Foreman - Is it telling that...

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

Do you steadfastly stand by this criticism, or is this just your personal bias at work again? In multiple posts over the past year, you have defended fighters like Archie Moore and Ezzard Charles as being legitimately good fighters at heavyweight, despite their previous careers at middle weight and light heavyweight. Now, are you willing to give moorer the same dues, or are you going to do what I suspect you will, which is to start a whole other debate on why it was ok for Moore and Charles to make the jump without loosing credibility, yet the same doesn't hold true for Moorer, on the basis of what YOU consider to be valid career accomplishments?




Why am I not surprised at this response? Hmmmm. Maybe it's because I figured that you were incapable of leaving a long lost debate alone, and likewise couldn't refute my claim that Holyfield was a better win for Moorer than anyone Tua or Ike ever beat, so your only answer is that it was the worst night of Holyfield's career. Interesting, given that Evander was still only 31 years old, coming off the best win of his career against Riddick Bowe, and managed to floor Moorer. I don't know how many of Evander's fights you've actually seen, but for the record, it was not his worst performance nor even close. Sure Moorer lost in the rematch , but frankly I don't see the shame in having one of only a small handful of losses to an all time great do you?



Oh really? and how many quality wins did Tua or Ibeabucci have in the 90's? I think I counted maybe 2 a piece. Big deal. Besides which, your statement " except for Holyfield " isn't the reality. That was a big fight and a huge corner stone on Moorer's resume.




Botha, Cooper, Stewart and Bean weren't bums either. You want to talk to me about how good Daroll Wilson and Derek Izon were?



Since when is getting knocked out by Foreman ( a man commonly listed as one of the 3 hardest hitters of all time ) an indication of a weak chin?




Boy, just when I think that you can't come up with something even more irrelevant.

Tua Knocked out Moorer in 2002, when Moorer was on the comeback trail at 35, and what does this fight have to do with Tua's accomplishments in the 90's? Jeeez....



Coulda, woulda, shoulda. It never happened, and therefore the mere assumption can't be used to rate Ike higher.



Yeah but, that's not when Tua fought him was it? No. He fought Izon, when he was a nobody who had just lost to a 5-6-2 tomato can, and with not a single quality win to his credit. Saying that he beat Savarese in hind site doesn't mean anything. Tua's people thought they were fighting a safe opponent, and they were absolutely right. Izon was a bum.



Stewart fought Foreman in 1992. By the time he fought Maskaev in 1997, he was shot to pieces. Doesn't any of this shit matter to you, or are you still hoping that I'll let you get away with incomplete explanations and half truths?



Who cares? At the age of 39, Moorer's record is 49-4. At age 38, Makaev's record is 34-5. How does that equate to Maskaev being better? Plus, do you really think Maskaev has beaten a longer list of better opponents?

1. Charles and Moore--Charles defeated 40 fighters rated when he fought them, and had 18 victories (against six defeats) against Hall-of-Famers. Moore defeated 44 fighters rated when he fought them, and had 12 victories (against 10 defeats and a draw) against Hall-of-Famers. If Moorer has similar achievements when he retires, he should be ranked with them.
Both Charles and Moore fought often and well at heavy. Charles defeated 16 heavys rated when he fought them--Moore eleven. In fairness, Moorer's victory over Holyfield is more impressive than any single victory by Charles or Moore, but Schmeling's victory over Joe Louis, while more impressive than any single victory of Jeffries, Johnson, or Dempsey, does not, in most people's eyes, elevate him above these old champions, as his overall record is weaker.

2. Izon was a bum?--He was good enough to knockout Savarese and what difference does it make what Tua's braintrust thought of him going in? Beating Savarese in hindsight means that he beat Savarese, period.

3. It is speculation what Ibeabuchi would have done with Moorer--It is not speculation that he defeated Tua, while Moorer was ko'd by Tua in one.

4. Tua knocked out Moorer in 2002. Yes, in one round. Sort of like Sonny Liston knocking out Roy Harris in 1960. Makes it obvious Liston was better, doesn't it, whatever one thinks of each man's accomplishments in the 1950's.

5. Tommy Morrison is another who could be ranked ahead of Moorer. Moorer was knocked out by Foreman, while Morrison defeated Foreman cleanly.

6. Moorer's victory over Holyfield isn't just the cornerstone of his resume--it is practically the whole resume, his only impressive win at heavyweight.

[fists of fury]

The thing I remember most about Holy-Moorer 1 was Teddy Atlas going bananas in the corner. He was begging, pleading, threatening and berating Moorer after every round.
Each to his own, but I was not impressed nor convinced by Moorer as a heavyweight.

[mr. magoo]

[quote]

Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY

1. Charles and Moore--Charles defeated 40 fighters rated when he fought them, and had 18 victories (against six defeats) against Hall-of-Famers. Moore defeated 44 fighters rated when he fought them, and had 12 victories (against 10 defeats and a draw) against Hall-of-Famers. If Moorer has similar achievements when he retires, he should be ranked with them.
Both Charles and Moore fought often and well at heavy. Charles defeated 16 heavys rated when he fought them--Moore eleven. In fairness, Moorer's victory over Holyfield is more impressive than any single victory by Charles or Moore, but Schmeling's victory over Joe Louis, while more impressive than any single victory of Jeffries, Johnson, or Dempsey, does not, in most people's eyes, elevate him above these old champions, as his overall record is weaker.

My whole point is that Moorer's career accomplishments shouldn't be diminished, nor should his value as a heavyweight in the 90's be tarnished because he was a lightheavyweight. By the way, he was one of the most feared lightheavys in the division during the late 80's/early 90's, during a time when the division had considerable talent. Moorer had knocked out all 23 of his opponents, and none of the other lightheavys wanted anything to do with him, which is part of the reason that he vacated the division.

2. Izon was a bum?--He was good enough to knockout Savarese and what difference does it make what Tua's braintrust thought of him going in? Beating Savarese in hindsight means that he beat Savarese, period.

A single good win that came later. He was a nobody going in against Tua, who had lost to a guy with a record of 5-6-2 in the fight right before facing Tua, and had never beaten a guy who was higher than tomato can status.

3. It is speculation what Ibeabuchi would have done with Moorer--It is not speculation that he defeated Tua, while Moorer was ko'd by Tua in one.

When Moorer was at least 5 years past his prime, and on the comeback trail. A point which for whatever reason you continue to ignore, and I'm not exactly sure why. Besides, how does a single defeat against Tua, create an argument that Ibeabucci was better overall from a career perspective, despite his win over Tua? Not to mention, what does Tua's win over Moorer have to do with the two men's accomplishments in the 90's? Based on Your logic, it would be like claiming that because Holmes beat Ali in the 80's, that he was a better fighter than Ali was in the 70's. I'm begining to wonder if you're getting my point, or if we're even debating the same issue for that matter.

4. Tua knocked out Moorer in 2002. Yes, in one round. Sort of like Sonny Liston knocking out Roy Harris in 1960. Makes it obvious Liston was better, doesn't it, whatever one thinks of each man's accomplishments in the 1950's.

This has already been addressed in depth, but incidently as sort of a side debate, do the outcomes of head to head matchups always determine weather one fighter is better than another from a legacy standpoint, or for that matter deserving of a higher rating in a particular decade? The answer is no. Not always. Iran Barkley scored two unavenged victories against Thomas Hearns. Could you honestly look at someone in the eye and say that Barkley deserves a higher rating Hearns? Bowe beat Holyfield two out of three times. How many people rate Bowe higher in the grand scheme of things? These are just two very basic and over simplified examples. If you go back and research some of the great fighters of old, you'll find that many of them had unavenged losses at some point in their careers to lesser fighters, yet it doesn't seem to effect their legacies.

5. Tommy Morrison is another who could be ranked ahead of Moorer. Moorer was knocked out by Foreman, while Morrison defeated Foreman cleanly.

Doubtful. Morrison was Ko'd badly by Michael Bent, and drew with 8-8 ross purity. He was also Ko'd early by Ray mercer, another fighter whom I'm not so sure I can rate above Moorer. Additionally, he had near losses to Journeyman Joe Hipp, and a washed up Carl Williams. None of these men were the calibur of Moorer, plus Moorer defeated a larger array of better opponents overall, while Morrison primarily feasted on journeyman, tomato cans and has beens. Comparing Tommy Morrison to Michael Moorer is irrelevant, despite Morrison's victory over Foreman, and Moorer's failure to beat George. When you analyze these things, you have to look at the whole picture, and not just the components that conveiniently suite a debate.

6. Moorer's victory over Holyfield isn't just the cornerstone of his resume--it is practically the whole resume, his only impressive win at heavyweight.

It was ceratainly by far his biggest win, and a noteworthy one at that. I disagree however, that it was the only good win he had. Frans Botha was undefeated in 35 fights, and had just taken the IBF world title away from Axel Shultz. Moorer handed Botha his first check mark in the "L" column. Alex Stewart was still a pretty good fighter when Moorer fought him. He was 27 years old, a big heavyweight, had knocked out all 26 of his victoms, and had losses to only prime versions of Holyfield and Tyson. Bert Cooper, was on the best run of his career and a ranked contender. Moorer and Cooper slugged it out for 5 rounds, in what was much like Foreman vs Lyle. If you've never seen these fights, then I strongly recommend that you watch both. Vaugn Bean was undefeated in 27 pro fights, another Moorer victom at heavyweight. Moorer also beat Axel Shultz, who I never thought much of, but hey, he was rated to.

Originally Posted by fists of fury

The thing I remember most about Holy-Moorer 1 was Teddy Atlas going bananas in the corner. He was begging, pleading, threatening and berating Moorer after every round.
Each to his own, but I was not impressed nor convinced by Moorer as a heavyweight.

Nobody was.
When Moorer won the title the story in the heavyweight division was how awful Holyfield suddenly looked (and his diagnosed heart trouble) and how Riddick Bowe should get in shape.

Few people - if any - considered Moorer the best heavyweight in the world. He'd looked totally unconvincing scraping past an utterly dismal and jaded Holyfield.

[ChrisPontius]

Originally Posted by Sonny's jab

Nobody was.

Magoo clearly was.

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

Magoo clearly was.

Undoubtably