Is Micheal Moorer a HOFamer?

Was thinking back to the 90's heavies following the passing of the Duke and thought about Mr Moorer. Where would you put this guy? Great ko percentage and a decent record to boot. 1 of only 4 men to win the Heavyweight title on 3 occassions. Was involved in some great fights like his absolute slug fest with the great Bert Cooper.

If the Hall of Fame decides it needs a pigeon coop out back, Moorer might get in. Other than that....NO!

Not for me he isn’t. Decent enough fighter but take the win in the first Holyfield fight out of the equation and his record looks alarmingly thin of top level victories. However I am long past trying to work out the selection process at Canastota so it would not shock me to see him get the call, although his current exclusion seems to me one of the rare occasions they have got it right with regard to the heavies.

No. Maybe if he'd stayed at light-heavyweight and kept his "Kronk Crusher" mentality.

Bowe and Lewis would have eaten him for breakfast.

Quite a way off, for me. I suspect he might have beaten Hill had Hill wanted that unification fight at 175, and he was definitely a cut above Williams, Andries and Harding in terms of talent, but as none of those fights ever materialised I still feel a little unsure just how great a Light-Heavyweight Moorer was or could have been. Obviously a terrifying puncher at that weight, mind you.

As a Heavyweight, he's really just one of a bunch from his era, rather than one of the standouts. Superb win and performance against Holyfield, but then somehow finds a way to get himself knocked out against granddad George and got whipped badly against Evander in a rematch, albeit he showed great heart in that one. Outside of that, wins over Cooper, Schulz and Botha, while often exciting and / or pretty comprehensive, aren't really Hall of Fame material.

I don't really think there's much of an argument to be made for him, really. Good fighter, not a great one.

88Chris05 wrote:Quite a way off, for me. I suspect he might have beaten Hill had Hill wanted that unification fight at 175, and he was definitely a cut above Williams, Andries and Harding in terms of talent, but as none of those fights ever materialised I still feel a little unsure just how great a Light-Heavyweight Moorer was or could have been. Obviously a terrifying puncher at that weight, mind you.

As a Heavyweight, he's really just one of a bunch from his era, rather than one of the standouts. Superb win and performance against Holyfield, but then somehow finds a way to get himself knocked out against granddad George and got whipped badly against Evander in a rematch, albeit he showed great heart in that one. Outside of that, wins over Cooper, Schulz and Botha, while often exciting and / or pretty comprehensive, aren't really Hall of Fame material.

I don't really think there's much of an argument to be made for him, really. Good fighter, not a great one.

Not a good argument aye?

How about the fact that he was a small heavy/light heavy really winning the heavyweight title not once not twice but 3 times for a start.

No. Moorer is not a HOFamer?

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Quite a way off, for me. I suspect he might have beaten Hill had Hill wanted that unification fight at 175, and he was definitely a cut above Williams, Andries and Harding in terms of talent, but as none of those fights ever materialised I still feel a little unsure just how great a Light-Heavyweight Moorer was or could have been. Obviously a terrifying puncher at that weight, mind you.

As a Heavyweight, he's really just one of a bunch from his era, rather than one of the standouts. Superb win and performance against Holyfield, but then somehow finds a way to get himself knocked out against granddad George and got whipped badly against Evander in a rematch, albeit he showed great heart in that one. Outside of that, wins over Cooper, Schulz and Botha, while often exciting and / or pretty comprehensive, aren't really Hall of Fame material.

I don't really think there's much of an argument to be made for him, really. Good fighter, not a great one.

Not a good argument aye?

How about the fact that he was a small heavy/light heavy really winning the heavyweight title not once not twice but 3 times for a start.

The middle of those three Heavyweight titles he won was great, no doubt about that. His reign lasted all of half an hour of boxing, though. You'll have to forgive me for not getting too excited about his WBO title, which even Moorer showed little regard for when he relinquished it on the grounds that it was "retarding his career" (his exact words, not mine), or the IBF one which he picked up of Schulz and defended against Botha and Bean before losing his rematch to Holyfield. During this period, Moorer was being overshadowed by the likes of the returning Tyson, Bowe, Golota and Lewis.

No shame in any of that, but calling Moorer THE three-time Heavyweight champion of the world should be prosecutable under the Trade Descriptions Act, me ode!

He was a fine talent and as I said, I suspect he could have been a special Light-Heavyweight champion had he stayed there for a bit longer or manage to get a fight against one of the other belt holders during his reign, but there's not enough on his record to start sticking him up there with the greats.

The most damaging thing for Moorer is being the man who got knocked out by a 45 year old Foreman, the dearly departed Morrison had no trouble out manoeuvring and outpointing him.

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:The most damaging thing for Moorer is being the man who got knocked out by a 45 year old Foreman, the dearly departed Morrison had no trouble out manoeuvring and outpointing him.

Hate to say it but the dearly departed Morrison was juiced up.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Was thinking back to the 90's heavies following the passing of the Duke and thought about Mr Moorer. Where would you put this guy? Great ko percentage and a decent record to boot. 1 of only 4 men to win the Heavyweight title on 3 occassions. Was involved in some great fights like his absolute slug fest with the great Bert Cooper.

The great bert cooper. I hope bert reads this. It would make him very proud.

Moorer was certainly talented and pulled off some good wins for a guy his size, but not a great in my book.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:The most damaging thing for Moorer is being the man who got knocked out by a 45 year old Foreman, the dearly departed Morrison had no trouble out manoeuvring and outpointing him.

Hate to say it but the dearly departed Morrison was juiced up.

You didn't need to take steroids to out manouvre the 2nd incarnation of Foreman. You could have achieved the same result drinking two cans of Red Bull and eating a handful of Skittles.

As a light heavy Michael Moorer was brilliant and even if he had gone to cruiser he would have been competitive for longer,but as a heavyweight he is no HoFer. His first reign as champion was gifted to him by judge Gerry Roth in my opinium who scored the second round equal despite Moorer taking a count. It wasn't one of Holyfield's better efforts but a draw would have meant that he held on to his Title.

On talent I'd say yes. Great punch technique with a particularly excellent jab and some raw power and speed he was born with. Good technical ability with a solid enough defense but was badly let down by a lack of focus both in training and in fights.

He was good enough to keep his title in the Foreman fight, but not focussed enough and lacked the jaw/size to get away with it. Could be a malicious finisher when necessary, seems like a bit of a dick of a fellow though.