Larry Holmes question

[mr. magoo]

I am going to ask the opinions of people here, and I would really appreciate HONEST answers, so please check the biased crap at the door.

I have already compared George Foreman's comeback career to Larry Holmes comeback effort. I have concluded ( and many agree ) that Foreman fought better men and had greater success as a comeback ex-champion. I have also concluded that Foreman's win over Michael Moorer was a better victory than Holmes best comeback win over Mercer.

Now for the question.. Taking things a step further, how many opponents can you HONESTLY say Holmes beat, even during his PRIME as heavyweight champion of the world that were a better scalp than Michael Moorer?

Remember, Moorer was a genuine lineal champion who had won the title by beating the man. He was also undefeated in 35 fights and in his prime. Norton was a great win for Holmes and a man who I respect, but I think he was a tad past it when they fought and in fact had won a fragment of the crown in vacant fashion, or was awarded it I should say. Holmes also defeated Norton in legitimate, but also somewhat indecisive fashion whereas Foreman knocked out Moorer. What other choices do we have? Cooney, I don't think so. Shavers? maybe in terms of pure, dangerous power, but certainly not in terms of how accomplished he was, plus Earnie had plenty of his own shortcummings. Witherspoon, Berbick, Williams, Smith and a few others had too few fights at the time and none would ever claim status as a lineal champ...

I don't know.

[Caponecartels]

would be safe to assume that Foreman is taking Holmes spot on
your top 10 heavyweights list? ( by looking at your two threads)

[lefthook31]

Either that or hes placing Moorer on his top ten list. First of all Moorers win over Holyfield was very controversial. What makes Moorer such a great heavyweight? Besides losing to Foreman after winning every round, and getting knocked out by Holyfield the second fight and getting knocked out by Tua, he fought a pretty large list of nobodies at heavy. His biggest win was controversial the rest of his big fights he lost. Your reaching, my friend.

[mr. magoo]

What makes Moorer such a great heavyweight?

This isn't the question of the thread.

[lefthook31]

This isn't the question of the thread.
If your discounting a proven great heavyweight in Holmes by comparing him to Moorer it most certainly is...

[mr. magoo]

If your discounting a proven great heavyweight in Holmes by comparing him to Moorer it most certainly is...


You did not read the question carefully.

The topic has nothing to do with comparing Moorer to Holmes. The question was who did Holmes BEAT that can be considered as a better win than Foreman's win over Moorer..

Do you understand this?

[lefthook31]

You did not read the question carefully.

The topic has nothing to do with comparing Moorer to Holmes. The question was who did Holmes BEAT that can be considered as a better win than Foreman's win over Moorer..

Do you understand this?
Yes but you already pointed out why. Wasnt Briggs considered the linear champion? He was still a garbage fighter. Moorer was never a great heavyweight. Quit analyzing everything as if it was written out on paper, if you dont know the history behind the who and the what, its meaningless.
First off he was a true heavyweight. I would say defeating Norton and defending the title 20+ times against a real good group before losing it controversially to Spinks eclipses what Foreman did to a guy who really had no consistency in the heavyweight division. You cant even compare the two. I know what your getting at, a singular event, but you cant debate it like that, because like I said, it would be the same as comparing it to Briggs lifting the so called linear title off of Foreman. History will never put too much greatness in that event.

[mr. magoo]

Yes but you already pointed out why. Wasnt Briggs considered the linear champion? He was still a garbage fighter. Moorer was never a great heavyweight. Quit analyzing everything as if it was written out on paper, if you dont know the history behind the who and the what, its meaningless.
First off he was a true heavyweight. I would say defeating Norton and defending the title 20+ times against a real good group before losing it controversially to Spinks eclipses what Foreman did to a guy who really had no consistency in the heavyweight division. You cant even compare the two. I know what your getting at, a singular event, but you cant debate it like that, because like I said, it would be the same as comparing it to Briggs lifting the so called linear title off of Foreman. History will never put too much greatness in that event.


..

[SuzieQ49]

how many opponents can you HONESTLY say Holmes beat, even during his PRIME as heavyweight champion of the world that were a better scalp than Michael Moorer?


Tim Witherspoon
Ken Norton - Yes even 34 year old Ken
Mike Weaver
Bonecrusher Smith
Ray Mercer
Trevor Berbick
Gerry Cooney
Earnie Shavers- 1st time, Holmes fought younger shavers before earnie knocked out norton. Shavers still had a good deal left in 77.
Michael Spinks- If we decide to give larry to deserved nod in rematch


Thats 9 Men. of course this is just my opinion.

[purplestuff]

You did not read the question carefully.

The topic has nothing to do with comparing Moorer to Holmes. The question was who did Holmes BEAT that can be considered as a better win than Foreman's win over Moorer..

Do you understand this?

i think a better question is why do you put so much stock into this moorer victory. foreman got his ass beat for 10 rounds before moorer got sloppy. so its not a very impressive vicory to begin with.

also, who did moorer ever beat really. his first fight with vander was questionable to say the least, add to that vanders health problems at the time and you have a fluke( as shown by the 2nd fight). his next best opponent was tua, and he didnt even make it outta the first round. moorers best legit victory is against bert cooper for chrissake, and he failed to distinguish himself from a c class slugger there.

my point is moorer isnt that good, and even if you believe he is good foreman still got his ass beat by him, so i wouldnt put too much into that moorer victory as the manner it was achieved was hardly one to be proud of.

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.

what makes holmes even more impressive to me(though i doubt your interested) is what the fighters had to work with at the time of there vicrories. foreman is a power puncher who keeps more of his assets as he ages. holmes best assets which were reflexes, stamina, speed, footwork, do not carry with age. just something to think about.

[ghoster]

No offence but Moorer couldn't carry Holmes'... never mind

One thing to consider about Holmes reign is that even he didn't unify the title(he wanted to) he did beat several guys that went on to win the other title while he was still champ. Mike Weaver, Tim Witherspoon and James Smith all claimed the WBA belt while Holmes was still reigning. Trevor Berbick claimed the WBC as well.

[JohnThomas1]

what makes holmes even more impressive to me(though i doubt your interested) is what the fighters had to work with at the time of there vicrories. foreman is a power puncher who keeps more of his assets as he ages. holmes best assets which were reflexes, stamina, speed, footwork, do not carry with age. just something to think about.

Don't forget incredible will to win and great durability. Pretty canny too second career. All this aided to an overall poor division certainly helped.

[godking]

I am going to ask the opinions of people here, and I would really appreciate HONEST answers, so please check the biased crap at the door.

I have already compared George Foreman's comeback career to Larry Holmes comeback effort. I have concluded ( and many agree ) that Foreman fought better men and had greater success as a comeback ex-champion. I have also concluded that Foreman's win over Michael Moorer was a better victory than Holmes best comeback win over Mercer.

Now for the question.. Taking things a step further, how many opponents can you HONESTLY say Holmes beat, even during his PRIME as heavyweight champion of the world that were a better scalp than Michael Moorer?

Remember, Moorer was a genuine lineal champion who had won the title by beating the man. He was also undefeated in 35 fights and in his prime. Norton was a great win for Holmes and a man who I respect, but I think he was a tad past it when they fought and in fact had won a fragment of the crown in vacant fashion, or was awarded it I should say. Holmes also defeated Norton in legitimate, but also somewhat indecisive fashion whereas Foreman knocked out Moorer. What other choices do we have? Cooney, I don't think so. Shavers? maybe in terms of pure, dangerous power, but certainly not in terms of how accomplished he was, plus Earnie had plenty of his own shortcummings. Witherspoon, Berbick, Williams, Smith and a few others had too few fights at the time and none would ever claim status as a lineal champ...

I don't know.:roll::roll: Stop the Bullshit.

Stopt trying to build Moorer into something he was not .

Moorer a chinny ex LHW who won a controversial decision over Holyfield thus becoming a WEAK ''lineal'' champion who lost his belt in a fight he should have easily won.

That is all Moorer ever was .

Whats next are you going to claim that Moorer could have beaten a prime Holmes :lol::lol:.

Witherspoon was 3 times better then Moorer on his best day overall lazyness and the fact that Holmes was the lineal champion at the time and after him Tyson prevented him from being lineal champion.

Cut the crap Foremans 90s carreer was mostly smoke and mirrors we get it you are in love with the MYTH of 90s Foreman others are not and see his 90s carreer for what it really was.

[lefthook31]

:roll::roll: Stop the Bullshit.

Stopt trying to build Moorer into something he was not .

Moorer a chinny ex LHW who won a controversial decision over Holyfield thus becoming a WEAK ''lineal'' champion who lost his belt in a fight he should have easily won.

That is all Moorer ever was .

Whats next are you going to claim that Moorer could have beaten a prime Holmes :lol::lol:.

Witherspoon was 3 times better then Moorer on his best day overall lazyness and the fact that Holmes was the lineal champion at the time and after him Tyson prevented him from being lineal champion.

Cut the crap Foremans 90s carreer was mostly smoke and mirrors we get it you are in love with the MYTH of 90s Foreman others are not and see his 90s carreer for what it really was.
:lol:

[mr. magoo]

Tim Witherspoon
Ken Norton - Yes even 34 year old Ken
Mike Weaver
Bonecrusher Smith
Ray Mercer
Trevor Berbick
Gerry Cooney
Earnie Shavers- 1st time, Holmes fought younger shavers before earnie knocked out norton. Shavers still had a good deal left in 77.
Michael Spinks- If we decide to give larry to deserved nod in rematch


Thats 9 Men. of course this is just my opinion.

Keep in mind, I am not necessarily looking at head to head ability but rather the value of the win and what that fighter was worth at the time. Most of these men were under established when Holmes fought them, and some like Mike Weaver were even edging into the realm of trial hoarse. Norton might have cut it, but he had been awarded the title. Spinks was in his very first fight at heavyweight and hadn't proved anything yet. Smith was nobody, and frankly I don't think would ever be better than Moorer even on a head to head basis. Michael Moorer was a 35-0 professional or 13-0 at heavyweight if you will. He had gained recognition as the lineal champion and not a fragment titlist. He had beaten Holyfield,( holy had seen better days ) Cooper and Stewart when all had reasonable standing in the division and for whatever its worth ( probably not much ), he was a fragment holder at light heavyweight before rising to the heavy ranks. He was also in his prime, making him neither green nor faded.

The purpose of this thread is not to rate Foreman higher than Holmes, as I rate Larry higher on an all time list. But I'm curious as to who people feel was seriously a better win given the perspective time frames. The vast majority of the guys you listed don't do it for me.

[mr. magoo]

=purplestuff;3796461]

i think a better question is why do you put so much stock into this moorer victory. foreman got his ass beat for 10 rounds before moorer got sloppy. so its not a very impressive vicory to begin with.

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...

also, who did moorer ever beat really. his first fight with vander was questionable to say the least, add to that vanders health problems at the time and you have a fluke( as shown by the 2nd fight). his next best opponent was tua, and he didnt even make it outta the first round. moorers best legit victory is against bert cooper for chrissake, and he failed to distinguish himself from a c class slugger there.

I agree that Holyfield looked like shit 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.

my point is moorer isnt that good, and even if you believe he is good foreman still got his ass beat by him, so i wouldnt put too much into that moorer victory as the manner it was achieved was hardly one to be proud of.

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.

what makes holmes even more impressive to me(though i doubt your interested) is what the fighters had to work with at the time of there vicrories. foreman is a power puncher who keeps more of his assets as he ages. holmes best assets which were reflexes, stamina, speed, footwork, do not carry with age. just something to think about.

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. "

[Bummy Davis]

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

[Mendoza]

I am going to ask the opinions of people here, and I would really appreciate HONEST answers, so please check the biased crap at the door.

I have already compared George Foreman's comeback career to Larry Holmes comeback effort. I have concluded ( and many agree ) that Foreman fought better men and had greater success as a comeback ex-champion. I have also concluded that Foreman's win over Michael Moorer was a better victory than Holmes best comeback win over Mercer.

Now for the question.. Taking things a step further, how many opponents can you HONESTLY say Holmes beat, even during his PRIME as heavyweight champion of the world that were a better scalp than Michael Moorer?

Remember, Moorer was a genuine lineal champion who had won the title by beating the man. He was also undefeated in 35 fights and in his prime. Norton was a great win for Holmes and a man who I respect, but I think he was a tad past it when they fought and in fact had won a fragment of the crown in vacant fashion, or was awarded it I should say. Holmes also defeated Norton in legitimate, but also somewhat indecisive fashion whereas Foreman knocked out Moorer. What other choices do we have? Cooney, I don't think so. Shavers? maybe in terms of pure, dangerous power, but certainly not in terms of how accomplished he was, plus Earnie had plenty of his own shortcummings. Witherspoon, Berbick, Williams, Smith and a few others had too few fights at the time and none would ever claim status as a lineal champ...

I don't know.

I think Witherspoon, and Norton were better than Moorer.

Shavers is debatable. I want to re-score Shavers vs Ali one day.

[Bigcat]

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.......

[ChrisPontius]

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.

[AnthonyJ74]

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.......

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!

[janitor]

You did not read the question carefully.

The topic has nothing to do with comparing Moorer to Holmes. The question was who did Holmes BEAT that can be considered as a better win than Foreman's win over Moorer..


Taking into acount circumstances at the time I think that Holmses win over Mercer is comparable.

[JohnThomas1]

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.



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.

[mr. magoo]

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.

Thank You Mr. Pontius :good

[mr. magoo]

Taking into acount circumstances at the time I think that Holmses win over Mercer is comparable.


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.

[purplestuff]

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 shit 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).

[mr. magoo]

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.

Someone else wanna explain it to him?

[Titan1]

Shavers
Weaver
Spinks.

[Muchmoore]

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.

[Muchmoore]

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.

I'm a Moorer fan (if there's such a thing) but Mercer would of fucked 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.

[Duodenum]

If Shavers was ever a near loss for Holmes, then Dempsey has to be regarded as a near loss for Tunney. The only round clearly lost was the one in which the single knockdown was sustained.

Weaver was a decisive win for Holmes, as was Snipes. Yes, Larry had more difficulty than expected, but a conclusive outcome resulted both times. Holmes had two true near losses during his reign, Witherspoon and Williams. Shavers, Snipes and Weaver should be acknowledged for what they were, conclusive stoppage wins where Holmes had built an insurmountable lead on the scorecards when the referee called them off. Snipes is credited by many as Greg Page's best win, yet Renaldo went the 12 round distance then, where Larry stopped him in 11.

For me, Mercer was a better win than Moorer, because Holmes had to sustain it over the 12 round distance. (Yet it was the 42 year old Holmes who insisted on the longer limit.) Moorer's chin had already been exposed by Bigfoot, Cooper and Holyfield when Foreman took him on. Mercer's lack of skill had been exposed by Ocasio, Damiani and Morrison. Moorer is disdainful of Foreman's win, deriding it as a lucky punch brought on by an error in judgment on his own part. After Holmes, Mercer said, "I guess I better learn how to box!" For Larry, that's a pretty good compliment.

I can't overlook the fact that Holyfield had impaired heart functioning when Moorer beat him. Their rematch betrayed the true separation between them. He had a respectable IBF HW Title run between Foreman and Holyfield II.

As an individual scalp? My first choice would be the 12 round, 34 out of 36 minute domination of Shavers in 1978. With Henry Clark I, Tiger Williams and Ali, Earnie had seemingly put the questions about his stamina behind him. Jerry Quarry had blown him out, but nobody had ever dominated him from wire to wire in a longer bout. Lyle had to get off the floor, and many believed he deserved the win over Ali. Norton, Jeff Sims and Bugner were still ahead of Shavers. Head to head, is there any way the LHW chinned Moorer beats the Shavers Holmes defeated twice?

[choklab]

if we are to make comparisons between holmes and foremans second careers the first one must be how many times did george realy win on points? stewart? shultz? grimsly? savarese? There is a good argument for foreman losing his last 6 fights!!

[mr. magoo]

if we are to make comparisons between holmes and foremans second careers the first one must be how many times did george realy win on points? stewart? shultz? grimsly? savarese? There is a good argument for foreman losing his last 6 fights!!

He definitely lost the Schultz fight, but was arguably robbed against Shannon Briggs, so that's an even trade, if you want to flip flop those fights and hand him the Schultz defeat, but give him the Briggs win, then he actually comes out better. As for Savarese and Stewart, they were close, but he didn't lose those. Stewart fucked up his face, but fell victim to two unanswered knockdowns, and in a 10 round fight, that just doesn't cut a decision win.

I did not see the Grimsley fight, how did that go?

As for Holmes, he may very well have won more decisively in a few of his bouts, but come on, who was he fighting? Instead of taking on a 36-0 Savarese or Alex Stewart, he was fighting the exumed remains of Jesse Ferguson and Jose Ribalta.. Instead of fighting guys like Axel Schultz or Shannon Briggs, his last few fights came against Butterbean and an ancient Jim Smith...

[Pachilles]

you done fucked up, mangoo

[Duodenum]

He definitely lost the Schultz fight, but was arguably robbed against Shannon Briggs, so that's an even trade, if you want to flip flop those fights and hand him the Schultz defeat, but give him the Briggs win, then he actually comes out better.Al Bernstein was at Foreman-Shultz, and he had George winning it. Scoring from ringside is different than evaluating a live transmission or recorded footage. Bernstein was questioned strenuously on ESPN in the controversial aftermath, and stood by his assertion that the decision was correct.As for Holmes, he may very well have won more decisively in a few of his bouts, but come on, who was he fighting? Instead of taking on a 36-0 Savarese or Alex Stewart, he was fighting the exhumed remains of Jesse Ferguson and Jose Ribalta.. Instead of fighting guys like Axel Schultz or Shannon Briggs, his last few fights came against Butterbean and an ancient Jim Smith...Watch how Mercer-Morrison ends again. Holmes was Mercer's very next opponent. Everybody thought Larry was taking his life in his hands, recalling how Tyson-Holmes ended. Later, Holmes was McCall's first opponent after Ollie knocked out Lennox, and Larry pushed him right to the brink on the cards. Later, he was robbed by a hometown SD against an undefeated Nielson, at age 47. In his next fight, he took on 21 year old 9-8-2 prospect Maurice Harris, coming off an upset knockout of Jimmy Thunder. This time, the SD eked out in his favor. Harris would then go on a two year tear (the best streak of his career to date), climaxing with a win over Jeremy Williams. The 6'4" Harris had gotten his act together over the year prior to meeting Holmes, and today he is the newly crowned USBA HW Champion. A good example of a slow starter picking up steam.

The hot and cold Ferguson proved he was not completely washed up with his 1996 and 1997 campaign. He also won twice in 1998 after taking an undefeated Rahman the 12 round route. Each of his six remaining victories were against winning competition.

Every opponent Larry fought in the 1990s had a winning record at the time he took them on. Foreman took on four with losing records on his way to Holyfield.

[mr. magoo]

Al Bernstein was at Foreman-Shultz, and he had George winning it. Scoring from ringside is different than evaluating a live transmission or recorded footage. Bernstein was questioned strenuously on ESPN in the controversial aftermath, and stood by his assertion that the decision was correct.Watch how Mercer-Morrison ends again. Holmes was Mercer's very next opponent. Everybody thought Larry was taking his life in his hands, recalling how Tyson-Holmes ended. Later, Holmes was McCall's first opponent after Ollie knocked out Lennox, and Larry pushed him right to the brink on the cards. Later, he was robbed by a hometown SD against an undefeated Nielson, at age 47. In his next fight, he took on 21 year old 9-8-2 prospect Maurice Harris, coming off an upset knockout of Jimmy Thunder. This time, the SD eked out in his favor. Harris would then go on a two year tear (the best streak of his career to date), climaxing with a win over Jeremy Williams. The 6'4" Harris had gotten his act together over the year prior to meeting Holmes, and today he is the newly crowned USBA HW Champion. A good example of a slow starter picking up steam.

The hot and cold Ferguson proved he was not completely washed up with his 1996 and 1997 campaign. He also won twice in 1998 after taking an undefeated Rahman the 12 round route. Each of his six remaining victories were against winning competition.

Every opponent Larry fought in the 1990s had a winning record at the time he took them on. Foreman took on four with losing records on his way to Holyfield.

Foreman defeated the better opposition, in his comeback than Holmes did in his second career, and I broke down the differences in detail in a long ago thread. Sure he beat 4 men with losing records, while Holmes fought none,but George also had an additional 10 comeback fights, and defeated some 4 guys who were undefeated, while Holmes beat only a single one. It works both ways in that respect. It was a nice effort to show loyalty to the boogyman on your part, but saying that he was better than a young, undefeated Savarese at that junction, just doesn't cut it for me.. Foreman also defeated the likes of Addilson Rodriguez, Alex Stewart, Pierre Coetzer, Bert Cooper, Dwight Qawi, and several others... Holmes' only notable win was over Mercer, and though it was a great win, it was over a man with 18 fights, who very*nearly was outboxed by the obscure Francesco Damiani...

Anyway, for the record, I rate Holmes higher on an all time list, but the purpose of this thread was to ask people exactly who, or how many victories Holmes had that were better or more valuable than a win over Moorer... Since I created the thread ( over a year ago ), perhaps only 3 people understood the intended message, while others assumed that it was a question of which fighters were better in a " head to head " sense than Moorer, or some other misconstrued notion... Moorer was a lineal champion, undefeated in 35 fights and in the peak of his prime, while Foreman was a huge underdog at 45 and coming off something like a 16 month layoff and a loss at the hands of Tommy Morrison..... I really don't think that Ray Mercer, a 15 fight Witherspoon, an underdog weaver, Gerry Cooney, or an aged Norton can be justified as better wins... Tougher fights? Maybe, but not quite as valuable in the context that I am referring.

[lefthook31]

I believe Holmes took a harder road to the Holy fight too. He wasnt the attraction George was, and could never cherrypick his way to a shot, especially with King. Talk about a close fight how about his fight with Mcall, Larry was very close to winning that fight.

As for Foremans fights, he beat Savarese in a close but competitive fight. Its by far the most impressive fight of Foremans comeback just due to sheer workrate. Foreman was able to operate at a fast pace and he did for the entire fight outfighting the just as limited Lou Savarese.

He beat Grimsley BUT, Grimsley was nothing more than a club fighter and he would later go on to be knocked out in the quickest knockout in heavyweight history by James Thunder. Grimsley just using a little mobility gave George hell for the full route.

I had Foreman beating Briggs too. Briggs did just enough to keep Foreman off of him and lose.

As for the Shultz fight, I dont know what fight Bernstein was watching but Shultz won clearly. Even George knew it and refused to rematch him and was stripped of his title.

[lefthook31]

Al Bernstein was at Foreman-Shultz, and he had George winning it. Scoring from ringside is different than evaluating a live transmission or recorded footage. Bernstein was questioned strenuously on ESPN in the controversial aftermath, and stood by his assertion that the decision was correct.Watch how Mercer-Morrison ends again. Holmes was Mercer's very next opponent. Everybody thought Larry was taking his life in his hands, recalling how Tyson-Holmes ended. Later, Holmes was McCall's first opponent after Ollie knocked out Lennox, and Larry pushed him right to the brink on the cards. Later, he was robbed by a hometown SD against an undefeated Nielson, at age 47. In his next fight, he took on 21 year old 9-8-2 prospect Maurice Harris, coming off an upset knockout of Jimmy Thunder. This time, the SD eked out in his favor. Harris would then go on a two year tear (the best streak of his career to date), climaxing with a win over Jeremy Williams. The 6'4" Harris had gotten his act together over the year prior to meeting Holmes, and today he is the newly crowned USBA HW Champion. A good example of a slow starter picking up steam.

The hot and cold Ferguson proved he was not completely washed up with his 1996 and 1997 campaign. He also won twice in 1998 after taking an undefeated Rahman the 12 round route. Each of his six remaining victories were against winning competition.

Every opponent Larry fought in the 1990s had a winning record at the time he took them on. Foreman took on four with losing records on his way to Holyfield.
I think the main point here is that even though some of these names werent stellar, they were stylistic nightmares for Foreman. Holmes could easily outbox a lot of these limited guys, but Foreman could just as easily be outboxed himself. Foreman chose fighters who would be there to hit, some showed up with rollerskates on and turned his world upside down. Holmes would have been able to handle them regardless.

[jaffay]

Actually I scored Holyfield-Moorer 115-113. MM wasn't much above the rivals that Holmes defeated.