Evander 'Real Deal' Holyfield v Archie 'The Mongoose' Moore at Cruiserweight

tryingmybestt

Holyfield v Archie Moore....who wins this intriguing bout at Cruiserweight?

Holyfield officially the greatest CW, what would have happened if Moore fought him?

tryingmybestt

I'll start the bidding....

I think Moore wins on points

more has the excellent defence and better power and boxing skills...

holyfield has the strength and size and good all round skills....very close one to call but for me a slight edge to the old mongoose

walshb

At CW when Evander was 15-16-17..... fights in I will take Holyfield. The one who decimated Qawi in fight 2, and DeLeon to unify, that guy was intense, very heavy handed, and big. Moore won't deter this guy one bit. He may slick it out and make it tricky, but offenese will win the match, and Moore will spend most of his time on defense.

mickoo

walshb wrote: »

At CW when Evander was 15-16-17..... fights in I will take Holyfield. The one who decimated Qawi in fight 2, and DeLeon to unify, that guy was intense, very heavy handed, and big. Moore won't deter this guy one bit. He may slick it out and make it tricky, but offenese will win the match, and Moore will spend most of his time on defense.

I agree, Moore was great but would not handle Holyfields onslaught.

tryingmybestt

mickoo wrote: »

I agree, Moore was great but would not handle Holyfields onslaught.

why don't you back up your claim rather than giving your opinion !!!!!

wy wouldnt he handle holyfields onslaught??? thats ridicolous

moore was the much harder hitter and a defensive master....with his defensive skills he could handle any onslaught

mickoo

tryingmybestt wrote: »

why don't you back up your claim rather than giving your opinion !!!!!

wy wouldnt he handle holyfields onslaught??? thats ridicolous

moore was the much harder hitter and a defensive master....with his defensive skills he could handle any onslaught

If you give firm facts as to why my opinion looks wrong then i'll counter them, unlike you who when you have nothing solid to back up your opinions resort to stuff like trying to make me look bad here.

Last time i posted regular on here there was usually more facts and less opinions with nothing to back them up, Moore was good enough to beat any light heavy so i'm not writing him off, i just think Evander Holyfields style is made for this fight.

care to put up some facts for me to counter? i doubt it.

walshb

I am not a mod here anyomre, but I am fed up with posters being labeled ridiculous just because their view may not sit well with others. Counter the view, disagree, show why you disagree, back up your points, but keep it clean, civil and respectful. No need for the insulting and belittling tone. That is a post to anyone. Why can't we all get behind this, and each other. You will find that it's far more enjoyable this way.

BTW, Moore was IMO not the much harder hitter. Holyfield at 190-200 lbs was a very solid hitter. And, KO percentages don't always tell the full story, nor do magazine polls etc. Holyfield was a helluva banger at CW.

Bigger than Moore too. Taller, broader and more muscular. Plus, his technique and delivery were spot on.

Who hit harder? I cannot see how anyone could be confident in calling this.

tryingmybestt

mickoo wrote: »

If you give firm facts as to why my opinion looks wrong then i'll counter them, unlike you who when you have nothing solid to back up your opinions resort to stuff like trying to make me look bad here.

Last time i posted regular on here there was usually more facts and less opinions with nothing to back them up, Moore was good enough to beat any light heavy so i'm not writing him off, i just think Evander Holyfields style is made for this fight.

care to put up some facts for me to counter? i doubt it.

if you were experienced in boxing and knew your history you would know moore is a harder hitter and was one of the best defensive boxers ever....i dont need to prove what is general knowledge to ppl who follow boxing properly

tryingmybestt

archie moore is ring magazine number 4 best puncher of all time

holyfield is number 77.....this is opinion of experts and historians

tryingmybestt

walshb wrote: »

I am not a mod here anyomre, but I am fed up with posters being labeled ridiculous just because their view may not sit well with others. Counter the view, disagree, show why you disagree, back up your points, but keep it clean, civil and respectful. No need for the insulting and belittling tone. That is a post to anyone. Why can't we all get behind this, and each other. You will find that it's far more enjoyable this way.

BTW, Moore was IMO not the much harder hitter. Holyfield at 190-200 lbs was a very solid hitter. And, KO percentages don't always thell the full story, nor do magazine polls etc. Holyfield was a helluva banger at CW.

Bigger than Moore too. Taller, broader and more muscular. Plus, his technique and delivery were spot on.

Who hit harder? I cannot see how anyone could be confident in calling this.

muscles didnt mean power.....usually the tremendous hitters were lean and slim such as hearns, arguello, bob foster, spinks, trinidad, jackson etc.

tryingmybestt

moore is 14 and holyfield is 22 on list of ring magazine of top boxers of last 80 years

mickoo

tryingmybestt wrote: »

if you were experienced in boxing and knew your history you would know moore is a harder hitter and was one of the best defensive boxers ever....i dont need to prove what is general knowledge to ppl who follow boxing properly

tryingmybestt wrote: »

archie moore is ring magazine number 4 best puncher of all time

holyfield is number 77.....this is opinion of experts and historians

sorry i did not realise the question was who hit harder, it was who would win, Holyfield is not getting knocked out by Moore :rolleyes:

I NEVER SAID IT WAS A GUARANTEE, I SAID MY OPINION IS HOLYFIELD WOULD WIN, IS THAT NOT OK BY YOU?!

walshb

tryingmybestt wrote: »

muscles didnt mean power.....usually the tremendous hitters were lean and slim such as hearns, arguello, bob foster, spinks, trinidad, jackson etc.

Never said being more muscular meant heavier hands. I know it could have been interpreted that way, so sorry for the confusion.

Point is, both were very heavy handed at 175-190 lbs. How anyone can be so confident that one was heavier handed is odd to me, and like I said, magazine polls, newspaper clips, and KO perentages aren't always advisable as one's reasoning to label one man heavier handed.

tryingmybestt

walshb wrote: »

Never said being more muscular meant heavier hands. I know it could have been interpreted that way, so sorry for the confusion.

Point is, both were very heavy handed at 175-190 lbs. How anyone can be so confident that one was heavier handed is odd to me, and like I said, magazine polls, newspaper clips, and KO perentages aren't always advisable as one's reasoning to label one man heavier handed.

i'd base my opinion more on the fact of the video evidence of his one punch ko's....holyfield didnt have too many of them....he did not have one punch ko power IMO

tryingmybestt

mickoo wrote: »

sorry i did not realise the question was who hit harder, it was who would win, Holyfield is not getting knocked out by Moore :rolleyes:

I NEVER SAID IT WAS A GUARANTEE, I SAID MY OPINION IS HOLYFIELD WOULD WIN, IS THAT NOT OK BY YOU?!

your asking me for proof and to research videos for you....lol

if moore is a better pound for pound puncher and better p4p boxer i wonder what that points to hhmmmm.....

i was asking for proof sarcastically to highlight your approach....i thought that was obvious but apparently not

walshb

tryingmybestt wrote: »

archie moore is ring magazine number 4 best puncher of all time

holyfield is number 77.....this is opinion of experts and historians

Yes, and Holyfield spent a big part of his career at HW; I wonder if Moore spent a big time of his career at heavyweight, would he get that rating?

Moore never showed that power when he met true HW fighters.

One needs to look deeper than polls. Also, eras is very important. Moore knocking out men his weight and in his division is not the same as Holyfield trying to KO men heavier than he, bigger than he etc. How good would Moore's KO record be if it was Mercer and Lewis and Holmes and Foreman, and Briggs etc in the other corner?

Also, put a 190-200 lbs Holyfield into Moore's era, against men that Moore knocked out, then I reckon Holyfield is more than capable of being a helluva banger, and well higher on these polls.

Polls only tell part of the story. Did the polls also carry out power punch tests?

Same way you claiming Marciano's chin is better than Tyson's. You discounted the weight, never factored in that Tyson was taking shots off men who were heavier by a good deal than any Marciano victims.

Wanna make it p4p, that is ok, but in the Tyson-Rocky thread you did NOT make it p4p.

mickoo

tryingmybestt wrote: »

your asking me for proof and to research videos for you....lol

if moore is a better pound for pound puncher and better p4p boxer i wonder what that points to hhmmmm.....

i was asking for proof sarcastically to highlight your approach....i thought that was obvious but apparently not

no im not asking you to research video's, im actually just making a statement that your opinions have no basis at all and your sparring partner here does.

it's laughable.

tryingmybestt

mickoo wrote: »

no im not asking you to research video's, im actually just making a statement that your opinions have no basis at all and your sparring partner here does.

it's laughable.

when im debating with others like walshb or cowzerp i don't need to back up every point because they are very knowledgeable and they understand my point even if its different

you seem to want me to teach you about boxing and write aan essay explaining all my points......thats a bit boring and nerdy imo

i'd rather discuss the sport i love without having homework from teacher mickoo

tryingmybestt

walshb wrote: »

Yes, and Holyfield spent a big part of his career at HW; I wonder if Moore spent a big time of his career at heavyweight, would he get that rating?

Moore never showed that power when he met true HW fighters.

One needs to look deeper than polls. Also, eras is very important. Moore knocking out men his weight and in his division is not the same as Holyfield trying to KO men heavier than he, bigger than he etc. How good would Moore's KO record be if it was Mercer and Lewis and Holmes and Foreman, and Briggs etc in the other corner?

Also, put a 190-200 lbs Holyfield into Moore's era, against men that Moore knocked out, then I reckon Holyfield is more than capable of being a helluva banger, and well higher on these polls.

Polls only tell part of the story. Did the polls also carry out power punch tests?

Same way you claiming Marciano's chin is better than Tyson's. You discounted the weight, never factored in that Tyson was taking shots off men who were heavier by a good deal than any Marciano victims.

Wanna make it p4p, that is ok, but in the Tyson-Rocky thread you did NOT make it p4p.

this fight is at Cruiserweight not HW

look at moores record....he had many many ko's at HW


i look at video evidenece and opinions of experts...ring magazine is not a poll for the general public....experts and historians decide

mickoo

tryingmybestt wrote: »

when im debating with others like walshb or cowzerp i don't need to back up every point because they are very knowledgeable and they understand my point even if its different

you seem to want me to teach you about boxing and write aan essay explaining all my points......thats a bit boring and nerdy imo

i'd rather discuss the sport i love without having homework from teacher mickoo

No i'm saying your opinion has no substance and your quite strong in your opinion. if opinions could be wrong then yours would be, or else your lack of counter reasons make it appears that way.

tryingmybestt

mickoo wrote: »

No i'm saying your opinion has no substance and your quite strong in your opinion. if opinions could be wrong then yours would be, or else your lack of counter reasons make it appears that way.

on that basis if i say the sky is blue and you ask for proof and i dont give it then i'm wrong lol

nice logic

walshb

tryingmybestt wrote: »

this fight is at Cruiserweight not HW

look at moores record....he had many many ko's at HW


i look at video evidenece and opinions of experts...ring magazine is not a poll for the general public....experts and historians decide

Fair enough. That is whole lot better than "he hit harder."

Now, your 'hit harder' comment is for CW, I know this. I disagree. I think a CW Holyfield was a helluva hitter.

Here's one for you. IF Holyfield after he unified CW decided to stay at CW, not move to heavy, and continue as a CW, do you not think the polls would be different for him? I mean, I could see him knocking out anyone that fought him at CW. He would be close to unbeatable.

Moore's rating in the polls are based off his KO record at 175 more so than when he ventured into HW. He had many many fights as a LHW. When he fought the best at HW he was found wanting.

Holyfiled's rating is based on his whole career too, but most of the career was when he was HW, a champ, and meeting men mostly bigger and heavier than he. So, the polls don't always tell the whole story.

At CW, IF Holyfiled stayed there, then I reckon the polls would be a hell of a lot more favourable to Evander.

tryingmybestt

walshb wrote: »

Same way you claiming Marciano's chin is better than Tyson's. You discounted the weight, never factored in that Tyson was taking shots off men who were heavier by a good deal than any Marciano victims.
.

i never ignored the weight with rocky and tyson...in fact i clearly said it was a factor but rocky's other attributes could overcome it

how do you know what i factored in when giving my opinion??

i factored in all the variables and then gave my opinion....also rocky did take shots of much heavier men, although most were lighter than tysons opponents some were heavy too....holyfield ko's tyson and he was blown up CW...was about 218lbs i think on the night

walshb

tryingmybestt wrote: »

i never ignored the weight with rocky and tyson...in fact i clearly said it was a factor but rocky's other attributes could overcome it

how do you know what i factored in when giving my opinion??

i factored in all the variables and then gave my opinion....also rocky did take shots of much heavier men, although most were lighter than tysons opponents some were heavy too....holyfield ko's tyson and he was blown up CW...was about 218lbs i think on the night

Ok, you did factor it in? If so, then you are the only one from that thread to think Rocky's chin was better. So, the thread was NOT p4p, and if you did factor in that Mike was taking shots off bigger men more consistently, how did you come to the conclusion that Rocky's chin ws better?

P4P I could see your argument, but the thread was not p4p. You made it at HW.

Holyfield did NOT KO Tyson. He stopped Tyson aftre 11 rds of pasting, when Mike was still on his feet.

No matter what boxrec says, Tyson was not knocked out. He was stopped.

tryingmybestt

walshb wrote: »

Fair enough. That is whole lot better than "he hit harder."

Now, your 'hit harder' comment is for CW, I know this. I disagree. I think a CW Holyfield was a helluva hitter.

Here's one for you. IF Holyfield after he unified CW decided to stay at CW, not move to heavy, and continue as a CW, do you not think the polls would be different for him? I mean, I could see him knocking out anyone that fought him at CW. He would be close to unbeatable.

Moore's rating in the polls are based off his KO record at 175 more so than when he ventured into HW. He had many many fights as a LHW. When he fought the best at HW he was found wanting.

Holyfiled's rating is based on his whole career too, but most of the career was when he was HW, a hamp, and meeting men mostly bigger and heavier than he. So, the polls don't alwyas tell the whole story.

At CW, IF Holyfiled stayed there, then I reckon the polls would be a hell of a lot more favourable to Evander.

nobody is dusputing Holyfield hits hard...Holyfield is already rated the best CW ofall time

how do you know moore's ko status is based more so on his career at LHW??...for me the fact a smaller HW had many ko's at HW would elevate him more in the p4p status of greated punchers

the rating is p4p so it takes into consideration holyfields size at HW....moore was smaller than holyfield yet had much more ko's at HW....holyfield usually went to points at HW

tryingmybestt

walshb wrote: »

Ok, you did factor it in? If so, then you are the only one from that thread to think Rocky's chin was better. So, the thread was NOT p4p, and if you did factor in that Mike was taking shots off bigger men more consistently, how did you come to the conclusion that Rocky's chin ws better?

P4P I could see your argument, but the thread was not p4p. You made it at HW.

again i'd base it on video evidence...rocky never stopped.....rocky down a couple of times but recovered quickly

tyson stopped few times and rocked badly many times e.g. bruno, tucker, ruddock etc.

walshb

tryingmybestt wrote: »

again i'd base it on video evidence...rocky never stopped.....rocky down a couple of times but recovered quickly

tyson stopped few times and rocked badly many times e.g. bruno, tucker, ruddock etc.

Like I said, you were alone in that view. So, I am confident that for single shot absorption, Tyson was grade A plus. Rocky was A.

walshb

tryingmybestt wrote: »

nobody is dusputing Holyfield hits hard...Holyfield is already rated the best CW ofall time

Did you not make a claim that Moore hit harder, whether it be below 200 lbs or p4p? Did I read it wrong?

I never said you did not say Holyfield hit hard. I am debating the claim that you made saying that Moore hit harder, that is all.

tryingmybestt

walshb wrote: »

Like I said, you were alone in that view. So, I am confident that for single shot absorption, Tyson was grade A plus. Rocky was A.

why are we debating a different thread anyway??

some of the posts gave rocky a chance actually

anyway if a few people on the forum believe tysons would win does this make it fact

i don't see any posts saying specifically that tysons chin was better!!

some posts said tyson was too big and strong but none about his chin, except maybe from you

u seem to be bending the truth again

try and stay on topic as it gets confusing bringing up older threads in a newer thread

if you want make another point in the relevant thread

tryingmybestt

walshb wrote: »

Did you not make a claim that Moore hit harder, whether it be below 200 lbs or p4p? Did I read it wrong?

I never said you did not say Holyfield hit hard. I am debating the claim that you made saying that Moore hit harder, that is all.

the thread is about a fight at CW...so anything i say is in relation to that

if i said moore hit harder its obviously in relation to being at CW, where the point is relevant

walshb

tryingmybestt wrote: »

the thread is about a fight at CW...so anything i say is in relation to that

if i said moore hit harder its obviously in relation to being at CW, where the point is relevant

Yes, you did say he hit harder at CW. I disagree. I think it's too close to call.

As for the threads deviating. You are relatively new here, deviation always happens in threads. When it becomes so far deviated, then it is an issue. But, your thread, your call. I wouldn't sweat too much either way.

Back to topic. CW Holyfiled has too much intensity, volume, power and determination and technique for Moore to handle. Moore was a great LHW, but was really not a big guy for even CW. Holyfield was a natural CW, bigger than Moore by a bit. That added to them both being excellent sees Holyfield win.

tryingmybestt

evander was 5 ko's from last 20 fights at HW

moore was 10 ko's from his last 20 fights at HW

so i think this backs up my claim that pound for pound moore hits harder so therefore at CW he hits harder as there is a weight limit

walshb

tryingmybestt wrote: »

evander was 5 ko's from last 20 fights at HW

moore was 10 ko's from his last 20 fights at HW

Ok, and what does this prove? Look at the men, the opposition, weights etc

You just posted up a fact, that is all.

I believe I made a very relevant point when I said that IF Holyfiled stayed at CW, what would his ko record have been, and how would he have been rated by the historians, experts, polls etc.

tryingmybestt

walshb wrote: »

Yes, you did say he hit harder at CW. I disagree. I think it's too close to call.

As for the threads deviating. You are relatively new here, deviation always happens in threads. When it becomes so far deviated, then it is an issue. But, your thread, your call. I wouldn't sweat too much either way.

Back to topic. CW Holyfiled has too much intensity, volume, power and determination and technique for Moore to handle. Moore was a great LHW, but was really not a big guy for even CW. Holyfield was a natural CW, bigger than Moore by a bit. That added to them both being excellent sees Holyfield win.

actually i agree that its a close call, i don't think it's clear cut either way....i could make an argument for both winning

i definitely don't think holyfield blows moore away, no way

walshb

tryingmybestt wrote: »

actually i agree that its a close call, i don't think it's clear cut either way....i could make an argument for both winning

i definitely don't think holyfield blows moore away, no way

In a ten fight series I think it's 7-3 Holyfield.

tryingmybestt

walshb wrote: »

Ok, and what does this prove? Look at the men, the opposition, weights etc

You just posted up a fact, that is all.

I believe I made a very relevant point when I said that IF Holyfiled stayed at CW, what would his ko record have been, and how would he have been rated by the historians, experts, polls etc.

if moore had more power than holyfield at HW i think it points to him being a bigger baner at CW IMO

tryingmybestt

for me i'd give moore a slight edge....5.5/10

walshb

tryingmybestt wrote: »

if moore had more power than holyfield at HW i think it points to him being a bigger baner at CW IMO

Yes, that seems fair, but impossible to tell. Holyfield at HW usually always met men that were bigger. He also knocked out a fair few of these men, and some were very good heavyweights. Holyfield's power at HW I believe is somewhat underrated. P4P he was a massive hitter.

tryingmybestt

walshb wrote: »

Yes, that seems fair, but impossible to tell. Holyfield at HW usually always met men that were bigger. He also knocked out a fair few of these men, and some were very good heavyweights. Holyfield's power at HW I believe is somewhat underrated. P4P he was a massive hitter.

most of these debates are only opinion so i dont think we have to prove them...i respect your opinion and i can understand your logic

at CW holyfield was a big banger IMO, at HW i would say very good but not great

fore me holyfields best attribute was his toughness and determination


also i don't recall many 1 punch ko's for holyfield, especially at HW

moore had a large number

cowzerp

tryingmybestt wrote: »

evander was 5 ko's from last 20 fights at HW

moore was 10 ko's from his last 20 fights at HW

so i think this backs up my claim that pound for pound moore hits harder so therefore at CW he hits harder as there is a weight limit

Moore fought several men around 172 in his last 20 fights and only 5 at or barely over 200lbs plus there records where mostly with many many losses

Holyfields where mostly 22lb and way more and most had only lost a very small number of fights.

walshb

tryingmybestt wrote: »

most of these debates are only opinion so i dont think we have to prove them...i respect your opinion and i can understand your logic

at CW holyfield was a big banger IMO, at HW i would say very good but not great

fore me holyfields best attribute was his toughness and determination


also i don't recall many 1 punch ko's for holyfield, especially at HW

moore had a large number

Of course they are just opinions, I guess at times I can be very precise, and when I see a "claim," as oppposed to a view/opinion, I challenge it.

Moore had several KOS at or above 175 lbs. But, remember, back then, anyone above 175 lbs was a heavyweight. Today, and in Evander's time, many of them are CW fighters. That is why I beleive era is very important. So, really, Moore was knocking out many CW men, not HW men. HW men in HIS ERA, but to be precise and fair to BOTH, we need to really analyse this.

Also, when Moore met good HWs, elite ones for their time, he didn't do the trick.

Also, I am quite certain that many of the men that Moore knocked out that were above 175 and below 200 lbs, Holyfield would have done the same thing.

walshb

tryingmybestt wrote: »

also i don't recall many 1 punch ko's for holyfield, especially at HW

moore had a large number

But, again, he hurt many and stopped many, many who were bigger than he.

Just because one shot didn't get lights out I think is not all that important. I don't think Moore at HW would have gotten them men out with one shot either.

walshb

tryingmybestt wrote: »

fore me holyfields best attribute was his toughness and determination

Yes, and I would have to add his beautiful combination punching, and all shots very damaging. He hit you with4.5 and 6 power shots in two seconds. He did this at CW too, and it is why I feel that even Moore, being slick, will atch one or two of these clean, and throughout the night. Holyfield's jab too was also a deadly weapon

tryingmybestt

cowzerp wrote: »

Moore fought several men around 172 in his last 20 fights and only 5 at or barely over 200lbs plus there records where mostly with many many losses

Holyfields where mostly 22lb and way more and most had only lost a very small number of fights.

yes holyfields opponents were heavier but also bad opponents such as Botha, Nielsen etc.

also your not factoring in that holyfield was much heavier than moore as a HW....this extra weight would be negated at the 190lbs limit for CW

moore weighing 200lbs fighting ppl 200lbs is comparable to holyfield being 225lbs and fighting ppl 225lbs

at CW they will have limit the same for both so it becomes more about p4p punch power

tryingmybestt

walshb wrote: »

But, again, he hurt many and stopped many, many who were bigger than he.

Just because one shot didn't get lights out I think is not all that important. I don't think Moore at HW would have gotten them men out with one shot either.

but moore at HW did have one punch ko's ...he even had the rock down 5 times

i think the fact that there arent many 1 punch ko's shows he doesn't have one punch ko power, therefore not an elite puncher such as trinidad or jackson etc.....also holyfield picked great shots and landed clean combos as you said and still often no ko....would you not agree on this?

walshb

tryingmybestt wrote: »

but moore at HW did have one punch ko's ...he even had the rock down 5 times

i think the fact that there arent many 1 punch ko's shows he doesn't have one punch ko power, therefore not an elite puncher such as trinidad or jackson etc.....also holyfield picked great shots and landed clean combos as you said and still often no ko....would you not agree on this?

No, Buster Douglas fight!;)

Holyfield was for many a small heavy. Not too small, and in other eras, a true heavy, but in his era at HW he mostly faced natural HW men. He was always that bit smaller. Hence this can affect the effect of his shots on these bigger men.

tryingmybestt

walshb wrote: »

No, Buster Douglas fight!;)

Holyfield was for many a small heavy. Not too small, and in other eras, a true heavy, but in his era at HW he mostly faced natural HW men. He was always that bit smaller. Hence this can affect the effect of his shots on these bigger men.

i'd agree he was relatively small but also so was moore relatively small but he still got the ko's.....to me this is another basis for arguing his superior punch power IMO

walshb

I'm off training, will catch you later.

tryingmybestt

yeah too many posts and i should be working lol