Thread: Michael Moorer at light heavyweight.

Could double M have been one of the greatest LHW's ever, had he stayed at 175?

He was a killer at LHW & judging by his relative success at HW, I really think he could have been.

I never thought the heavyweight division suited him as he looked podgy, but at light heavy, he was a monster, with a jab from hell, who massacred opponents.

Could Moorer have lived with the likes of Foster, Moore, Charles or Spinks at LHW or even bettered them?

I once sparred with a guy that went 6 with Moorer. Said he'd never been hit so hard in his life. I believe he had some ribs broken in that fight. This same guy also narrowly dropped a 12 rd decision to andrew maynard that was very disputed.

But, no, I don't think he'd have beaten Moore, Foster, et. al...Moorer had a problem mentally when it came to getting hit back and feeling it. It changed his whole approach to the game after the Stewart, Cooper, and Smith fights at HW. He was hit and hurt by Stewart, knocked down twice (if I remember correctly) by Cooper. He won those fights but became "safety first" against Smith, still went down and never took another chance in his career. Those top guys would have hit him back and hurt him, and they weren't the kind to stand around and get hit back.

In fairness to Moorer, though, I think when they made weight would have been a factor. Making weight the day before the fight would certainly help Moorer, while making weight the day of the fight would for sure hurt him. Also, Moore, Spinks, and Charles were better at HW than Moorer and it took some good fighters at the higher weight to beat Foster. So size probably wouldn't have mattered.

Double M was very good but it's easy to look that good when you are naturally bigger than everyone else.....remember this same guy ballooned up to 250 later in his career.

I think the smaller guys with higher work rates and good defense would bother him....and I think Bob Foster would have beaten him soundly.


I always wondered how he would fair vs a post prison Mike Tyson....if he could take Holyfield's shots he could possibly take Mike's

Originally Posted by Syntax Error

Could double M have been one of the greatest LHW's ever, had he stayed at 175?

He was a killer at LHW & judging by his relative success at HW, I really think he could have been.

I never thought the heavyweight division suited him as he looked podgy, but at light heavy, he was a monster, with a jab from hell, who massacred opponents.

Could Moorer have lived with the likes of Foster, Moore, Charles or Spinks at LHW or even bettered them?

His opposition was terrible at Lightheavyweight its hard to judge yes he looked good but against who exactly ??

Moorer was the Heavyweight champion and Foster and Moore never achieved that so i would say Moorer was a better heavyweight.

And yea he played it safer but remember he was in with hitters at 230 plus and were power punchers big difference in power form 175 and 230. At Lh there are only a few that would pose a threat and they were Spinks, Foster and Roy and maybe Moore but hard to judge because time difference. The only guy i would bet on to beat Moorer was Spinks i think he could pull of a Ud on Moorer pluse he was powerful at the weight as well.

Don't forget.

Ezzard Charles, Charles Burley, they both would mop the floor with Moorer and they both mopped the floor with Archie Moore aswell.

ICe to tell you the Truth i have a hard time with comparing people form the early days in vs the game has changed a lot . In the era of Moore and Charles then when Moorer, Spinks, and Jones fought it just the way i look at it hard to compare eras so far apart sometimes.

And look if we are taking the Moorer that beat Holyfeild i do not think any one at LH is going to mop the floor with him.

Originally Posted by Mr140

ICe to tell you the Truth i have a hard time with comparing people form the early days in vs the game has changed a lot . In the era of Moore and Charles then when Moorer, Spinks, and Jones fought it just the way i look at it hard to compare eras so far apart sometimes.

Well think of it this way imagine guys like Burley and Charles with modern training techniques.

Originally Posted by Mr140

And look if we are taking the Moorer that beat Holyfeild i do not think any one at LH is going to mop the floor with him.

Moorer beat a very poor Holyfield with a bad shoulder and heart problems and he still only won MD.

Yea but that is what gets me right there it is hard because we do not know they might be completly different fighter Ice. I just take them for what they did and compare to how they do if you plucked them form there era and put them against Moorer, Spinks or Jones.

I mean Gene Tunney if he had all the training he could make a good case as well he was ahead of the game when he fought back in the day. And that same old Hart problem Holyfeild went on to beat a Mike Tyson and get a belt again Holyfeild had heart problems through out his career and still manged to win. Moorer beat Holyfeild and he was a maybe not the best version but he still woulod give people problems in the Hw division let alone the LH.

I don't think the modern fighters have an edge with modern training techniques: I believe that that is a hindrance. I believe that old time fighters had an edge in quality of opposition and in "field" education. Now, Moore failed to win the HW title because he couldn't beat Marciano. Neither could Moorer. Foster lost to Ali and Frazier and so would Moorer. Moorer beat Holyfield, and Foster would have, probably, Moore would have certainly, and Tunney would have massacred Evander.