Here's a hypothetical I don't see come up much. McCall was the #1 contender for Moorer's belts along with Lewis's. Moorer did not need to take a mandatory right away, and in terms of cash and name-value, it's no wonder Moorer went for a guy like Foreman instead. But how do you think this would've gone if it had happened instead of Moorer-Foreman?
I think Moorer would lose similar to how he did against Foreman: outboxing McCall for a while untill McCall lands something back and get knocked out. I wouldn't be suprised if McCall does it early in fact; he could be very agressive early on like he was against Lewis. As for Foreman, he'd be remembered as fighting gallantly well in his 40's against Holyfield and Morrison, but never regaining the title.
Michael Moorer had good boxing skills, and would put up a major fight if you hurt him a couldn't finish him off. I believe McCall would hurt Moorer from time to time, and make Moorer much more active than he normally is. I think Moorer would be winning the fight on points when McCall would finally hurt him one too many times and the ref would wave it off around the 8th. McCall
Moorer UD McCall (9-3) Only because Foreman KO´d Moorer late, behind on points, doesn´t mean that every primitive puncher (in contrast to Moorer) KO´s Moorer late, btw, McCall isn´t the puncher Foreman was...
Oliver wuold have been too strong for Moorer and remenber McCall was rated #1 in all three major bodies at that time,and that has nat been done since by any heavyweight. the question today is who would win TODAY.
1994 Moorer beats him. McCall wasnt the puncher people seem to make him out to be and IMO hes not really a savvy fighter. People react to what's in front of you and when Moorer was fighting a 45 year old former champ with a name recognition he wanted to look impressive. Had he listened to Atlas he would have certainly won the fight. Had he been facing McCall a more perceived threat then he would have fought accordingly. And beaten him.
I'd certainly debate McCall being perceived as a more dangerous fighter than even the old inactive Foreman...but I do think Moorer can win so long as he fights right. Moorer did tend to like to get dragged into a brawl a bit too often sometimes though...he couldn't afford a rush of blood to the head in hopes of a KO.
I'd have to go with Moorer, but as Sonny put it, it's a pick 'em fight. Moorer had a fair amount of skills including a good jab, great left hook, and underrated right. Sure, he was Ko'd by Foreman but that came late, and George was a much harder puncher than Mccall. Oliver had some skills, and needless to say, incredible stamina and a great chin. His abilities were a bit limited however. He had recently lost decisions to an aging Tucker and aging Bruno, who at that point in their careers, no longer had the skills that Moorer had. Oliver was also losing on points to Bruce Seldon before wearing him down in the 9th, something that wouldn't likely happen to Moorer. Moorer by a close 12 round decision.
Correction: McCall isn't the puncher that Foreman was, in the 70's. Foreman in the 90's went the distance in struggling or losing fashionwith every fighter with a pulse, Moorer being the only exception here. Why would Foreman be considered a good puncher when he couldn't KO any of his ranked opponents outside of Moorer?
Actually, something obvious that I'd forgotten... McCall would have Steward, Moorer's former trainer, in his corner. Got to think that would be quite a boon for McCall's chances of winning this fight.
