Who Hit Harder - Archie Moore or Michael Moorer?

You mean 'Moorer.':deal

 

I think they must be very very close.... But just look at how many KOs Moorer has... 131 KOs to Moore's 40 KOs.

Could Archie have battered Foreman, Holyfield, Cooper, and Stewart? I don't know.
I think it's hard to say.

 

Moorer and I don't think its close, Moore is a great fighter with plenty of KO's but Vitali has loads of ko's too, both are more accumulation types imo, not that Moore can't punch he can but Moorer could ice a man with 1 shot and was so much more an explosive puncher with bolders for shoulders

 

Morrer hit harder.

 

:goodagreed

 

The Mongoose was the better puncher.

 

Both Stewart and Cooper were near there primes, they were far from washed up. In fact even in Coopers prime you never knew which one was gonna show up he was just inconsistant not past it when he fought Michael, and Smokin showed up for this fight,remember Stewart made Foremans face a mess in losing a contro decision a few years after this fight. THese were good wins for Moorer. I agree with Mr Billl, you have to remember that Moorer fought in an era where the heavys were a full size bigger and he still had good power. If Moorer were fight 1950s sized heavyweights he would have been considered a great puncher, even Big George praised Moorers strength and power. Archie has the more quality # of kos since he fought in an era where they fought alot but as far as one shot bangers id rather get hit by Archie than Michael. Id also think Moorer gets the edge at LH although that one is a little closer. When it all comes down to it Archie will be known as the greater ko artist but thats due more to his resume and his amount of kos, but that doesnt mean he was the harder one punch banger. Moorer is also the naturally bigger man here.

 

Moore had a vast arsenal of punches he could get you with, and he was a great finisher. Punch for punch, I think Moorer hit harder, though. Archie was a more talented boxer, though, so he put his punches together better than Mike.

 

He didn't?

What about this devastating one punch knockout over 20-1 6'2 212lb Embrell Davidson?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMPXHqGiB28[/ame]

Or his knockout over # 3 rated 6'2 210lb Bob Baker?
Here is Baker and Valdes, both big strong rated 6'3 210lbers battilng it out
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvvs8Y4xaqs[/ame]

Or his 10th round knockout of # 4 rated 6'4 212lb Alejandro Lavorante at age 45..he beat up Lavorante so badly he had to be carried out in a stretcher!

Or this knockout over the Canadian Heavyweight Champion 6'3 212lb James J Parker?
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gajM6LOtuI0[/ame]



What about the fact Archie Moore's record against men above 200lb is 22-1 with 19 knockouts? :shock:


I think the above evidence shows Archie was one of the premier giant killers of all time...Mr. Bill's wording above could not be further from the truth.

 

Archie's straight right hand is one of the hardest knockout punches of all times. If he lands cleanly, your lights are out. I don't know where your getting this accumulation stuff from. Yes, archie was a great all around puncher and finisher, but Archie's straight right hand has lethal power. Tiger Ted Lowry and Hatchetman Sheppard fought all of the premier hitters of the whole 1940's decade...They both claimed Archie Moore was by far the hardest hitter they ever fought. This means something.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMPXHqGiB28[/ame]

 

Mendoza will always pick against the guy who fought in the 1940s-50s.

 

Question for the forum:


Did Michael Moorer ever ice a prime top rated 200lb + heavyweight contender as good as Bob Baker?

I would say No.

 

the more modern footage is deceptive. moorer's punches look harder, but that's as far as it goes.