Is Michael Moorer an overrated LHW ?

No he was the real deal at 175lbs. He could only comfortably make the weight for a 3 year period and moved up quickly. So yes in that time frame I think he hangs with anyone at 175 but we can only speculate. Given his boxing ability and toughness shown at heavy weight, and pressed by better competition at 175 he would have stepped up and shown that potential. Offensively we know what he could do but you are right without ring battles we don't know he performs in the late rounds when pressed by someone like Qawi or tough nuts like Saad Muhammad who just stand there and refuses to be hurt. I do think he has all the tools and mental attitude to be a top 5 LHW, but that's all on assumption.

 

I don’t think too many people think that highly of him at that weight. His stay there was short

 

Unfortunately for him he never got to fight Hill or Maske who were the class of the division at that time. With that said, he had a nice career at heavyweight and likely would have been a three division belt holder had he fought at Cruisweight on the way up. The guy is both over and under rated by folks. I tend to over rate him because being a Midwest fighter in the 80's I heard all of the stories about him and what he did to people at Kronk. He was a very deadly fighter.

 

He was missing a signature win at 175. Though he was a wrecking ball against the limited opposition he faced there though.

 

The problem with most of these threads is they basically don't state where they think the fighter is rated. I mean, I get asking if you think someone by general sentiment is or isn't rated where they should be, but it can be too vague and open-ended to lead to a constructive discussion. I rate Michael and all, but the way I've noticed it, I seem to see people rating him mostly as this incredibly light heavyweight who did alright for himself at heavyweight. I see a drained light heavyweight who moved into more his natural division where competition was tougher but really more reflective of his level than his 175 showings. I basically don't think he accomplished much at the weight to say he was anything but very powerful and naturally large guy at the weight. If someone puts him on a list of top ten light heavyweights, for instance, because they think he was doing big things there, I think he's being highly overrated. If someone just thinks he's a noteworthy guy at the weight, from performances, that's fair enough, I guess. Calling him a champion there is not my favourite way to talk about him, but he was noteworthy.

 

Yes, massively IMO.

He was around the level of Beterbiev or Tarver, nothing more.

 

I't s virtually impossible to tell with any certainty on a H2H basis. He could have been anything or he may not have amounted to all that much. We really needed to see him against higher level opponents.

 

Moorer was lucky he didn't have to fight the likes of Saad-Yaqui-Qawi-Spinks.

 

Are any of those guys more dangerous than Holyfield? If anything, he is unlucky that he never got to prove himself against a top tier light heavy. His career will always be questioned because of the lack top level opponents at 175 on his resume.

For the record, I don't favor him over Spinks or even Qawi, but I would take him over Saad and Yaqui without thinking twice.

 

I don’t really even feel like he did enough at heavyweight to assume he’d be a destroyer at 175. His career at heavyweight is basically beating a Holyfield who is thought to have not been in form, losing to Foreman and Holy, beating Schultz and Botha and struggling w Cooper and Stewart.

 

He's still one of the best LHWs of all time.

 

One of... 25 best I guess?

 

Top 10 all time