Questions about Michael Moorer

I don't think Moorer could have stayed at LH any longer. He held out at that weight for as long as he could. Plus, he was not the top dog at LH when he was there.

The Foreman loss was one thing, the 30 second slaughter at the hands of Tua was something different. He looked really good vs Foreman right up to the point of the KO. He was at the right place at the right time vs Holyfield, or he would have never held a belt.

 

Looked awesome at LH .I was surprised he moved to HW so quickly and no cruiser .his power had less impact at Hw and he was more vulnerable.still thats where the big dosh is.

 

Yes he did, but who did he fight at light heavyweight? Were any of them ranked in the top 5 by Ring Magazine? Moorer held the WBO belt, which was a distant 4th back in the 1990's among alphabet crowns.

As a heavyweight, he had fine skills and good power, but a very suspect chin. I'm not sure if Moorer would be #1 today, with the division today.

I'd still pick Wlad and AJ to beat him. Fury? 50/50. I wish he was around to help sort out the mess.

 

It did suck.

I was just reading one of the old mags from '89 and Arum bragged he was going to have all the champs fight each other and unify the division.

That never materialized, to say the least.

note: Czyz was beaten twice by Willams and once by Hill in title fights. So, he wouldn't have been part of the unification equation.

Hill/Moorer/Andries or Harding/Williams would have been the participants.

Moorer/Williams would have been an absolute war.

Hill probably could have beaten all of them.

Williams had the worst management of the bunch and really lost out on some big paydays.

He held the IBF title until losing to Maske in '93 but faced pretty mediocre opposition outside of Czyz.

 

he did come back to win another title after the Foreman loss...and i tbought he fought competitivy in the Holyfield rematch even though he looked out of shape and ended up getting KOd

to be honest i feel like his public fued with Teddy Atlas and persona as being weak minded hurt his career more than anything else

no one really faulted him for caving under Foremans punch, it was just so amazing because Moorer had been dominating the fight up until that point

 

i dont care a **** about ,all i know is that he would destroy jones,and would be a hell for charles and spinks or foster, he had huge frame for a lhw,he was skin and bone at that weight

 

i dont hold Tua loss against...he had already fallen off the deep end by that point. that fight should never even have been sanctioned

 

He knocked Jirov out after that and won a string of fights. Stop the hyperbole.

 

The WBO title was not worth much back then. By the way, it still is not fully recognized as a major sanctioning body today.

 

Pretty big call FD, he never really beat anyone at 175.

It's a shame, he may well have been the best of his lot but we'll never know.

Personally i think he would fall well short vs Spinks and Foster as he'd only had 22 fights when he left 175 and had not faced good enough competition to gain the experience needed to be that great of a fighter regardless.

You don't learn the trade just by fighting easy beats, you need increasingly difficult foes. Granted it wasn't all his fault, some good fights fell thru but it is what it is.

He hasd some power tho, would have loved to have seen it tested against decent fighters.

 

kovalev never did beat anyone neither and still he is ranked very high,the samething with golovkin, moorer was a natural 200 pounder,a full sized cruiser with brutal ko power,a real force at 175 h2h and his chin was very good at 175, with the chin of roy and his power i have no doubt,moorer by ko