BoxRec

Three guys who'd have been more dominant in the preceding or following decades, but nevertheless won belts and were top 10 mainstays in a competitive time for the division. Also would have been better without their various personal issues, but then you could say that for so many heavies of the time.

Ray Mercer
Michael Moorer
Tommy Morrison

oliverfennell wrote:Three guys who'd have been more dominant in the preceding or following decades, but nevertheless won belts and were top 10 mainstays in a competitive time for the division. Also would have been better without their various personal issues, but then you could say that for so many heavies of the time.

Ray Mercer
Michael Moorer
Tommy Morrison

Moorer
Mercer
Morrison

keithmoonhangover wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:Three guys who'd have been more dominant in the preceding or following decades, but nevertheless won belts and were top 10 mainstays in a competitive time for the division. Also would have been better without their various personal issues, but then you could say that for so many heavies of the time.

Ray Mercer
Michael Moorer
Tommy Morrison

Moorer
Mercer
Morrison

Yep. Pretty straight-forward, too.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:Three guys who'd have been more dominant in the preceding or following decades, but nevertheless won belts and were top 10 mainstays in a competitive time for the division. Also would have been better without their various personal issues, but then you could say that for so many heavies of the time.

Ray Mercer
Michael Moorer
Tommy Morrison

Moorer
Mercer
Morrison

Yep. Pretty straight-forward, too.

Ah, but Moorer could be outhustled and/or lose his confidence, and he wasn't immune to a bomb. You could definitely make cases for Mercer grinding him down and Morrison blowing him out. He might have been the best pure talent of the three, but that doesn't automatically mean he'd beat those two.

oliverfennell wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote: Moorer
Mercer
Morrison

Yep. Pretty straight-forward, too.

Ah, but Moorer could be outhustled and/or lose his confidence, and he wasn't immune to a bomb. You could definitely make cases for Mercer grinding him down and Morrison blowing him out. He might have been the best pure talent of the three, but that doesn't automatically mean he'd beat those two.

I don't think Morrrison makes it to round 6 with Moorer, but hey, that's just me.

oliverfennell wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote: Moorer
Mercer
Morrison

Yep. Pretty straight-forward, too.

Ah, but Moorer could be outhustled and/or lose his confidence, and he wasn't immune to a bomb. You could definitely make cases for Mercer grinding him down and Morrison blowing him out. He might have been the best pure talent of the three, but that doesn't automatically mean he'd beat those two.

Sure. They're certainly not fights Id place money on, but if made to pick, I would choose Moorer.

oliverfennell wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote: Moorer
Mercer
Morrison

Yep. Pretty straight-forward, too.

Ah, but Moorer could be outhustled and/or lose his confidence, and he wasn't immune to a bomb. You could definitely make cases for Mercer grinding him down and Morrison blowing him out. He might have been the best pure talent of the three, but that doesn't automatically mean he'd beat those two.

Mercer and Morrison were much more inconsistent than Moorer.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote: Yep. Pretty straight-forward, too.

Ah, but Moorer could be outhustled and/or lose his confidence, and he wasn't immune to a bomb. You could definitely make cases for Mercer grinding him down and Morrison blowing him out. He might have been the best pure talent of the three, but that doesn't automatically mean he'd beat those two.

Mercer and Morrison were much more inconsistent than Moorer.

Losing to Jesse Ferguson and Michael Bentt are consistent?

keithmoonhangover wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:Three guys who'd have been more dominant in the preceding or following decades, but nevertheless won belts and were top 10 mainstays in a competitive time for the division. Also would have been better without their various personal issues, but then you could say that for so many heavies of the time.

Ray Mercer
Michael Moorer
Tommy Morrison

Moorer
Mercer
Morrison

This. Moorer was the HW champion. Mercer was a top contender who gave Lennox Lewis a tough fight. Morrison was a KO artist best known for getting Brutalized by Mercer and AIDS.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote: Yep. Pretty straight-forward, too.

Ah, but Moorer could be outhustled and/or lose his confidence, and he wasn't immune to a bomb. You could definitely make cases for Mercer grinding him down and Morrison blowing him out. He might have been the best pure talent of the three, but that doesn't automatically mean he'd beat those two.

Mercer and Morrison were much more inconsistent than Moorer.

They were all very inconsistent and that's why I think they make a compelling trio.

It's easy to say Moorer's the best because he was *the* champ, but he almost lost to Holyfield first time, was a whisker from defeat against Cooper, etc. The Moorer of the Cooper fight would lose to a top Morrison and the Moorer of the first Holyfield fight would lose to a top Mercer. But then you can flip that around and point to Mercer and Morrison's worst nights. The inconsistency can be summed up when you consider Moorer's best win was also one of his most flawed performances.

oliverfennell wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

oliverfennell wrote: Ah, but Moorer could be outhustled and/or lose his confidence, and he wasn't immune to a bomb. You could definitely make cases for Mercer grinding him down and Morrison blowing him out. He might have been the best pure talent of the three, but that doesn't automatically mean he'd beat those two.

Mercer and Morrison were much more inconsistent than Moorer.

They were all very inconsistent and that's why I think they make a compelling trio.

It's easy to say Moorer's the best because he was *the* champ, but he almost lost to Holyfield first time, was a whisker from defeat against Cooper, etc. The Moorer of the Cooper fight would lose to a top Morrison and the Moorer of the first Holyfield fight would lose to a top Mercer. But then you can flip that around and point to Mercer and Morrison's worst nights. The inconsistency can be summed up when you consider Moorer's best win was also one of his most flawed performances.

Moorer wasn't inconsistent at all. Cooper gave Mercer hell too and I think the Cooper of the Moorer fight would knock Morrison out.

Edit: I totally agree that they are compelling fights, I just can't see a scenario where Moorer isn't clearly rated above either of them. He gets more underrated as a Heavyweight every day.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

oliverfennell wrote: Ah, but Moorer could be outhustled and/or lose his confidence, and he wasn't immune to a bomb. You could definitely make cases for Mercer grinding him down and Morrison blowing him out. He might have been the best pure talent of the three, but that doesn't automatically mean he'd beat those two.

Mercer and Morrison were much more inconsistent than Moorer.

Losing to Jesse Ferguson and Michael Bentt are consistent?

No, read it again.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
Mercer and Morrison were much more inconsistent than Moorer.

Losing to Jesse Ferguson and Michael Bentt are consistent?

No, read it again.

My mistake.