Who Hit Harder - Archie Moore or Michael Moorer?

On paper Bob Baker looks better than Botha,Stewart or Bert Cooper but when it all comes down to it those 3 would have been every bit as good as Baker in the 1950s fighting Cruiser weight sized heavys.

 

Why is that? Baker looks much better on paper because he is clearly the better fighter, period.

 

Cooper and Stewart would have looked like Young George and Earnie Shavers landing on those guys. Not saying they would have dominated but they would have been Top guys with a good chance at knocking out any of the smaller contenders of that era. Prime Botha would have been on Baker and Ninos level.

 

This leads me to keep it simple with my thinking *probably* Moorer had more power, yet not even half the craft. I don't even see a conceivable point in looking at how many knockouts Moore had compared to Moorer. When one guy fights 57 times and the other fights well over two hundred...Calzaghe was a greater puncher than Ray Leonard...more knockouts...nonsense, etc.

 

Moore stopped several quality top 10 Heavies, and he briefly hurt and knocked down Marciano.

Moorer stopped some decent trial horses and staggered Holyfield....

There really isn't no other way to break it down, if you aren't stopping or knocking out quality contenders its difficult to be argued as a hard puncher.

 

:roll::roll::roll:

The majority of Baker's opposition was over 200 lbs. He was often matched up against other big guys because he did better against Valdez, Holman, and Chuvalo than fast precision punchers like Henry and Moore.

 

Lets not pretend ths KO victims were bums or something. Moore isn't a Calzaghe..he fought a staggering amount of future Hall of Famers and ranked contenders for decades.

 

I wasn't.

 

It's hard to go against Archie ... In raw power who knows ... Moore was simply so beautiful to watch ...

 

I didn't think so, but this is certianly a case where the numbers matter. Moore not only scored a shitload of knockouts, he did it against the very best of 2 sometimes 3 weight classes for decades on an almost monthly basis. Moorer doesn't have a pot to **** in as far as I'm concerned in this thread, terribly unfair to him. This is a case of a decent puncher against an all time great one.

 

lol i have that fight with mike white..moorer should have gotten the ko when he floored him for the third time with like 2 secs left in the fight...mike couldn't even get to his feet..he was bleeding from the nose heavy but the bull**** "fighter could be saved in the last round" rule was in effect

 

Both had good power.

Archie Moore was a better finisher. Moore was able to KO a better class of fighter than Moorer did. Moore stopped the likes of Lloyd Marshall, Holman Williams, Jimmy Bivins, Harold Johnson, and others.

Moorer stopped Leslie Stewart, Bert Cooper, Frans Botha, and Vassiliy Jirov among others.

It really doesn't matter who had the harder single shot. Moore had a better chance of scoring a KO vs. a good fighter.

 

Who at Heavyweight has a better chin than Holyfield?

And when was he shaken?

 

Evander got shaken quite a bit...almost every fight. But he had unreal recovery powers and knew how to work his way out of trouble. A great survivor.

 

Moorer didn't have Holyfield significantly hurt. Not like Bert Cooper did anyway.

Let's not forget that Moorer was naturally a bigger man than Archie Moore. He had a difficult time making 175, as did Moore during his later years (but he still made the weight), and weighed around 220 lbs as a heavyweight. He was not a small man by any means, just look at the picture of him standing next to Mike Tyson whom he towers over.

I'd say that Moorer may have hit harder with one punch although it's difficult to tell without actually having been hit with either man and there not being a huge difference in power either way. Nevertheless Moorer wasn't quite the puncher at heavyweight as he was at 175. Not that he ever fought great competition as a light heavyweight, but his power was telling. Perhaps he relied on it far too much to get by.