In the fall of 94 Michael Moorer and Oliver McCall were the 2 Heavyweight Champions. Who would have won in 94?

Question

Let's assume that both men will be in top form!

Moorer would be focused and in shape

And McCall won't be having emotional breakdowns!

Answer 1

McCall all day.  Former Tyson sparring partner who has NEVER seen the canvas (don't recall him ever being hurt).  Cast iron chin and a good punch.  Paper-chinned Moorer would have been ENVELOPE FOLDED.  In 92-94, McCall was ready for anything.  Smaller heavyweights hurt Moorer (Bert Cooper is one example).  Was staggered bad even by cruiserweights (Frankie Swindell).  They were able to land after their jabs and McCall has a good jab.  The remedy for a south paw is a straight right and The Atomic Bull sure enough had a doozy. McCall in about 6, if not sooner.

SLAYA67

Answer 2

I would pick McCall, tough inside puncher and had a rock solid chin,  Moorer was knocked down by G. Foreman when he was 110 years old.

Answer 3

i pick mccall by tko. moorer had weak chin

Answer 4

who cares they both sucked

Answer 5

moorer would have outpointed mc call to unify the belts

Answer 6

What would have won? Mediocrity. :)

Just to be technical, Herbie Hide had the WBO title as well.

I guess I would pick Moorer by decision. He was capable of being a very difficult fighter to face, being a hard hitting southpaw. It's too bad that he fought in a shell half of the time.

Answer 7

Oliver McCall by Knockout.  Moorer was a slightly better boxer and he would have peppered Oliver all night.   The problem is two fold.  Moorer was never a mover.   Even when in shape  (rare once he became hvt.) he had a very ''lazy'' style.  He tended to stand in front of his opponent.  

Oliver was a WALL.  He routenely went chest to chest with Tyson until he was asked to leave camp.  Moorer would hit Oliver A LOT of times but, even with his power, he would fail to hurt him.    Moorer went life and death with Bert Cooper but Bert was never a big hvt.  Michael couldnt move the bigger boys.  McCall, at his best, was one of the STRONGEST men to hold any title during that time.   He could match strength with Berbick  (another freakishly strong HULK)  and Ruddock.  

McCall's strength, toughness and power would have overcome Moorer, who didn't have the best chin.   Moorer would ware himself out in what McCall would turn into a war.  

McCall by KO in 9

Answer 8

I am glad you put "both at their best" because at their worst, it could get pretty ugly.  Probably the two most enigmatic heavyweights I have ever seen.  

At their best, I would have to go with Moorer by decision.  He was faster and more technically sound.  He also had a better arsenal of punches where as McCall was mainly limited to his overhand right.

A factor to be considered would have to be the chins.  Both fighters had good power but McCall had a granite chin while Moorer's was more on the fragile side.  So don't rule out the possibility of McCall landing a bomb and knocking Moorer out.

Answer 9

I believe that Moorer is the better overall fighter as far as boxing skill goes with a better jab.  McCall has power and is tough, but I believe Moorer would outbox him throughout the fight and win a unanimous decision.