Michael Moorer

He went to 175 because he liked to eat more than one bean a day. Seriously, Manny had him on a full starvation diet. It was not possible to maintain as he aged, and certainly not healthy.

 

Moorer was fun at 175lbs, but no great. The Stewart and Allen fights showed his limitations....

I do not think he beats Hill or Williams at 175 let alone Moore or Foster.

I personally think he is only pick-em against Jeff Harding.

And without hindsight, this was very much said at the time, Moorer (who did have big problems with weight at 175) could of peaked at 190 if he had stopped of there.

But the modern Cruiserweight division is boxing's ******* division, so you cannot blame Moorer for wanting the money that came with big Heavyweight bouts.

 

Moorer wouldn't have beaten any greats at LHW, period. Just too limited. Some moron in the General Forum recently by the name of LennoxGOAT was trying to tell me he was head to head the best LHW ever.

atsch

 

I personally thought he was better at HW actually, seemed to be a more solid fighter.

At LHW he couldn't fight going backward and wasn't hard to push backward, he had leaky defense that any of the big punching LHW greats would've exposed, like Saad Muhammad or Qawi, and he just didn't seem to have much of an arsenal aside from his southpaw jab and straight left. He carried a lot of power, but otherwise he's terribly overrated at LHW for whatever reason.

While he likely wouldn't be facing the same caliber of punchers he faced at HW, he was so weight-drained I don't think he'd have fared any better against the greats durability wise at LHW.

 

Whatever his limitations at LHW, he established himself as the best fighter on the planet at heavyweight.

How many guys who fought at 175 can say that?

 

Probably the power that a man at 175 who can at 250 fight well and beat Vassily Jirov has.

Drained or not he operated well enough and his power was scary. People are going on about Valero but Moorer had that type of power at the lower weights as well. He hit people and they froze.

 

C'mon, he was never the best figher on the planet. He beat Holyfield by MD only to lose his tite directly after to ancient George. He'd have lost to most other top HW's at the time, and did for the rest of his career.

A single win doesn't make you the best fighter on the planet, regardless of what titles you hold on paper.

Was Baldomir the legit best WW on the planet after beating Zab?

 

:huh

He was better than Valero for sure, don't get me wrong there. But he never proved himself against any elite fighter at LHW. He looked better at HW than at LHW to me, much more sound overall.

 

He performed extremely well against Jirov at that weight. His frame could carry it.

 

Was Jimmy Braddock the legit best fighter on the planet after beating Max Baer?

No, but you couldnt exactly ask him to prove more.

At that moment, Moorer was the lineal descendant of Sullivan, Jeffries, Johnson, Louis, Marciano, Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman (should have watched that one), Holmes Tyson etc.

 

:huh He was being thoroughly outboxed for the entire fight prior to catching Jirov late, and he outweighed him by 30 pounds. You must be thinking of another fight.

 

OK.....

He still wasn't the best fighter on the planet, and it was proved shortly afterwards. Props to both guys for pulling off huge upsets, but aside from a single win, I would never classify either as the best fighters on the planet.