Mike Moorer vs. Jack Johnson

You're right. I grew out of listening to fairy tales a long time ago.

 

What is fairy tale from what he said? Johnson was definitely smart figher and he was definitely more natural fighter than Moorer. He was also quick and athletic. Moorer also wouldn't know how to box with early 1910s gloves and rules.

I thinj the only fair way to matchup them is to give them a few months to adjust and learn opponent, including studying tapes.

 

I've never seen footage of Johnson, and I've seen quite a bit, where he shown any sort of "cat like speed and reflexes". He did have an excellent Ring IQ, but most the tricks he employed would lead to being DQ'd after the Walker law.

Let's say it does go back to before the Walker law, and Johnson holds all the cards, Moorer could come in at his prime, pristine 175lbs form and would have a serious speed advantage, hit hard enough to stop Johnson and be the most tricky fighter he'd ever fought. Not that I'd pick him to win in 1914 though. Johnson of the Jeffries fight would be conditioned enough to go 20 and has a few definite advantages. His right hand, clinch style works better against a southpaw due to how the right down the pipe would be easier to land and the lead-foot clash would cause issues for both to get out of the clinch, immediately favouring Johnson. Johnson gives rounds waiting for Moorer to lead though, but when Moorer does lead, Johnson takes over and wraps him in his web.

Moorer would be his best win, without question.

With Johnson losing half of his armoury, and Moorer used to the rules of the fight, I'd pick Moorer in a heart beat.

 

Don't you think that Johnson could adjust his style to more modern rules?

 

I imagine he's fully capable of it. I don't like extrapolating that though, since there's literally nothing to go off.

 

Boxings moved on, you can't compare a 1990s boxer to an early 1900s fighter

 

I don't think anyone is claiming that history will regard Moorer as the more innovative or historically important fighter. Just watch the film of both guys though. The sport really started to evolve in the 40's and 50's. When I watch film of Johnson fight, I see a dominant guy in his era but I don't see any reason to think he would be competitive against a top 90's heavyweight. Again, my opinion is based on boxing not historical importance.

 

Wladimir did the same for almost 20 years.

Because with small gloves high guard wasn't effective. I don't think he would fight with small gloves anymore though, would he?

Ot worked for some of the best boxers ever, including a guy named Muhammad Ali.

He wouldn't be short against Moorer (1990s heavies) and this is what this thread is about. We don't match up him with Fury here.

 

Do you think that modern style would be effective in 1900s rules and equipment?

 

I absolutely believe so. We will never know for sure so it seems silly to continue the debate. I would say I believe the same thing to be true in every sport to be honest.

 

I don't know boxing well enough, but I can tell you that 2010s style of basketball wouldn't work in 1970s. So no, evolution is not a progression.

 

He mauled Moran whenever he wanted.

Why should we blame him that he didn't try outclinch much bigger Willard? He wouldn't do that to modern giants either, but this thread is about Moorer who is not bigger than Johnson.

Johnson would face in this hopethetical fight someone his size, not someone much bigger. Maybe Johnson wasn't as durable as Ali (who was?) but he was definitely durable enough. He wasn't stopped in his prime even once for over a decade.

It depends on who he fought and how long he fought. He had quite impressive workrate for an old out of shape man against Willard for 25 rounds.

15 pounds? What version are you taking here? Johnson was healthy 200 lbs natural fighter against Jeffries and Moorer fought half of his career in lower weight. Besides, Johnson beat bigger men than himself more than enough.

 

I should chronicle this thread and many others in my @mcvey / @Mendoza civil war folder.