Would you consider Michael Moorer a Great Fighter?

A very good fighter,...not a great fighter.

 

Wish he would've stayed at 175.

 

No. If he had stuck around longer at light heavy, he could have become a great one in that division. But never has becoming a multiple time world heavyweight champion meant so little as it did with Moorer. His KO loss to 44 year old Foreman is a real black mark too.

 

Heavens no.

 

You could just about argue it, based on cross division accomplishments.

 

Moorer was somewhat unlucky. Michael Spinks stole his glory.
Moorer was one of only four men ( the others being Bob Fitzsimmons ,
Spinks and Jones Jr) to win both LHW and HW title.
Moorer is one of three men to win HW title on three separate occasions.
(the others being Ali , Holyfield and Lennox Lewis ).
So based on Moorer underrated achievements yes there is a very valid
argument he was great.

 

Jones Jr. never was HW champ. Moorer did not win the HW championship 3-times. Belts are not championships.

 

No, but how many fighters who were legitimately top players at light heavyweight, have gone on to be lineal heavyweight champion?

Not that many.

 

Moorer was never the top player at 175 tho, unlike Spinks who had a fine reign there and also beat a couple of fantastic fighters to boot. Moorer didn't beat guys as good as spinks second tier i reckon.

 

I agree, but I think that you would at least have to be a legitimate contender at light heavyweight, to be as invested in the division as Moorer was.

If we are looking at guys who were world class at light heavyweight, but later went on to win the lineal heavyweight title, then we are left with the following list.

Bob Fitzsimmons
Tommy Burns
Gene Tunney
Jimmy Braddock
Ezzard Charles
Floyd Paterson
Michael Spinks
Michael Moorer

Not a bad list to be on.

 

I think Moorer had great skills, but not great career (just very good).

His resume lacks elite opponents at LHW.

At HW he has win over ATG Holyfield, when Moorer won lineal HW championship of the world

Other than that, it's Shulz, Bert Cooper, Alex Stewart, James Smith, Botha, Vaughn Bean, CW Vasiliy Jirov.
Far from great resume.

His KO loss to nearly 46 y.o. Foreman was really a bad thing for Moorer's resume.

As for skills, Moorer had great right jab, straight left, right hook (his money punch), right and left uppercuts, and he threw them in series. Moorer had also nice counterpunching skills. He was technically sound boxer.

Moorer had one defensive flaw - he often blocked punches while standing against the ropes instead of slipping them. That was bad idea as Moorer's main weakness was his chin.

Moorer also was lazy in the later stages of his career, both in and outside the ring.

Very good figter, but certainly not great.

 

Great name to have on a resume as well as talented and nice to watch but not a great fighter. A little bit below that for me. Imo he didn't have a good ring iq which brought him down a lot.

 

I look at Moorer`s time at `75 like Oscar DelaHoya at `30. He grabbed a belt and was overwhelming with size and power but was never really tested there. Had a quality opponent taken them into deep water we may have seen them fall apart from making that weight.