Who achieved more?: Riddick Bowe or Michael Moorer

I think the obvious answer is Moorer. I would say Bowe was a better heavyweight fighter.

 

Michael Moorer achieved more, despite me voting for Riddick Bowe, but as the poster previously pointed out, Riddick was the better fighter. Bowe's resume at Heavyweight is actually very good despite his short prime, but he didn't have the success at Light Heavy that Moorer did.

 

Riddick sold more tickets, style was fan friendly, had some great fights with Evander. Moorer always left you wanting more.

 

What lefthook said.

 

Overall: Moorer

At HW: Bowe

Since the thread starter mantioned Moorer's light-heavy credentials I assumed he was looking for the former, and so I voted accordingly.

 

I picked Riddick Bowe. Bowe was never Ko'd and lost only once to a man whom he beat twice. he also defeated a better version of Evander Holyfield than the one who Moorer fought with a tweaked shoulder and a heart condition. Getting Ko'd by a 45 year old Foreman didn't do Moorer much justice either. Moorer's acheivments at light heavyweight were nothing to write home about. Leslie Stewart was most likely the best man he beat in that weight class, and he was being outboxed handedly before dropping Stewart late. Holding the WBO light heavyweight strap during a time when it was basically a non-entity does not give him much claim to being a multi-divisional champion. As for competition, well I'd say its close. Moorer's wins over Holyfield, Stewart, Cooper, Botha, and Schultz are probably on a similar plane to that of Bowe's victories over Holyfield 2x, Coetzer, Hide, Donald, Gonzalez, Tubbs, and Seldon. Not much difference there. As mentioned earlier, Bowe beat a better version of Evander than Moorer did, and took two out of three away from the real deal. Moorer split a series with Holy and was stopped in the rematch. Bowe killed Cooper in two rounds, while Moorer battled life and death with him to a near loss.

 

I gotta lean with Moorer over Bowe..... Both choked in the end, but Moorer spread out his career a little better than Bowe did........ Bowe was a fly-by-night guy........ Bowe was on fire in 1992 and burned out by '96........ Prime-4-prime, Bowe beats Moorer, but Moorer was actually better for a smaller man coming up...........

MR.BILL

 

It's got to be Moorer. Unfortunately for boxing Bowe will as be viewed as an underachiever while I think that in some ways Moorer over-achieved. Not that I don't think that Moorer is a very good fighter but he did become undisputed champion after jumping form light-heavy and having something of a questionable chin.

I kinda change my mind about Bowe every now and again. Sometimes I think that at his best he would have been a handful for most heavy weights throughout history but then I ask myself what exactly did he achieve? Not a great deal in fairness. He's a difficult one to rank for me

 

Bowe quite easily, yes Moorer was a LHW until his 23rd bday but he didnt really beat anyone good at that weight or hold a decent strap, WBO was close to what IBO is now in '88, that wasnt his fault they didnt want any of him but it doesnt help his LHW credentials either.

Whats Moorers second best win? Botha? Shulz? Bowe not only went 2-1 over Holy, he also has a better second tier set of wins by beating Coetzer, Donald, Hide, Gonzalez, Biggs, Seldon. Plus he didnt get KTFO by a 45yo or sparked in 1 round like Moorer was

 

Bowe did IMO.

Moorer was an exciting prospect at light-heavyweight but the WBO title wasn't legit. Virgil Hill and Charles Williams were certainly rated higher simply on the opposition they had beaten, and Andries and Harding were fighting three wars with one another at the same time Moorer was icing second-raters and has-beens.

So I dont think Moorer having been world-class at two weight divisions necessarily puts him above Bowe.

At heavyweight Bowe achieved more. I think Bowe gets a raw deal sometimes. People only talk about the Holyfield and Golota fights, and the absence of Lennox Lewis on his record. That's okay when comparing Bowe against the greats, but if you want to compare him against Moorer and credit Moorer for beating guys like Bean, Botha, Schulz then you should acknowledge that Bowe beat several fighters of that calibre.

 

So being a undefeated LH champion with all knockouts, and winning the heavyweight title twice, once by defeating the same man as Bowe, didnt put Moorer higher in the achievement column?:huh

 

No

 

No it doesn't.
He wasn't really a "champion" at light-heavyweight. He held the "WBO title" which was created out of thin air and beat Ramzi Hassan for the "honour" of holding it. Ramzi Hassan had just been thoroughly outboxed by Virgil Hill on the Hearns-Barkley card, and Moorer was just an 11 fight novice who had only beaten tomato cans. This was a joke of a "world title". And most of those defences were against thoroughly washed-up fighters or complete nobodies. Moorer often looked sensational, but as a rising prospect KO artist, not a genuine world champion.

At heavyweight he barely beat Holyfield, who was having the worst performance of his career up to that point (and possibly his worst performance until he fought Ruiz or Byrd !). Holyfield looked awful - sick, old or injured or all three, and he still arguably won the fight ! It was razor close either way.
George Foreman's comeback had petered out and he'd effectively gone into another retirement after Tommy Morrison had thoroughly outboxed him. 18 months later he's called up as a soft-touch for Moorer's first defence, hadn't done anything to earn his shot. Moorer got KO'd.

And Moorer's second "world" title reign at heavyweight consisted of wins over Schulz, Botha and Bean before being beaten up by Holyfield. This was 1996-97. I rated Tyson, Bowe, Lewis, Holyfield, and even Bruno and Golota as better and more proven heavyweights than Schulz, Botha and Bean at around that time so I dont rate Moorer's IBF title reign as anything special.