How do you rate Michael Moorer at 175?

Hard to say. . I remember he destroyed guys who even tried to exchange with him, but his problem was the same at 175 as heavyweight, he stood still for too long and would have been stopped at 175, but he would have also had more reaction with his punches at 175.. So I think he should have stayed there for a better legacy.

 

He was a real killer but wasnt around long enough to prove himself against top shelf guys. Wish he woulda stuck around longer. That power was frightening

 

All those guys would beat him, the great that he would have stood a better chance with was Saad Muhammed even though he beat Lopez he was too easy to hit fighting a puncher like Moorer, I don`t know if Moorer could counter punch as good as Saad at Light heavy he improved his counters as he moved up in weight. Saad counter everything with the jab, Moorer`s jab was good at heavy. Moorer couldn`t take Kov`s punch even as a heavy!

 

I'm not sure getting stopped by Foreman abd Tua means you gonna be stopped by Kovalev.

Gesendet von meinem LG-H815 mit Tapatalk

 

Just not enough to go on. Monster power and huge potential but it's really open as to how he would have done against better comp. His chin may or may not have been excellent at 175. It's probably this factor that decides how he goes against these guys. His power would get him past some decent fighters regardloess you'd think.

 

His career was so short at 175 I am not sure how to see him...his chin was shaky at heavyweight and I don't remember him being in any competitive fights at that weight so where can he rate? He had the size of Spinks and greater power I think it would be fair to say he may have been an ATG with more big fights at the weight with more longevity.....but it is unfair to rate his accomplishments....head to heads are interesting

 

As others have said, there's not enough evidence to give him a strong historical rating based on his resume.

But against the limited opposition he displayed some outstanding traits: clever use of angles to set up his offense, riveting power, effortlessly brilliant combination punching, and an apparent love of violence. However he also showed hints of the problems that held him back at heavyweight: lapses in focus, occasional disregard for defensive prudence.

 

He didn't fight the elite in his own time, so we really don't know.

So, how can anyone rate him above the elite mid 70s-early 80s guys who proved themselves when the division was better than it was when Moorer fought at 175 lbs.

His best victims were Frankie Swindell, Ramzi Hassan and a faded Leslie Stewart - and Swindell and Stewart gave him a lot of trouble. And Stewart, not known for his resilency, being stopped earlier by Virgil Hill and Don Lalonde, seemed to take Moorer's punches well untill the 8th round.

Moorer was a hard puncher at 175 lbs. but I see not evidence that he was a harder puncher than Saad Muhammad, Mustafa Muhammad or Michael Spinks. And those guys proved themselves repeadedly against quality opposition. And based on the common oppent - Leslie Stewart, he didn't prove to be a harder puncher than Virgil Hill or Don LaLonde.

A fight between Charles Williams and Michael Moorer would have answered questions about his power and chin against elite competition.

And a fight against Virgil Hill would have answered questions about how he could handle an elite stylist.

 

Was a destroyer at LH pity he didn't stick around longer the weight got too much his power was less impressive at HW but still decent. A spell at cruiser would of been interesting I expect he dominates that division before moving up to HW.could of won titles at three weights shame it didn't happen.