I'll take Bonavena. He was made of sturdier stuff. Moorer had a good punch but seemed to bring his light-heavyweight chin up from 175. Oscar would throw him off his rhythm with his combination of awkwardness, strength, durability and a punch like a mule kick. Oscar by decision.
Good, sharp, straight punches took their toll on Oscar as Muhammad Ali and Zora Folley showed. I could see Bonavena taking a horrible beating here as his wide and slower shots would be brutally countered by Moorer's straight left time and time again.
Zora folley? ? That was oscars first big fight and a massive step up in class from previous opponents. As for ali, well, the best moored we ever saw was never even a pimple on the ass of even the 1970 ali. Bonavena taking a horrible beating by moorer is funny. The closest oscar ever came to a horrible beating was against a prime frazier (several classes above moorer) and even that wasn't a beating.
I favor the clearly better skilled man here. Moorer wins it more likely than not. But Bonavena has an okay chance of "out-manning" Moorer. I would favor Tua over Bonavena too.
Bonavena gave a good account of himself against Ali, though. I'd take Moorer anyway. But Bonavena's worldly, windmill unorthodox, throw caution to the wind style could upset the timing of a more cautious, systematic, confidence-based rhythm fighting southpaw in Moorer. I still think Moorer's being a tad bit underrated here. As if he was some second rate fighter that just happened to fill the gaps for Foreman to beat and become champion. Okay, maybe he is... but he beat Evander "The Real Deal" Holyfield in a 12 round decision. Not Teddy Atlas, but Michael Moorer. That has to count for something.
Bonavena beat peralta twice (getting robbed with a hometown draw once) and peralta was a better hw and lhw than moored ever was. He was also a one round swing away from beating frazier in a fight that a lot of people thought he won. That version of frazier. Young as he was. Would have cruised through moorer.
No he wasn't. Moorer has been chronically under rated for years...Glad to see it start to turn around though.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbhXmSBlS_U[/ame] This, except no homo. Just to hang out, play some Foosball, watch Khan/Judah, etc. ...Unless you look like Ronnie Spector 20 years before this video. Then, you know, whatever, we'll see what happens, I guess.
for the love of ****, look at that hair:yikes anyway, this thread is surprising. moorer seems downright hated on this forum sometimes. i admit, my knowledge of bonevena outside of frazier, ali and chuvalo is pretty limited but i thought a guy who clearly beat one top 10 all time heavy and spent 9 rounds completely dominating another wouldn't be so easily dismissed. neither holyfield nor foreman were at their best admittedly but holyfield was damn close and moorer holds solid wins over the "also rans" of the great 90s era. bonavena, from my understanding, fell just short against the best of his time. against an opponent who is so technically superior in moorer, i think he has enough flaws there to be exploited
Moorer is not better than peralta. Moorer has ONE elite win in his entire career and that was a razor thin decision over a listless holy who a lot of people (myself included) thought he lost. How does that place him in the level of giving a beating to a guy who competed at the elite level of the greatest he era ever and gave everyone hell? How many of bonavenas fights have you actually seen to be able to judge him? I've seen the majority of his fights and most of moorers. Sorry but anyone who struggles with swindell and those guys and gets stopped by a fatass old foreman is not better than a guy who took a prime foreman the distance and who defeated willie pastrano and mauro mina among others.
this is where is i struggle because i've seen very little of his actual fights and most of my knowledge of oscar is from his losing efforts to the best