Originally Posted by mr. magoo
Foreman beat the very best version of Moorer. McCall beat a solid fighter in Lewis, but one who's skill had yet to improve. And if we're going to chalk up Foreman's win over Moorer as a case of a one punch knockout, then I think we can do the same in McCall's case.
Let's expand upon this a little. Foreman also had wins over Coetzer, Stewart and Savarese, who were all comparable to Seldon and an aged Damiani.. McCall defeated an extremely old Holmes who some felt was an iffy decision. Maskaev had only 6 fights, and took a three year leave of abscence after his pro debut. Foreman's losses in the 90's were decisions to Holyfield, Morrison and Briggs. McCall's losses for the decade were Lewis, Bruno, Tucker and Norris. Two of those opponents were past it.. Top it off with the fact that McCall had one of the most disgraceful quit jobs in boxing history in the Lewis rematch, and I think I'm going with Foreman as the better man of the decade.
I chalk both up to one punch knockouts. Would you pick Moorer to beat Lewis? That's the real question and my main basis since neither did an incredible amount else.
Coetzer was a joke. Stewart had already taken loses and proven to not be good. Count Savarese if you want to--that win is better than Maskaev at least.
I still think Damiani and Seldon were better than these guys. Damiani was a good fighter and would've been undefeated if things turned out a little different against Mercer. Seldon legitimately won a title. I didn't watch McCall's fights with Tucker and Norris, but I assume they were close loses. And Tucker was still a decent contender in the early 90s. I'm sure Holmes would've beaten Foreman too. I think it boils down to picturing McCall as a crying crackhead to drop him in the rankings, which I don't think is legit.