Michael Moorer, how good was he??

Valero only got 18. Brunson got 19.

 

My fault; misread. Thought it was T/KO.

 

Victor Oganov - 26

kinda shows it dont mean much. quality of the opponents matters most in that ratio of thaught.

 

Nah, I had to look it up too, but he is at the top of the list with 44. Here is another list I found here: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_boxer_had_the_most_consecutive_knockouts

Lamar Clark 44 1958-1960 BoxRec has 43
*Billy Fox 43 1943-1947 BoxRec has 36
*Don Steele 42 1994-1997 BoxRec has 41 if you don't count the NC bout in his 3rd bout
*George Gunther 41 1899-1905 BoxRec doesn't agree
*Rodolfo Gonzalez 35 1959-1961
Wilfredo Gomez 32 1974-1981
Jimmy Adamick 32 1936-1937
*Jose Manuel Urtain 30 1968-1970
*Acelino Freitas 29 1995-2001
*Alfonso Zamora 29 1973-1977
Jesus Pimentel 28 1961-1964
Carlos Zarate 28 1974-1978
*Dr. Vitali Klitschko 27 1996-2000
Henry Armstrong 27 1937-1938
Dario Azuaga 27 1994-1997
Earnie Shavers 27 1970-1972
Miguel Julio 27 1990-1995

* Denotes from the start of career

 

I disagree with you, not ATG. He was a decent HW that came along at a soft time for that division. Yes he beat Holyfield, but look at the names on the list of people he beat. Not a who's who in ATG hw's

 

I've just realised that I think my little list was from the start of their pro careers - not from a 'section' of their pro-careers. So, consequetive KO's from the day they turned pro.

As I said though, it's more from recollection than anything. Interesting nonetheless.

That said, the marks on that snippet from BoxRec say I can't have remember half of them!

 

Oh, I wasn't trying to prove you wrong or anything in anyway, it was just a topic that sparked my interest then I went on and did some research myself. Thanks!

 

he had 40 or so i believe. he set the record yes. there was a blurb about it in the latest ring

 

He was far from great, but he was one of the better HW's of the 90's. He ironed out some of his kinks, and was much sturdier than at LHW, where despite having pulverising power, he never impressed me. Too flawed defensively and not varied enough with his offense. Also, his sleight frame at the weight made physical strength an issue. For this I think he gets universally overrated at LHW, though he did indeed go on to become a very good HW.

 

See I thought he had a great variety of punches. He could hook really well off his jab and had a nice uppercut. He just fought very flat footed, and tried to block punches and stand in the pocket, a big no no in the heavyweight division. He was right there to be hit.

 

Spot on. Mentally, he didn't really have what it takes to be truly great. He was practically carried to the title by Atlas. He lost the title to a man who he should have pitched a shut out against, also.

 

I thought he relied almost completely on the southpaw jab and straight left hand until he either hurt his opponent or was able to open up without any probability of return damage (how many fighters can't you say the same for?). Obviously this was very often at LHW, as his opponents weren't up to much at all save for a few. Hell, even an old Leslie Stewart was able to expose these flaws and make Moorer look plodding and mediocre before being blasted out late. A skilled LHW who was able to switch up the pace would run rings around him.

 

Would of had a HOF career as a cruiserweight. He had unreal power as a LHW.

 

His biggest win was against an aging Holyfield (who beat him in a rematch)... He's most known for being knocked out by 45 year old George Foreman with one punch.

He's not even a top 10 heavyweight in the 90s

 

Moorer had some power, was southpaw, but not a great fighter.