Originally Posted by lufcrazy
Lewis was a miles better fighter than MM even at the time of the mutual losses. MM s****ed past a Holy who had a heart attack mid fight. Lewis destroyed Ruddock, Mason, Tucker, he knocked out Bruno and had Bowe's management in fits trying to avoid the fight. He was the Olympic Gold medallist and an undefeated 6'5 230 pound monster.
It's not even close.
Head to head I absolutely agree with you.. If placed in the ring together in 1994 or anytime for that matter, Lewis would have beaten Moorer handely, or at least I think he would. As for their standing at the time and the perception of the value of the wins, I'd say they were just about equal. Moorer was 35-0 and the defending lineal champ in his prime. Lewis was 25-0 and holding a fragment that he had won in vacant fashion. Lewis had wins over Ruddock, Mason, Biggs, Tucker, and Jackson. Moorer had wins over Holyfield, Stewart, Cooper and an old Bonecrusher. Both men had beaten fighters who were either past prime or jaded in some way, like holy for example with his bum shoulder against Moorer. Ruddock had just taken two beatings from Tyson a year earlier. Mason was coming back after a torn retina injury and looked like **** against Martin and Wills before fighting Lewis. Bottom line is, their standings as top heavys were very, very close. Both had good resumes, but not ones without flaws. Both men were beaten by fighters whom they shouldn't have been. The deciding difference is that Lewis would resurect his career where as Moorer wouldn't. But hindsite doesn't change what was going on at the time..