Moorer vs Holyfield what it tells us

[billeau2]

First off I profess a deep fandom for Michael Moorer. When he was on he was an incredible fighter one of the very best technically. Moorer and James Toney are among the best technical fighters of this generation in the heavier divisions.

I have a real problem calling Holyfield one of the best.

For example, the first Moorer fight,where he is artfully outclassed. Moore with his beautiful lateral movement, his mixing up of his punches, his jab and footwork makes Holly look horrible and for the Holly cherry pickers....this is a vintage Holyfield! But this in itself...well it happens.

Further inspection shows me that especially as a heavyweight, Hollyfield could not handle boxers....Byrd, Toney, Donald, and under these conditions Ibrigamov can not be cherry picked as after Holly was not at his best. This is a glaring weakness, Louis had problems with Conn...and he gets a load? Holyfield beat Mercer and precious few other boxers as a heavyweight.



On that note I have heard people say that Moorer didn't win that fight....Not only didn't he win it, he put on a masterful display and showed how ordinary Hollyfield could be in front of a skilled boxer that did not want to slug it out.

And frankly? there seems to be a resurgence of Holy love...and its all good, but I have yet to hear some of the same people who would not call lewis a great heavyweight because he got iced by two guys (one of them a real threat Mccall), mention how poor Holly was against guys who had technical ability as boxers. This is a real rub against the man who fathered as much lion fodder as Ghengis Kahn!

[Elroy1]

Michael Moorer was good but he was not really great as a HW.

He was a good opponent for Holyfield but he was not as good overall by a long shot.

I don't think Moorer would have done half as well against LEnnox or Bowe as Holyfield did and I think Tyson would have wasted him easily.

I think skill wise he was a match for Holyfield but Holyfield was stronger (thanks to a lot of help) and had a much stronger chin.

Holyfield was a great all around boxer but the reason he was such a tough one to beat was largely due to his solid chin.

[ShoulderRoll]

Moorer is in the discussion for best light heavyweight of all time. He for sure befuddled Evander, although wasn't their first fight the one where he claimed heart problems?

[Sugar Adam Ali]

First off I profess a deep fandom for Michael Moorer. When he was on he was an incredible fighter one of the very best technically. Moorer and James Toney are among the best technical fighters of this generation in the heavier divisions.

I have a real problem calling Holyfield one of the best.

For example, the first Moorer fight,where he is artfully outclassed. Moore with his beautiful lateral movement, his mixing up of his punches, his jab and footwork makes Holly look horrible and for the Holly cherry pickers....this is a vintage Holyfield! But this in itself...well it happens.

Further inspection shows me that especially as a heavyweight, Hollyfield could not handle boxers....Byrd, Toney, Donald, and under these conditions Ibrigamov can not be cherry picked as after Holly was not at his best. This is a glaring weakness, Louis had problems with Conn...and he gets a load? Holyfield beat Mercer and precious few other boxers as a heavyweight.



On that note I have heard people say that Moorer didn't win that fight....Not only didn't he win it, he put on a masterful display and showed how ordinary Hollyfield could be in front of a skilled boxer that did not want to slug it out.

And frankly? there seems to be a resurgence of Holy love...and its all good, but I have yet to hear some of the same people who would not call lewis a great heavyweight because he got iced by two guys (one of them a real threat Mccall), mention how poor Holly was against guys who had technical ability as boxers. This is a real rub against the man who fathered as much lion fodder as Ghengis Kahn!

Holyfield was great....

The fights you are referencing are of an old shot holyfield... Holyfield 88-93 was very capable of handling guys like moorer, byrd, ibragiov...

the wars at cruiser, dokes, bowe, foreman, alex stewart, bert cooper caused holyfield to age quickly... By 94-99 he was still a good fighter, but nothing like he was earlier..

And he destroyed moorer in the rematch

using fights post 2000 is not very fair way to assess holyfield...

[billeau2]

Holyfield was great....

The fights you are referencing are of an old shot holyfield... Holyfield 88-93 was very capable of handling guys like moorer, byrd, ibragiov...

the wars at cruiser, dokes, bowe, foreman, alex stewart, bert cooper caused holyfield to age quickly... By 94-99 he was still a good fighter, but nothing like he was earlier..

And he destroyed moorer in the rematch

using fights post 2000 is not very fair way to assess holyfield...

Thats a bs argument because if you take it to explain every loss Holy experienced in WOULD seem to imply that he was a fighter fighting in a division with an extremely limited peak....NOthing is farther from the truth! The guy fought long and hard in divisions.

Moorer was totally out of shape the second fight, hypocrite. I guess Holyfield's loses are because of wars and Moorer's loss was simply the skill of an otherwise shot Holyfield?

And heres he crux of why your argument is such BS....And I am not against lionizing Holyfield, to put things in perspective....Can you show how it is that Holyfield extreme would not have problems with a boxer of the calibre of the guys mentioned? You assume that he would handle able boxers on the level of Moorer and Toney, so show me the boxers he had such success against.

And....Holyfield any version should not have had trouble with the likes of Ibramov.

There are fighters like Jones and Tyson who had short peaks, I don't buy it with Holyfield. He was great at bulking up and going to war with other heavies, no doubt, but there is no evidence the guy could handle an excellent boxer. Isn't it the least bit ironic that he lost to among others, Toney and Moorer, two fellow "climbers?"

[billeau2]

Moorer is in the discussion for best light heavyweight of all time. He for sure befuddled Evander, although wasn't their first fight the one where he claimed heart problems?

I certainly put him in that discussion. He was a guy that when he was in his groove had exceptional skills. AS a matter of fact the first fight where he dismantled Holyfield he does things that the greats did....mix up his punches in combos, use a false fighting line (notice how his stance looks like Hopkins who also does this), slips punches to counter, uses footwork to get off the ropes, etc. And watching Mills knowing exactly when to break the guys....instead of that sellout Kenny bale-should-be-set....Oy vay!

[billeau2]

Michael Moorer was good but he was not really great as a HW.

He was a good opponent for Holyfield but he was not as good overall by a long shot.

I don't think Moorer would have done half as well against LEnnox or Bowe as Holyfield did and I think Tyson would have wasted him easily.

I think skill wise he was a match for Holyfield but Holyfield was stronger (thanks to a lot of help) and had a much stronger chin.

Holyfield was a great all around boxer but the reason he was such a tough one to beat was largely due to his solid chin.

Even a clock that has stoppped is right twice a day Elroy... Moorer was no heavyweight. His best fights were at light heavy, and he did not have the chin to fight big punchers consistantly. I believe this fight with Holyfield, taken in context comparing his performance against other excellent boxers, like Byrd, show two things:

Holly was not necessarily as good as people think and Rid**** Bowe was not necessarily as good as some people think. I mean a lot of people want to make it appear that Holyfield has this great resume and Lewis does not, I think the Moorer fight and the degree of success he had might say otherwise!

People forget that at the time Razor Ruddock was considered as good as Bowe. But yeah I agree with your statement about Moorer's heavyweight ability.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Moorer is in the discussion for best light heavyweight of all time. He for sure befuddled Evander, although wasn't their first fight the one where he claimed heart problems?

Moorer was a freak at light heavy, but is nowhere near the discussion of all time great light heavys... He never faced anyone of note there, and the WBO wasnt a major belt at the time he held it...


And yes, the moorer fight was blamed on holyfield's heart condition, and he would sit out a year until coming back and fighting mercer and bowe 3 in 95..

I honestly think the heart condition was BS, and a cover for being out of shape and possibly roids.. Emmanual Steward said that when he trained holyfield that holyfield hated running or doing anything cardio related.. And once holyfield was an established star, he ran his own camps and never wanted any cardio.. Thats why from 94 on, he always fought in spurts, and it seemed like he was totally dead at points in a fight ie rds 3,4,5 vs bowe in the third fight..

[BKM-2010]

I think billeau2 has a valid point with this thread, especially when it comes to the excuse making of Holyfield's losses. Yes he outclassed Evander in the first fight and deserved to be crowned the winner.

But in the rematch Holyfield put in some of the most beautiful combinations I've seen a heavyweight put together. He in turn had an incredible performance as well.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Thats a bs argument because if you take it to explain every loss Holy experienced in WOULD seem to imply that he was a fighter fighting in a division with an extremely limited peak....NOthing is farther from the truth! The guy fought long and hard in divisions.

Moorer was totally out of shape the second fight, hypocrite. I guess Holyfield's loses are because of wars and Moorer's loss was simply the skill of an otherwise shot Holyfield?

And heres he crux of why your argument is such BS....And I am not against lionizing Holyfield, to put things in perspective....Can you show how it is that Holyfield extreme would not have problems with a boxer of the calibre of the guys mentioned? You assume that he would handle able boxers on the level of Moorer and Toney, so show me the boxers he had such success against.

And....Holyfield any version should not have had trouble with the likes of Ibramov.

There are fighters like Jones and Tyson who had short peaks, I don't buy it with Holyfield. He was great at bulking up and going to war with other heavies, no doubt, but there is no evidence the guy could handle an excellent boxer. Isn't it the least bit ironic that he lost to among others, Toney and Moorer, two fellow "climbers?"

1. Its not BS,,, your using fights from post 2000 to support your argument.. Do you use leonards fights vs norris and camacho,, Do you say tyson cant handle bigger guys cause he lost to lewis, danny, mcbride... Its just not accurate description of evander when your using fights like toney, byrd, igbramov...

2. Im not being a hypocrite, holyfield and moorer were both not at their peaks when they lost to each other... When holyfield was at his peak, only bowe could beat him, and it was an epic war.. Moorer was getting stopped by foreman..

3. Prime holyfield handled the boxing skills of holmes just fine and that holmes was much better than toney, or larry donald.. So i think its safe to say that holyfield could handle "boxers"