Michael Moorer vs Lennox Lewis

Lewis could get lackadaisical against inferior competition, it's the reason he had those surprise Ko losses. Moorer was a southpaw with quick hands and good power.
This should be an easy fight for Lewis. If he's on his game, fights over with in 5rds for him.
Lewis in a 10 fight series wins 8-2.
But most great fighters win 9-1 , or all 10.

 

Their chins were about the same. Both went down when clipped and usually got up. I think Moorer would do better than Ruddock here mainly because he wouldn't expose his chin as obviously as Razor did.
If you watch Lewis/Ruddock it almost as if Razor told Lennox 'I'm about to very slowly throw a jab to your body please decapitate me.'

 

After they lost their titles The Ring kept rating Moorer above Lewis for what seemed like ages. It was embarrassing and irritating. In his book, Atlas said Lewis was simply "too dangerous" for Moorer during that time.

 

Why? Moorer had some good results. Both of them were knocked out by underdogs. Moorer had a win over Holyfield. Lewis losing to McCall was probably a worse loss than Moorer losing to Foreman.
Ratings are based on results.

 

Good old American bias.

 

It's not bias to rate a guy who beat Holyfield then lost to Foreman, over a guy who beat Phil Jackson and lost to McCall.
(I'm talking about their recent form, on losing their titles in 1994).

 

It is bias. Moorer lost his title to a 45 year old fighter in his first defense.

 

Yes, but he won it from Holyfield a few months earlier.
McCall was a chump too, don't forget. A complete nobody.

 

Poor Moorer.

 

McCall was a physically powerful fighter with an iron jaw

 

Kind of like old Foreman then.

 

A wise guy eh?

 

I'd say that's accurate, except Foreman was indubitably physically stronger than McCall.

 

Foreman was just better than McCall.

So I'm not sure why people say they were dismayed that Lewis ended up ranked slightly behind Moorer (for a few months) after they lost their titles.

 

Absolutely.