Why is Michael Moorer not in the hall of fame?

It's not a question of "fault." If Moorer had an ounce of stuff in him, though, he'd have finished a fighter in Holyfield's condition. Instead, he chose to potshot with the jab.

Gatti may have lost fights (as if Moorer didn't), but I'll take his two victories over Patterson and Ruelas over Moorer's win over that Holyfield. Don't make the mistake of overblowing Holyfield just because he's a heavyweight. That night he was ridiculously awful and he was always sporadic at best. At least as a heavy.

 

Holyfield was head and shoulders at his peak above every Gatti opponent except Floyd and De la Hoya (both of whom destroyed Gatti), that's an undeniable fact. Surely, that night it was obvioulsly not peak Holyfield.

Holyfield's in everyones TOP-50 p4p all time list.

Neither Tracy Harris Patterson nor Ruelas are TOP-200 all time p4p.

 

Just tells me everyone overrates the guy. Not sure what to tell ya.

 

In what was considered by many to be the most aerobically demanding off all sports, that weight gain of from 172 in his debut to 251 right before his ninth round stoppage of Jirov was an increase in fighting weight. Who else packed on the pounds like that during a competitive career while winning? Buster Mathis, Sr. started at 300, but then trained down to an ultimate career low of 220 before going back up again. Buster Douglas also ate way too much, but after coming back from his diabetic coma, did not compete at more than 45 pounds over his lowest competitive weight. Huge Holmes challenger Leroy Jones also only had his weight range no more than 45 pounds from his lowest to his highest.

MM's walking (rolling?) around weight today would be revealing. Is he 400 pounds like Douglas was before his comeback, 550 like Mathis, Sr. before his death, or has he shrunk from loss of muscle mass?

For me, a cascade of medical conditions had to completely transform my metabolism for my weight to increase like that, and I certainly wasn't training for winning boxing competition over opponents like Jirov when that was happening.

At 251, Moorer would have dwarfed virtually all of the top 1970's heavyweight flock, and this was a former LHW. Greg Page weighed more than 251 for just half a dozen late career bouts against stiffs and has-beens. Starting as a teenager, Galento went up from around 180 to 235 during the substantive late 1930's portion of his career before topping out at 247 for Buddy Baer, so around 65 pounds of gluttonous self-indulgence.

Look who we're comparing Moorer's weight increase to. I suspect he was doing more than eating too many burgers and fries. Bob Foster could barely break 180 guzzling beer day and night.

 

It tells me that he inflated his head and shoulders above those of everybody else!:hey (I wonder what his hat size as an Olympian would've been compared to now?)

My father saw a clip of Barry Bonds from 1993's "Rookie of the Year," and was completely stunned, not recognizing Bonds at all. (This was around 2006.) It was as if somebody had stuck an air hose in his ass and flicked on the switch some time over the next dozen years.

 

Well Holyfield has exactly 7 wins over gyus who are already in the HOF. Overrated? Please no.

Tracy Harris Patterson and Gabe Ruelas have 0 (ZERO) wins combined over HOF'ers.

Don't even try to argue that

 

Oh, so now we're arguing the merits of the voting system. Awesome.

Holfield is overrated at heavy. He just is.

Of course this has zero to do with the original conversation.

 

And what the hell do you people have against Brian Mitchell, anyway?

 

Agree on him. Undefeated in title fights, made 13 successful defences.

Compare that to Pipino Cuevas who is also in the HOF, or Gatti, or others.

Mitchell's place is well deserved.

 

I have no problem with Cuevas, either; several successful defenses, ATG power........love it.

 

I wonder if people would view Moorer's resume as being "better" if he had never returned to the ring after retiring in 1997. His record ended at that point as 39-2-0-31. He was a two divisional champion with a record of 14-2 in world title fights.. He had respectable ( but not great wins ) over an ill prepared Holyfield, Alex Stewart, Bert Cooper, Frans Botha, Axel Shulz, Leslie Steward, Vaugn Bean and an aged Bonecrusher.. His only two losses were to Foreman and Holy.. Something tells me that his come back did more of a disservice to him than anything else.

 

Yes, but his career after he lost the title was awful... and he was in his 20's only.

He has declined so fast that it reminds recent decline of Juanma Lopez (who of course wasn't as good in his prime as Cuevas)

 

So did Benitez, but few would argue his standing.........

 

Very mediocre quality of opposition.

South African ban from all world sanctioning organizations save WBA
Weak WBA top 10 ratings during his reign
Best career win a decision of Tony Lopez, after a draw with him

 

But, he won a world title at age 18 and had done quite a lot before Hearns starched him at 22.

Benitez also faded very fast after losing his last world title at 24.

Saad Muhammad was totally done after losing to Braxton (second fight)

They are in the Hall

I'm not saying Cuevas's record is as good as those two, but you have to judge each fighter on how early they started, what they accomplished, etc.