Moorer vs Holyfield what it tells us

[Sugar Adam Ali]

When you said you thought Evander clearly won the rematch were you referring to Lennox or Bowe? Sure Evander won the 2nd Bowe fight but it was pretty close to a draw still imo, and Bowe was back to fat and lazy self, not the same as 92. And of course he KOed him in the 3rd. I think h2h Bowe was a bit better than Holy. If you meant Lennox, granted Holy did well against him but even in the 2nd, Lennox still won. It wasn't a really good Lennox performance, he was inconsistent sometimes.

The biggest dispute I'd have with you was that Holyfield would always have beaten Tyson. I think if Tyson and Holyfield fought before he got locked up that Tyson would have got up. Holy nearly got KOed by Cooper and went the distance with Holmes. It's tough for me to envision anybody 205lbs being able to beat Tyson. But I am aware Tyson divides fans.

For the record I think the best version of Holyfield could best version of Tyson.

As for the rest of your post, the entire first bit, I totally agree. He did accumulate a lot of damage which I admit takes a toll on a fighter, obviously. He always seemed to me though in the 90's to be pretty sharp despite, he was a tough guy. But in terms of the measure of his greatness by the calibre and quality of fighters he fought there can be no argument.

Holyfield fought among the best resumes of opposition of any boxer overall. No doubt.

Of course he is greater than Moorer!

I was referring to bowe 2... I thought all three fights were close wars but each had a clear winner in all 3. As for Lennox-evander fights, I think evander stands little chance of beating Lewis at that time.. I thought Lewis won both times, though the 2nd was alittle closer..

The evander-Tyson, who wins, is for another thread, and I don't want to sidetrack the thread so I will stick to Lewis-holy

I think evander circa 89-93 could beat Lewis, but it's a close call. Any other versions of evander and Lennox dominates IMO

[billeau2]

ok let me clarify the point of this thread and a few things:

I don't think you can say Moorer was as good as Spinks or Foster. I do think he slips in a discussion of fighters at this weight that had the goods. His fight against Holyfield, where people constantly say:

a) Holy was past it
B) Holy's heart hurted
c) Moorer didn't win the fight

Are all garbage excuses. Watch the fight. Moorer puts on a clinic

Its equally ****** to say the jab was the reason he beat Hollyfield. Moorer mixed his punches up, he slipped punches all night that others got hit with. Moorer used footwork and made Holly look like an amateur because.....

a) Holly likes wars but has always had problems with boxers. A good technician could always be a problem for Hollyfield. No shame in that, bit it is a fact. Look at who he fought and HOW he fought them.

b) Moorer on his prime days was damn good. I would not say he is as good as Spinks and Foster because Moorer was inconsistant, and despite how much some of us love to watch him work....I can't say "well a prime Moorer beat one of the premier heavyweights and had George reeling", because his resume was what it was....

c) So why does Hollyfield get a pass? Bowe was an exciting trilogy but Bowe is not enough at heavy to give Holly a pass past Lewis who fought all comers and was the decision maker in denying many fighters like Briggs, Grant, Golata, etc success in the division.

If Holyfield was as Sugar seems to imply "prime mostly as a cruiser" then he can't be a better heavyweight than Lewis, or, we consider his succeses and weaknesses as a whole and dispense with the whole nonsense "a prime Holy would have bea Lewis"....yeah and the Moorer who fought Holy that night would have been hell for the Jinx! and Buster Douglas was one of the best ever because a prime Douglas gave Tyson a beating....see how ridiculous this line of thought is?

Its just not fair to Lewis.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

ok let me clarify the point of this thread and a few things:

I don't think you can say Moorer was as good as Spinks or Foster. I do think he slips in a discussion of fighters at this weight that had the goods. His fight against Holyfield, where people constantly say:

a) Holy was past it
B) Holy's heart hurted
c) Moorer didn't win the fight

Are all garbage excuses. Watch the fight. Moorer puts on a clinic

Its equally ****** to say the jab was the reason he beat Hollyfield. Moorer mixed his punches up, he slipped punches all night that others got hit with. Moorer used footwork and made Holly look like an amateur because.....

a) Holly likes wars but has always had problems with boxers. A good technician could always be a problem for Hollyfield. No shame in that, bit it is a fact. Look at who he fought and HOW he fought them.

b) Moorer on his prime days was damn good. I would not say he is as good as Spinks and Foster because Moorer was inconsistant, and despite how much some of us love to watch him work....I can't say "well a prime Moorer beat one of the premier heavyweights and had George reeling", because his resume was what it was....

c) So why does Hollyfield get a pass? Bowe was an exciting trilogy but Bowe is not enough at heavy to give Holly a pass past Lewis who fought all comers and was the decision maker in denying many fighters like Briggs, Grant, Golata, etc success in the division.

If Holyfield was as Sugar seems to imply "prime mostly as a cruiser" then he can't be a better heavyweight than Lewis, or, we consider his succeses and weaknesses as a whole and dispense with the whole nonsense "a prime Holy would have bea Lewis"....yeah and the Moorer who fought Holy that night would have been hell for the Jinx! and Buster Douglas was one of the best ever because a prime Douglas gave Tyson a beating....see how ridiculous this line of thought is?

Its just not fair to Lewis.

1. I will say moorer won clearly and at the time it was a major upset. Holyfield was still considered a prime guy heading into it

2. Hindsight being 20/20, Holyfield never looked the same after bowe 2. Even though we couldn't say that until years later. He transformed into a fighting in spurts fighter that used a lot of clinches and rough fighting to win fights.. He could still throw some beautiful combos every once and awhile, but he was no longer the evander that bounced on his toes and unleashed combos at a steady rate and would go to war if needed..

3. I only disagreed with the the notion of judging Holyfield by the post 2000 fights like Byrd, toney, Donald.. That was my main issue with your thread..

[ShoulderRoll]

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...

Michael Moorer never even beat a top 20 light heavyweight. He shouldn't be in any discussion like that at all. His 175 lb dominance is another boxing myth. Bob Foster or Michael Spinks would have obliterated Moorer and his glass jaw.

Moorer doesn't have the resume, agreed.

But if you put him in the ring against any other light heavyweight that ever lived I think he would more than hold his own against any of them. There's no doubt in my mind.

[beez721]

Moorer doesn't have the resume, agreed.

But if you put him in the ring against any other light heavyweight that ever lived I think he would more than hold his own against any of them. There's no doubt in my mind.

yea,,,,despite the weak resume moorer was an absolute beast at light heavy. he was also a good heavyweight but didn't have the chin to deal with the bigger punchers of the division

[billeau2]

Moorer also had gym cred, much like a fighter he has skills on a par with from Michigan, a mecca of boxing excellence vis a vis the folks at the Kronk Gym...a guy named James Toney.

In interviews with many from that gym Moorer was often described as a fighters fighter. His father, or grandfather apparently learned the craft from a guy named Ezzard Charles....Not a slouch for sure!

I think shoulder roll described it best....the guy was brilliante! and could hang with the best of them, just not resume wise because of, among other things, Moore's own inconsistant efforts. Kind of ironic that Holy also came up from the nether divisions, would have been great to watch em go at it at cruiser, or light heavy!

What I don't get is people who say with a straight face that Holly beat Moorer that first fight.

[beez721]

Moorer also had gym cred, much like a fighter he has skills on a par with from Michigan, a mecca of boxing excellence vis a vis the folks at the Kronk Gym...a guy named James Toney.

In interviews with many from that gym Moorer was often described as a fighters fighter. His father, or grandfather apparently learned the craft from a guy named Ezzard Charles....Not a slouch for sure!

I think shoulder roll described it best....the guy was brilliante! and could hang with the best of them, just not resume wise because of, among other things, Moore's own inconsistant efforts. Kind of ironic that Holy also came up from the nether divisions, would have been great to watch em go at it at cruiser, or light heavy!

What I don't get is people who say with a straight face that Holly beat Moorer that first fight.

yea,,,moorer clearly won that fight. I remember hbo crying robbery. I dunno what the hell they were thinking. it was a clear victory for moorer

[Scott9945]

yea,,,moorer clearly won that fight. I remember hbo crying robbery. I dunno what the hell they were thinking. it was a clear victory for moorer

Lampley was absolutely shocked by the decision. I had Moorer winning, but it was close. The scoring of the round Holyfield dropped Moorer was controversial.

[billeau2]

Lampley was absolutely shocked by the decision. I had Moorer winning, but it was close. The scoring of the round Holyfield dropped Moorer was controversial.

That round should have been a 10-9 because like most rounds Moorer was beating him to the punch. Lampley was green in the gills in them there days! I implore anyone to watch the fight with the volume down.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Moorer also had gym cred, much like a fighter he has skills on a par with from Michigan, a mecca of boxing excellence vis a vis the folks at the Kronk Gym...a guy named James Toney.

In interviews with many from that gym Moorer was often described as a fighters fighter. His father, or grandfather apparently learned the craft from a guy named Ezzard Charles....Not a slouch for sure!

I think shoulder roll described it best....the guy was brilliante! and could hang with the best of them, just not resume wise because of, among other things, Moore's own inconsistant efforts. Kind of ironic that Holy also came up from the nether divisions, would have been great to watch em go at it at cruiser, or light heavy!

What I don't get is people who say with a straight face that Holly beat Moorer that first fight.

Moorer is nowhere near as good as toney.. Both inconsistent but that kept moorer from being a HOFer and kept toney from being one of top ATGs of all time... Toney is more skilled than moorer, without a doubt


And besides HBO, who thinks Holyfield won... I'm the biggest evander fan, and even I know he lost..

That round should have been a 10-9 because like most rounds Moorer was beating him to the punch. Lampley was green in the gills in them there days! I implore anyone to watch the fight with the volume down.

Should be 10-8.. Holyfield dropped him, and that's the whole point of the sport.. But like I said, moorer won the fight clearly, evander was done by the 3rd and only fighting in spurts.. Moorer jab was just too much for evander