Joe Calzaghe v Michael Moorer at 175, who wins?

I remember when he first came onto the boxing scene. The other champions at 175 would not fight him and this is the reason he moved up to HW. So as far as poor comp, he was being duck by the better comp. I will go with Moorer via KO by the middle rounds. Moorer also was very fast at 175.

 

Moorer was a stud back in his prime well rounded in his own right I believe he had enough serious power to put Calzaghe down and actually finish him. Id lean towards Moorer this guy is very underatted.

 

Moorer was a bit of a plodder at 175 IMO, he was only fast with single shots. He had a sharp, snapping jab, but aside from that and his big straight left he didn't have a very strong go-to variety of punches. He also had trouble getting off with his shots when an opponent showed him good movement and angles, or if the opponent simply kept up a high workrate, which always seemed to bother him (another area of concern was his porous defense). He had to get into his groove to really let off, and I wouldn't favor him to do so against any actual elite fighter at the weight.

And the reason he moved up to HW was because of how badly effected by the weight-draining he'd started to become. That was another issue for him at LHW, his lack of physical strength.

 

MM by late TKO.

 

He's saying he was weak by straining to make 175

 

Either you have a great memory or you have the boxing bible which is most informative (Great Book by the way). Your right, but he was indeed ducked by many at 175 and he was a search and destroy fighter. I would have favored him to beat or give any of the elite fighters back then a really good chance. He was extremely hungry and he was just a natural "I'm going to kick the **** out of you" type of fighter. His chin was good, but as you say, if he was having problems with the weight, then a very good to great boxer would have beaten him. I just have to look up or remember who was around at that time.

 

Correct. Imagine if he was at 100%?

 

Moorer was a monster at 175....Moorer KO 3 Calzaghe....

 

No way Moorer can make 175 again

 

atsch talking about a young Moorer

 

Because he never faced anything resembling an elite fighter for one. He showed clear weaknesses even against his lackluster competition for two (physical strength being one, which has absolutely NOTHING to do with KO power, or a KO record). And he was very weight drained for three.

Hope I've been helpful.:good

 

Moorer looked good at 175...but against fairly mediocre opposition..whether or not people ducked him is irrelevant, his competition just wasnt very good there.

I think people tend to overrate him these matchups...and want to believe to much in his legend at the weight, which really wasnt warranted.

I think people are taking a bit of a leap of faith when they say Moorer could have beaten some of the best ever at lightheavy...which is fair enough I guess, I do the same a little bit with Pryor at 140..I just dont agree with it.

As for him vs Calzaghe...Would be a very close call if the current lightheavy version of Joe took him on but if Joe was to move up a few years ago, which he could of comfortably seeing as though he was always a bit supermiddle..Id take him to eek out a pretty clear decision, with workrate and his awkwardness shutting down Moorer's attack for the most part.

 

I think a guy like Virgil Hill would've beaten him, much less a true great at the weight like Spinks or Foster, or the cream of the 70's and 80's crop like the three Muhammads, Galindez, Johnson, Conteh, etc.