Wrong. You may have only 6 spots available, I still have 8. Only Moore and Charles are on my list, the other 2 aren't.
Yes. I've said this many times, being great is one thing, winning a H2H battle is another. Simple, cause I see B-Hop and Tarver as being far better than the others you mentioned.
You know that your opinion without any substance isn't a strong evidence of someone being good H2H right?
Yes, and normally I'd agree with you, but when you're favouring somebody whose best win at the poundage is between Leslie Stewart or Frankie Swindell, vs a large portion of my own top thirty heavyweights, you end up looking daft. Especially when the argument is rife with inconsistencies. Picking him over Hopkins but not Johnson or Maxim is mental, and so is giving John Henry Lewis - somebody who was rated as the best light-heavy they ever saw by Eddie Futch (or Ray Arcel, I can't remember) - no chance at all. It's preposterous, really. Why? You've been asked questions like this countless times now, and have never answered with something substantial. Why are Hopkins - whose record at LHW pales in comparison to Lewis or Rosenbloom - and Tarver better fighters than Harold Johnson and Billy Conn. BTW, them being too ancient doesn't cut it. Conn was good enough to be like 9-3 up vs Joe Louis and Johnson beat the two best light-heavyweights in history. What are the technical/physical reasons that those two are not as good as Tarver and Hopkins?
Oh my god, it's like getting blood from a stone. I repeat: What are the technical/physical reasons that those two are not as good as Tarver and Hopkins?
Are you aware that this is not argument? Without any elaboration, I can say that "eye test says it all about Fitzsimmons vs Tyson matchup, Bob by KO".
You like this phrase don't you? It's your 'Get out of jail free card' when you can't form an argument based on analysis or evidence. You're in danger of becoming the forum's Luis Santana, ducking out of the fight and going for a shallow meaningless victory instead of standing your ground and winning or losing on your shield.
I just watched Moorer's fight with Leslie Stewart. He showed good power and a strong jab, but was reluctant to let his hands go and wasn't especially hard to hit. Stewart had a decent amount of success. Moorer, at that point, looked like the kind of guy who veteran fighters like Ward and Hopkins would be able to take advantage of. Spinks and Moore would've probably blasted him out.
Absolutely. I like Moorer, I like his viciousness, but its not that 'special' or unique a quality. Moorer's problem, I think, is that was unimaginative and stupid in the ring...anyone who gets knocked out by George Foreman the way he did but thinks to himself / says to Atlas in the change room's afterwards 'yeah, but I was boxing the shi t out of him wasn't I'....isn't taking the right lessons away from that event. I've heard he's bright outside the ring....it doesn't always translate across unfortunately. He's not what could be described as a great boxing mind....and while you can get away that these days because boxing is largely reduced the application of one basic fight plan vs another, that wasn't the case in yore days. Put Moorer back in the 40's and 50's where guys would box / fight various modes, make adjustments themselves let alone follow corner advice, set traps over short or long cooks (that even Archie would fall into) etc etc...Moorer's just going to struggle at the point that he can't rely on his physical tools. We've all already seen him (and Atlas apparently) be outsmarted by a glacial Foreman when it couldn't have mattered more; what do you think is going to happen when he's put in there over 15 with the trap setting mega-minds. I rate him as an interesting LHW on h2h's, but I'm really not sure he'd have even got past Toney's best at LHW. That said, White Bomber is entitled to his beliefs, as are we all.
