BoxRec

Not sure I can do this on the fly, but I will try

rd1- Moorer/Cooper
rd2- Ali/Shavers
rd3- Holyfield/Cooper
rd4- Foreman/Lyle
rd5-
rd6-
rd7-
rd8- Holyfield/Dokes
rd9- Holmes/Witherspoon
rd10- Bowe/Holyfield 1
rd11- Frazier/Ali 1
rd12-

I'll have to come back to this.

Limiting it to only one round of a particular fight is too limiting and consequently the perfect fight ain't so perfect.

It would be better at 15 rounds, too. That is the true championship distance.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Not sure I can do this on the fly, but I will try

rd1- Moorer/Cooper
rd2- Ali/Shavers
rd3- Holyfield/Cooper
rd4- Foreman/Lyle
rd5-
rd6-
rd7-
rd8- Holyfield/Dokes
rd9- Holmes/Witherspoon
rd10- Bowe/Holyfield 1
rd11- Frazier/Ali 1
rd12-

I'll have to come back to this.

Moorer-Cooper rd 1 over Frazier-Quarry I, rd 1?

yancey wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Not sure I can do this on the fly, but I will try

rd1- Moorer/Cooper
rd2- Ali/Shavers
rd3- Holyfield/Cooper
rd4- Foreman/Lyle
rd5-
rd6-
rd7-
rd8- Holyfield/Dokes
rd9- Holmes/Witherspoon
rd10- Bowe/Holyfield 1
rd11- Frazier/Ali 1
rd12-

I'll have to come back to this.

Moorer-Cooper rd 1 over Frazier-Quarry I, rd 1?

It's certainly arguable.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

yancey wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Not sure I can do this on the fly, but I will try

rd1- Moorer/Cooper
rd2- Ali/Shavers
rd3- Holyfield/Cooper
rd4- Foreman/Lyle
rd5-
rd6-
rd7-
rd8- Holyfield/Dokes
rd9- Holmes/Witherspoon
rd10- Bowe/Holyfield 1
rd11- Frazier/Ali 1
rd12-

I'll have to come back to this.

Moorer-Cooper rd 1 over Frazier-Quarry I, rd 1?

It's certainly arguable.

Smokin' Bert Cooper over Smokin' Joe Frazier?

Micheal Moorer over Jerry Quarry?

Two great heavies, at their peaks, mano on mano, when boxing was real, "two rhinos quarreling in the bush" as the first round was described by SI?

That first round, compared to a round where two guys kept falling down over punches that Quarry and Frazier would have walked through?

Arguable?

Uh, no.

Agreed, it isn't really arguable. Moorer/Cooper was clearly better.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Agreed, it isn't really arguable. Moorer/Cooper was clearly better.

Well, I guess you like your knockdowns, no matter the quality of the fighters. On that basis, we could probably find you an even more entertaining round on some undercard somewhere.

To my way of thinking, that INTENSE first round between two men clearly at another level, at their prime, head to head, trying to establish turf, made for a more compelling and memorable round. It was a great scene.

It was a more dramatic round and Quarry definitely wasn't on another level compared to Moorer. Maybe you should produce the master list for us instead of worrying about me picking one of the greatest rounds in Heavyweight history.

yancey wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

yancey wrote: Moorer-Cooper rd 1 over Frazier-Quarry I, rd 1?

It's certainly arguable.

Smokin' Bert Cooper over Smokin' Joe Frazier?

Micheal Moorer over Jerry Quarry?

Two great heavies, at their peaks, mano on mano, when boxing was real, "two rhinos quarreling in the bush" as the first round was described by SI?

That first round, compared to a round where two guys kept falling down over punches that Quarry and Frazier would have walked through?

Arguable?

Uh, no.

It isn't just about fellas falling down. It's about how rapidly --- & dramatically --- the momentum shifts. In the opening seconds, Moorer isn't merely down, he's fvcking out...or so his eyes lead us to believe. Not only does he get up & compose himself enough to survive, but he then nails Cooper hard to the floor twice. Cooper then gets up & bangs away on equal terms until the bell sounds.

You aren't gonna convince me that, "isn't even debatably as good," as the corresponding round for Frazier-Quarry I.

One of my issues with Moorer is his chin, or more specifically, lack of one.

In that first round with Smokin' Bert, when Moorer starts sagging into the ropes I'm not even sure he has been hit a good shot yet. With a china chin like that, I'm not even sure there would have been a second round had not that fat ref given him some extra time.

To be fair, I watched both first rounds in question again and I just don't think there is a comparison in intensity of the combat and quality of the fighters.

That is how I honestly feel.

To me, quality of the combatants is only one criterion of several, though. It's a big one, yes --- but there are other, not-insignificant factors.

They were both outstanding rounds, but I don't see why one is, "inarguably" better than the other.

This debate is almost as mind-numbing as watching folks arguing back and forth on "The People's Court" . . .

You are trying to prove something that is unprovable. "Excitement" is like beauty - its in the eye of the beholder.