Bruno v Moorer

[Bodyshot3]

Both men at their best - neutral turf as well - who have you got?
12 round fight for vacant HW title -so no contender/challenger considerations - both have to go for it.

[DrDuke]

Moorer had all tools to outbox Bruno. Moorer's chin was shaky and Bruno could bang, so Bruno would have a puncher's chance, but no more than that. Anyway, Bruno himself wasn't iron-chinned, while Moorer also could hit hard. Pretty much everything is on the Moorer's side. Michael would outbox Frank behind the jab, combinations and lateral movement.

Moorer by UD 117-111 or so.

[oogiebe]

I think Bruno takes him out late.

[Noxy]

I think Bruno behind the jab, probably pts though.

[scorpio83]

Either Moorer's southpaw style to outbox and outpunch Bruno for a decision win or Bruno either used his powerful jabs and right hands to decision or stop him late.

[Bodyshot3]

Bruno's jab was properly decent - it created openings and rattled strong guys - and then came the big bombs.
But I think Moorer has the smarts to avoid most of it with movement/blocking and Frank gets a hard night.

This one needs a good ref - who is trying to bring the fight and who is trying to hold/spoil - feels like that kind of contest.

Bruno loved a clinch and a bit of a bullying/rabbit work and the ref would have needed to work out whether Moorer was trying to throw shots (and being prevented from doing this) or if Frank was being stopped from doing his own stuff.

[Onetimeonly]

I'd favor moorer but not overwhelmingly. Surprised to see multiple suggestions of Frank late. Certainly possible early, but his stamina, aside from McCall, was his Achilles heel.

[margaret thatcher]

moorer seems to do poorly in hypotheticals for some reason, i think a lot of ppl just assume his chin will go

[Onetimeonly]

moorer seems to do poorly in hypotheticals for some reason, i think a lot of ppl just assume his chin will go

Except for at light heavy, where he's as overrated there as he is underrated at heavy

[Ambling Alp II]

This is a hard fight to pick. Almost anything could happen. Agree that Bruno late is probably the least likely scenario.

Moorer certainly did not have a good chin. However, Bruno's chin was not much better. Both were certainly capable of stopping the other. On the other hand, it might have turned out to be more of boxing match than a slugfest. Hard to say. I do think Moorer was more likely to survive getting hurt early, and therefore would have a slight edge.

It does seem that Moorer gets downgraded now a days. For whatever reason, some guys always seem to get remembered for one or two fights. with Moorer, it's hard not to think of the ending of the Foreman fight and the Tua debacle and gets underrated.
Corrie Sanders gets remembered for the W. Klitschko fight and gets overrated.

[Bodyshot3]

This is a hard fight to pick. Almost anything could happen. Agree that Bruno late is probably the least likely scenario.

Moorer certainly did not have a good chin. However, Bruno's chin was not much better. Both were certainly capable of stopping the other. On the other hand, it might have turned out to be more of boxing match than a slugfest. Hard to say. I do think Moorer was more likely to survive getting hurt early, and therefore would have a slight edge.

It does seem that Moorer gets downgraded now a days. For whatever reason, some guys always seem to get remembered for one or two fights. with Moorer, it's hard not to think of the ending of the Foreman fight and the Tua debacle and gets underrated.
Corrie Sanders gets remembered for the W. Klitschko fight and gets overrated.

Cheers Ambling......it is the kind of mythical fight I far prefer, plenty of permutations for us to discuss.

One thing about Bruno was that he could be properly rough - I've watched a number of his fights recently - and it made me realise that Frank busted-up better technicians with a lot of mauling, stuff on the break and using his strength.

I do wonder whether Moorer stands up to this kind of mauling and that is why I made the comment about a ref needing to make some very key calls on what was acceptable and what was not.

For me at least - I always thought Bruno - was at his best in a key defeat.
He gave Lewis a real fight in Cardiff - big jab and lots of strong arm tactics as well - and that version beats Moorer.

[Cojimar 1946]

I'm not sure how downgrading Moorer would work exactly. How does one rate somebody whose entire reputation is based on one fight against a guy who demolished him in the rematch. He's very much like Corrie Sanders in that regard.
I guess it depends how much weight you give one great win vis a vis depth, consistency, etc.

If we take out Moorer's win over Holyfield and Sanders win over Klitschko neither probably cracks the top 100 in terms of accomplishments, maybe even the top 150.

[DrDuke]

I'm not sure how downgrading Moorer would work exactly. How does one rate somebody whose entire reputation is based on one fight against a guy who demolished him in the rematch. He's very much like Corrie Sanders in that regard.
I guess it depends how much weight you give one great win vis a vis depth, consistency, etc.

If we take out Moorer's win over Holyfield and Sanders win over Klitschko neither probably cracks the top 100 in terms of accomplishments, maybe even the top 150.

There's something in that, but Bruno was worse.

[Ambling Alp II]

I'm not sure how downgrading Moorer would work exactly. How does one rate somebody whose entire reputation is based on one fight against a guy who demolished him in the rematch. He's very much like Corrie Sanders in that regard.
I guess it depends how much weight you give one great win vis a vis depth, consistency, etc.

If we take out Moorer's win over Holyfield and Sanders win over Klitschko neither probably cracks the top 100 in terms of accomplishments, maybe even the top 150.

First, you can't just thorw out a fight that a guy won. It ios part of his career. On the other hand, you can't just focus on only it (which some people seem to do with Sanders.) We have to count it all (exluding fights where a guy is not close to his prime).

Second, beating Holyfield is a much bigger deal than beat Klitschko. Not even close.

Third, outside of Holyfield Moorer's victims list is not that great. However, it is better than Sanders without Klitschko. Moorer was clearly better than Sanders.

[DrDuke]

Second, beating Holyfield is a much bigger deal than beat Klitschko. Not even close.

Beating Holyfield isn't close.

Edging a fight against an injured version of Holyfield - barely.

[Ambling Alp II]

Fighters always have their excuses. As for the scoring of the fight; Moorer should have been ahead by much more on the scorecards.

[DrDuke]

Fighters always have their excuses. As for the scoring of the fight; Moorer should have been ahead by much more on the scorecards.

It was an either way going fight. Don't you see any difference between that Holyfield and him in his previous, next fights?

[Ambling Alp II]

It was not "an either way going fight." Moorer clearly won it. Hardly anyone disputed the verdict. It would be considered a robbery had Holyfield got the decision.

No, it wasn't Holyfield's best fight. However, there have been many other cases ion boxing where a great fighter is not at his best, but still wins the fight because his opponent doesn't do enough. Moorer won the fight against a great fighter in his prime. That has to count for something.

I should also mention that I liked Holyfield and did not like Moorer.

[DrDuke]

It was not "an either way going fight." Moorer clearly won it. Hardly anyone disputed the verdict. It would be considered a robbery had Holyfield got the decision.

No, it wasn't Holyfield's best fight. However, there have been many other cases ion boxing where a great fighter is not at his best, but still wins the fight because his opponent doesn't do enough. Moorer won the fight against a great fighter in his prime. That has to count for something.

I should also mention that I liked Holyfield and did not like Moorer.

Holyfield didn't just had a bad night, he suffered an injury, which even caused him to consider retirement. What's clear, Moorer got quite lucky to face exactly that version of Evander, while the fight itself was at least close. It was close on official scorecards and had other outcome on some unofficial ones, while it's close by the fans' votes:
https://boxrec.com/en/scoring/8271
https://eyeonthering.com/boxing/evander ... l-moorer-i
So, it's impossible to say, that hardly anyone disputed the verdict.

[Ambling Alp II]

The "injury" was questionable at best. Holyfield wasn't dumb enough to risk the championship by going into a fight injured. He would have postponed the fight if he was really injured.

The AP scored it 118-111 for Moorer. Never heard anyone after the fight saying that Holyfield won. Moorer was the one who provided most of the action.

[DrDuke]

The "injury" was questionable at best. Holyfield wasn't dumb enough to risk the championship by going into a fight injured. He would have postponed the fight if he was really injured.

Yeah, it was bad for him. Because of that a lot of idiots now overrate Moorer's win of him.

The AP scored it 118-111 for Moorer. Never heard anyone after the fight saying that Holyfield won. Moorer was the one who provided most of the action.

It's your problem, that your don't hear things.

[goose 5]

Moorer stops him late.

[Bodyshot3]

Cheers Goose....good to have your input mate

[Cojimar 1946]

I'm not sure how downgrading Moorer would work exactly. How does one rate somebody whose entire reputation is based on one fight against a guy who demolished him in the rematch. He's very much like Corrie Sanders in that regard.
I guess it depends how much weight you give one great win vis a vis depth, consistency, etc.

If we take out Moorer's win over Holyfield and Sanders win over Klitschko neither probably cracks the top 100 in terms of accomplishments, maybe even the top 150.

First, you can't just thorw out a fight that a guy won. It ios part of his career. On the other hand, you can't just focus on only it (which some people seem to do with Sanders.) We have to count it all (exluding fights where a guy is not close to his prime).

Second, beating Holyfield is a much bigger deal than beat Klitschko. Not even close.

Third, outside of Holyfield Moorer's victims list is not that great. However, it is better than Sanders without Klitschko. Moorer was clearly better than Sanders.

I don't think we can form a good assessment of someone's abilities based on one fight. Even great fighters have off nights. Sugar Ray Robinson at his absolute prime has draws against fighters who were not highly regarded at all even in their own day. Maybe Holyfield simply had an off-night as fighters are sometimes prone to do. The results of the rematch might be an indication the first fight was a fluke. Moreover, isn't Holyfield thought to have been suffering medical problems at the time brought on by PED use?

Moorer's resume outside of Holyfield consists of journeyman/gatekeeper types. Saying it is not great is putting it lightly to say the least. Bruno aside from his win over McCall doesn't have much in the way of impressive wins either so they have that in common.

[Bodyshot3]

It is a good debate guys and thanks.....and maybe breaks "the churn" of dozens of match-ups that frankly don't matter too much or get you thinking about numerous, feasible outcomes?

Just to be clear this mythical is a world title fight and for a vacant crown and on neutral turf......so both Bruno and Moorer need to fully go for it; neither fella can sit back.

I am really aware of Bruno's thudding jab, brute strength and that he could finish.
But mindful of the fact that he often had difficulties with pacing, movement and was vulnerable when backed-up.

I quite like the scenario of MM disputing the middle of the ring - using his fast hands, slipping shots - and taking the play right away from Bruno early. It is high risk and he needs to be on it; but Moorer at his best could potentially do that.