Moorer vs Jones Jr @ 175

How does this unfold?

 

Since Moorer's entire legacy at 175 is based on his potential and no actual evidence that he ever would have been great, I would have to say Jones Jr. would need to be made an overwhelming favorite. To me, Moorer was always a fighter prone to concentration lapses, and he was a big believer in his power at 175... regardless of what the irrational like to say, the Jones would got plastered by Tarver and Johnson was not the same guy that dazzled opponents for all those years. I can't see a Moorer beating him in any way, shape or form. I think Moorer would grow frustrated by not being able to land and would lose focus, and start going one shot at a time, loading up, making him an easy target for Jones who would play on Moorer's psyche by taunting him. It's only a matter of time before Jones catches him with a counter and shakes him up badly... a follow up barrage and Moorer is rescued by the official

 

Jones Jr by embarrassment.

 

Jones had the speed & assets to keep it his way, but I believe Moorer & could & would catch him at some point & not let him off the hook.

Whoever wins, I can envision an exciting contest.

 

I would tend to agree with this take - Moorer's an extremely dangerous opponent for Roy. Not a fight I'd be inclined to put a great deal of money on either way. I can certainly see Roy keeping Moorer off balance with those lightning lead rights and hooks coupled with his intelligent movement, and reducing MMs punch out put enough to control the fight easily for long swaths. But for long enough to nullify Moorer for 12 rounds? Because, even though I in no way think of prime Roy as china chinned, you still gotta imagine that's what it would take, given how Moorer could punch (and finish). Allot would come down to how Moorer responded mentally to being controlled and frustrated.

If I had to plump for anybody I'll go with Roy by decision, but as I said not a fight Id ever wager heavily on.

 

I'd bet my house on Roy. Roy in his prime was one of the most elusive fighters in history.
Moorer is a joke in comparison. I don't event consider him top 5 all time and I don't know many who do.

 

Also Moorer had a shit chin. And people in here are acting like he'd stalk Roy around the ring hit him with a big shot and take him out. He's not a prime Archie Moore. I'd take Roy to TKO him whenever he wanted to in the mid rounds.

 

Yeah if he's not top 5 of all time he's a joke with no chance. Great analysis.

 

As a RJJ fan this is one of the few mythical matchups I have worried about. I'd pick RJJ to win but it wouldn't be easy. He'd have to pitch a shut out despite having a much better chin in his prime. Moorer can crack.

 

Roy

 

Absolutely, when facing a fighter like RJJ in such a historically weak weight class, you should probably be at least very, very good. Otherwise I can say bogus shit, like Margarito would defeat Ray Robinson.

 

Moorer was also shown to be a complete glass cannon and Roy still has(for some reason) underrated power, he had one punch knockout power in both hands, and against a guy who regularly visited the canvas, was an average boxer with average speed, and big power against one of the most elusive boxers in history, the fastest I've seen at 175 and power in both hands. Roy wins comfortably.

 

Roy had 1 shot power in both hands at MIDDLEWEIGHT. And Moorer went on to suffer occasional knock downs against punchers at HEAVYWEIGHT. Roy hits nowhere near as hard as Bert Cooper or George Foreman or even Alex Stewart who's shots Moorer took fine and dandy.

 

Montell Griffin? Virgil Hill?

That Roy slaughters Moorer.

Also, Holyfield, who wasn't exactly a dynamite puncher and was relatively undersized at HW put Moorer on the canvas. His chin was nothing special at all.

 

Just food for thought on your last two sentences --- there are plenty who would say the same of Liston & Klitschko.

 

Much, much, MUCH deeper division. Above Featherweight, Light Heavyweight is arguably the weakest O8 weight class historically speaking.

 

You consider LHW shallow, historically-speaking?

 

If you don't see the difference between getting hit from RJJ and George Foreman and David Tua, there's no point in debating with you about anything.

Like I said, I think RJJ wins, but he needs a vintage RJJ performance to do so.

 

I think if Jones floors Moorer (possible) he's going to struggle severely to keep him there. Cooper & Holyfield couldn't. I don't see Jones knocking Moorer out --- a stoppage, maybe, but then I tend to imagine Jones being much too cautious for that, & with good reason.

I still have Moorer overcoming a deficit on the cards to catch his man somewhere around the seventh or eighth. Jones has a big advantage in experience at this weight, though --- could be the difference in his favour, as much as any of his actual talents.

 

Nonsense

The 1940s and 1970s LHW classes were as deep historically as ANY divisions in history in any era you could name

 

I hate to pull this card, because its usually a cheap shot, but TLC is about 14 years old & about 35% of his opinions on everything are understandably inexplicable.

 

And the 80s? 90s? Now?

 

The 80's & right now are also very shallow at Heavyweight.

Honestly, I don't agree with the notion LHW is historically, "much, much, MUCH" shallower than HW. Not at all.

 

Yeah, but Holyfield also knocked down Mercer and Bowe and beat Tyson to a pulp. Holyfield may not have been a huge puncher at heavy, but he could punch. Getting knocked down or hurt by him was no disgrace.

 

Tyson and Holmes, Vitali Klitschko, all more significant than any LHW outside of Roy last 20 years.

 

Not to be mean, but "historically" in this context means more than just the past 20 years. And including Tyson and Holmes is misleading because both fighters title reigns (not including Tyson's brief time as an alphabet titlist in the middle 90's took place more than 20 years ago.

To properly include Tyson and Holmes, you would have to go back 30 years to 1980 near the beginning of Holmes' title reign when the Lightheavies included quality fighters like Michael Spinks, Saad Muhammad, Eddie Mustafa Muhammed and Dwight Qawi.

And if you think these fighters were not significant, as a fan during that time...it seemed like at least one of them was fighting in a network TV title fight main event nearly every weekend. Spinks and Qawi had a very significant unification fight during that time. So it's not as cut and dry as you might think.

 

Jones. Moorer had an awesome record at LHW but was untested. I don't think too many of the top LHWs cared much to fight Moorer, and Moorer left for HW pretty quickly anyway. Jones, as much flack as he gets, beat better opposition at LHW and was the better fighter.

I'm not sure about Moorer having a bad chin at LHW, it was against bigger guys at HW when he started going to the canvas all the time. Against a puncher like MM, Jones would probably be less aggressive anyway and potshot more and make sure he doesn't get hit. Jones by UD.

The early 80s was a real good LHW era. Since then I can't think of any time when it was a strong, talent-filled division.

 

I meant 30 years. I forgot it was 2010 and now its been 30 since the start of the 80s.

 

Even if I agreed with that, there is a lot more to a division's depth than a twenty-year timespan (in the case of traditional weightclasses, such as these two) & merely the top names in the division at the time.

Light-Heavyweight has a rich history. It has never had the glamour or earnings potential of its big brother, but it has hardly wanted for talent. I think you are just plain wrong to state otherwise.

 

Michaelszewski would rank miles above Vitali. Frankly he might well rank above Tyson too. As, of course would Calzaghe & Hopkins, though perhaps not as Lightheavyweights specifically. Virgil Hill & Antonio Tarver have good shouts to rank above Vitali at least also.