Which was more impressive. Holmes win over Ray Mercer or Foreman's win over Michael Moorer

Foreman is clearly ahead in this one. Moorer was a super confident and a solid champion.

The fact that Big G set that punch up all night was a act of intellgence and strategy - that puts him up there with Ali and the " Rope a Dope". He deliberatley held off showing his true power and waited and weathered Moorers best. Then bam, lights out and the oldest champion ever is crowned.

The fact that both Holmes and Foreman were contending 10 years past their prime is a testament to the best heavyweight era of all time.

 

The Foreman win is in my top three wins for any fighter ever. Something we will most likely never see again. Add in the extra dramatics of being down on the cards and all

 

Well, I watched both live on TV. I was very happy for Larry when he won. It was a fun upset. But the night George knocked out Moorer, I was at a party, and the place erupted. It was a huge deal.

Also, I was surprised to learn that a large number of the people polled who attended Mercer-Holmes thought Mercer won. It was one of those fights where those in person didn't hear the announcers and said Mercer's punches sounded a lot harder and Holmes's jabbing seemed less impressive if you were sitting right there. This was reported extensively in the boxing mags after the fight.

Nobody, in person or watching on TV, thought Moorer won the fight when it was over. But many, particularly in person, did think Mercer won.

 

Interesting question.
On the surface it’s clearly Foreman. However Foreman didn’t even deserve the opportunity he received, he lost cleanly to Tommy Morrison in his previous fight. No way coming off a loss, should he have received a title shot. However Moorer, saw an opportunity to cash in on a big name that his team thought was a safe bet. At the same time Foreman’s team knew that Moorer was a blown up light heavy and Foreman’s best last chance at glory.
Basically two opportunistic parties looking for their own cherry pick. Kudos to Foreman for pulling the fight off when he looked very washed up for the first 8 rounds.
Larry on the other hand was feasting on nobodies post Tyson. While Mercer was riding the best streak of his career.
If you peel away the title and hoopla that goes with it - it comes down to who do you feel was the better heavyweight Mercer or Moorer.
It’s very close between those two. I’ll stick with Foreman’s win for the historical implications, but I never felt Moorer was the best in the division (not with Bowe and Lewis) I felt Holyfield didn’t look right and had off night. Mercer ran hot and cold but was iron jawed and tough as nails.
Good question.

 

Thanks for the excellent reply. Plenty of good points there.

 

I feel like that's a different debate, though. The question is asking which win is more impressive, whereas I'd say what you're saying is that Holmes' overall performance was more impressive. Which is actually something I'd agree with. Sure, a clear points decision doesn't have the same feeling to it as a cold KO like what Foreman did to Moorer, but there is something to be said about being able to conclusively out-box a top contender, something which Lewis and Holyfield couldn't do quite as easily, years later, while much younger. Holmes pulled out every trick in the book and had gritted out some tough moments. I always liked how he'd fall back into the counter, then snap a vicious right uppercut into Mercer. Considering how much Mercer troubled Lewis, it was a very good all-round performance, and showed a high ring IQ and great adaptation on Holmes' part. He was the ring general in there, which is something that was hard to be vs Mercer.

That said, I don't know how much the performance as a whole should play into the factor of a win. Whether or not Foreman lost a lot of rounds to Moorer is irrelevant, he won by devastating KO. I know I'd rather by knock out like that, than how Holmes did vs Mercer. And I'd definitely rather lose how Mercer did than how Holmes did. I think the manor of the win shouldn't come into play at all if the fights ending was clear, IE: if there's no controversy, the type of wins should be equal to one another. And TBH, I think if the puncher is winning by KO, that's his job done. He doesn't have to worry about losing rounds if he gets the KO, and Foreman did. Holmes wasn't going in there to knock anybody out, methinks that Foreman could've made it a lot closer if he focussed more on boxing with Moorer.

If the question was which performance was more impressive, it'd definitely be an either way type of thing. But if we're taking the question (which is actually quite ambiguous, given its not stated what's actually means by it; it could mean which is more impactful to their legacies; which would have been harder to pull off, etc; ) to mean which win was greater in a vacuum, I just can't see how it's not Foreman. I consider Moorer to be better than Mercer, by some distance; it was for the lineal heavyweight title, and two belts; and Foreman was older than Larry. I suppose you could argue Mercer was a better win if you consider him better than Moorer, but I don't think it's reasonable to consider Mercer better by so much that it eclipses the other two reasons as well.

Obviously all in my opinion, of course.

 

In my eyes the Holmes - Mercer battle was not that one-sided. Nevertheless, Holmes was able to handle Mercer the whole fight rushing in and going for his chin for 12 rounds, at age 42.
With Foreman, he lost the fight until he landed that punch. Plus Moorer didn´t get up like he used before. In therms of whats more impressive to watch, that win was just awesome.
But on a rational basis, Foremans punchers chance, Moorers medicore chin and him not getting up lead to something not likely to happen (Boxrec: "Moorer dominated Foreman for nearly the entire fight before Foreman knocked him out with a right in the tenth round.")
So on a "fan basis" and for the result, its Foreman. On the whole performance, its Larry Holmes.

 

George was a genius plain and simple with an overlooked ring IQ, you don’t get to the top with only brawn Foreman proved that in defeat and in his final hoorah.

 

I don’t understand the case for Holmes win being superior, It says more about Ray then Larry.

 

They were both great performances from old guys. I tend to be more impressed by Foreman's victory. People write about it as though Moorer was beating up on Foreman until Foreman found lightning in a bottle. Foreman did take punishment, but I never thought he was in danger of being stopped. He could take a good shot. He threw those jarring punches that shook Moorer, and I was surprised that Moorer withstood them so well in the earlier rounds. I thought Foreman did a great job of setting up the KO.

 

He sure did, my friend. He was calculating, baiting, and faking ala Ali.

 

I think Holmes' victory was better than Foreman's. Holmes pretty much dominated Mercer. Foreman lost every round and then got the knockout in the 10th. Foreman showed a TON of heart, but I still think Holmes's victory over Mercer was more impressive.

 

Foreman not only because it was for a title but I rate Moorer higher than unmotivated Mercer as well. I see some saying Holmes was better because it was a schooling and I get that but Foreman was never the kind of fighter that was going to rack up rounds on his way to a KO

 

Except Holmes didn't dominate. One judge gave Mercer 10 points in four of the rounds, one judge gave him 10 points in five rounds. And the power punches were nearly equal. Holmes outjabbed him and used the extended left for defense. That was the difference in their fight.

It was a solid win for Holmes, no doubt. But he didn't dominate.