is more of an achievement. And that is my only point.

I don't 'rate' Moorer as others have, and you know what, your point re LHW is a good one and I'm ashamed to say, one I'd not considered. Moorer was tearing up LHW when I was young bit I guess time has cast a different light on things for me since then because I remember him being seen as virtually unbeatable at the weight...but freely admit I am only using my suspect memory to comment and little expertise!!

 

Part of what i am trying to convey is that Ferguson beat Mercer convincingly himself not long after and then Wilson fought him close.

Mercer was inconsistent but are we automatically assuming Mercer was having an "on" night when Holmes beat him, and beat him relatively easy against the odds? What if it was an off night for Mercer? The odds and ease of Holmes win could be used as a solid base of debate. Is losing so easily as a solid favorite a stick to beat him with?

Moorer was actually the one putting on a clinic against Foreman and a clinic of the sort of quality many didn't think he possessed. Foreman hanging in there and apparently by many corners "setting him up" was i guess a skill of it's own. Moorer had never been beaten and Foreman, tho well behind, took that cherry.

Holmes didn't do all that from the first round. I'd suggest another look. Holmes had a shaky first round and the second was evenly fought. From there on he took over with only the odd hiccup.

I know what you are debating, absolutely i do, it's just that we rate doing that to Mercer on different levels.

There's no need to be ashamed or stress, the forum has people learning new things on a regular basis. Some are small, some are large. Some people like that damn Crowcroft kid surge ahead of almost everyone in a ridiculously short period of time. It's the best classic boxing forum on the net, and not by any short length. You're a polite guy who puts some thought into his stuff. I have to ask, as is common for me at times, have you been here before?

If you have a look at Moorers 175 resume you will see a distinct lack of quality. He may have proven himself amazing there but i don't think he could keep making the weight much longer. I think he would have been a great cruiserweight whether under the old guise of 190 pounds or the new one of 200.

 

lol 5/10 90s comment is amusing… as you say the heavyweights will never be in a golden era because “Heavyweights stink today” even as far back as the 1800s… Corbett was saying there are no true teachers left and boxing was dying.

 

And as I keep saying if it's that easy to beat ranked opponents why did Foreman only beat 1 after the age of 27 ?

Seems baffling to me you're criticising a fighter for beating multiple ranked opponents in their 30s but yet you won't bat an eye lid at Foreman’s unimpressive statistics vs ranked opponents after the age of 27!!!!

Moorer is his only win over top 10 ranked opponent after the age of 27 and he didn't defend the title against a single ranked opponent after the Moorer win, and he should've lost the title in his first defense because everyone knows the Schultz fight was a robbery.

 

Moorer beat Holyfield. That's all anyone needs to know.

Jesus, Foreman beat more impressive fighters, Holmes beat a lot of washed up fighters and guys no one is impressed by. That is all.

 

Forgetting the context that Holyfield was having heart issues and was probably at about 30 percent in the worst performance he had in the whole decade ? Everyone knows Moorer was very fortunate to fight such a poor version of Holyfield and we all see what happened in the rematch.

Holmes beat alot of washed up fighters ? The likes of Berbick, Weaver, Witherspoon, become champions after losing to Holmes.

Yes as I keep saying Foreman had a higher period for "1 year" beating Norton and Frazier but then after that his record is very hit and miss.

You put alot of stock in that 1 year period and think that is enough to justify Foreman over Holmes and I don't agree but you're entitled to your opinion.