Who was better at heavyweight: Moore or Moorer

The question was strictly for HW though.

 

Yeah I misread the post I just deleted my post as for the actual question its hard to answer because most of Moore's Heavyweight fights wouldn't be classed as Heavyweight fights in the modern era.

I know he has quite an impressive Heavyweight resume he beat Valdes, Baker, Henry, etc. I would say Moore definitely has a better Heavyweight resume by quite some considerable distance and he beat some legit Heavyweight contenders over 200 pounds.

But would Moore weighing in between 185-190 pounds be able to beat Moorer who could weigh up to 220 pounds and above ? Debatable.

I think it would be a close fight.

 

Archie was a better fighter regardless of weight I think. I remember Moorer being a monster at the lighter weight but I think that was maybe a case of rose tinted glasses as he was 'my era'. Moore's record is crazy...130 or so knockouts!!

 

Moore is definitely a better all round, and greater fighter in terms of legacy. At Heavyweight Moorer won the title. Moore didn’t. A strange situation with them both. Head to head it’s a hard fight to score at heavyweight but I’d give it to Moorer with the right motivation simply due to the fact that not only was Moorer a more natural heavyweight but also closer to his prime where as Moore was definitely fighting past his best at heavyweight.

 

Michael Moorer won the Lineal Heavyweight Championship from Evander Holyfield. Archie Moore did not, and he had two chances to do it (against Rocky Marciano and Floyd Patterson). Michael Moorer gets the nod from me.

 

That's not a fair comparison.

Holyfield was seriously under par against Moorer with health issues which is probably his worst performance of the whole decade. Plenty of top 10 Heavyweights during that time would've beaten that version of Holyfield and Moorer was fortunate to be in that position.

Moore had to fight a prime Marciano whilst being in his 40s and a prime Patterson at age 43.

 

I think Moorer was better at HW P4P and would pick Moorer in a hypothetical fight but Moore had the better resume. Moore actually has a longer HW career post Marciano than Moorer has period and Moorers HW record is 30-3. Moores resume is mostly fluff but when you cut through it hes got at least an amazing 8 best wins in Baker, Henry, Valdes, Parker, Bivinsx4.

I think the fact that Moorer officially won the title and Moore didn't matters little. Moore won disputed versions of the title twice and he did so over the two biggest men in the division. Moorer beat someone the same size as him in Holyfield. Given that Moore fought in the smallest era and thats the biggest knock against him this matters a great deal.

 

The OP specified that this is at Heavyweight. I will stick with Michael Moorer. At Light Heavyweight I would go with Archie Moore.

 

Yup I agree.