At light Heavy its no contest for me ,Charles destroy s MM.But this is Heavyweight so maybe ,just Maybe Moorer gets the win ? Moorer who beat Holyfield v Charles who beat Walcott for the title .?
Walcott was far better than the version of Holy that was beat by Moorer in a boresnore, Holy was having problems with his heart and looked sluggish, he didn`t throw many punches and neither did Moorer, if Moorer was negative like that v Charles he would be outworked and out boxed, his only chance v Charles is to go for a KO, but his chin would not hold up and Charles would knock hinm outt, no way could Moorer push Marciano that close and nor could he take the punishment Charles took from Rock. Update: Just started watching Moorer v Holy and Charles v Walcott 3, and Charles is far faster and working the body better than Moorer, who early on was punching far out of range.
Moorer was unpredictable at heavyweight, he didn't have a lot of confidence in himself imo. If he faced Charles ,believing he could beat him then Ezzard s in for a rough fight. I see a point win for Moorer .But the best version of Ezzard could hurt him and remain on top ,and beat him ,maybe by late stoppage.
I do as well. He would be a in the hall of fame for sure he he had another belt at light heavy and maybe even won the cruiserweight belt. I believe MM is critically underrated. People make way to much of him having a weak chin. Getting knocked out by Foreman and Tua is nothing to be ashamed of. In regards to who would win between him and Charles, Charles is one of my all time favorite fighters to watch. It is tough to compare fighters from different eras but my take is Charles was the better more versatile boxer while MM was the harder puncher. My heart says Charles but I would not be shocked if MM can out on top.
Another thing to consider is if MM had to way in same day like Charles did there is no way MM would fight at 175. He had to kill himself to make that weight and then had a full a day to rehydrate before fighting unlike Charles who at one point fought at middleweight. MM is a much bigger man.
Moorer was nowhere near Charles level at ligt heavy and never fought the same quality of opponent that Charles did at tat weight, Moorer was easier to hit at light heavy and was in bad trouble v Swindell at that weight, also when he first moved up to heavyweight he was wild and easy to hit, he improved his defense as he matured as a fighter, we never got to see him against Hill, Williams or even Andries at light heavy.
He was rated behind the other two more established champs, Hill and Williams by the ring magazine, Hill was rated among the top 10 P4P fighters in the world at that stage and Moorer wasn`t.
What does that have to do with anything? I never commented on Charles vs Foreman. MM got knocked out because he stood in front of Foreman after dominating him for 10 rounds up to the point he got nailed. It's not like MM was running from him like Tommy Morrison did.
So what. He never got to fight either one of them. A lot of people wanted no part of fighting MM at 175. He had rep at Kronk from destroying everyone in those days. Are you saying he would not of beat Hill or Williams? I have a ton of respect for both of those guys but I would favor MM against both. Look at boxing history-- not many people moved up from 175 and had the success MM had at heavyweight.
I'm not convinced he would have beaten Prince Charles Williams, let alone Ezzard Charles. Ezzard Charles is one of the best LHWs of all time.. Michael Moorer was the 4th best LHW in his own time. Could he have risen to the heights of an Ezzard Charles. Who knows. He jumped to HW too early. Untapped potential does not equal actual results in importance.
He had the fourth title. Frankie Swindell and a fading Leslie Stewart were his best two wins. And he struggled with both. He was strong and powerful and easy to hit and did not have an impenetrable chin, even at 175 lbs.
